D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[AnotherGuy]

Again, show me this flexibility that arises because of rule 0!!!!! It has been asserted, but I have yet to see any convincing argument describing the reason for this conclusion! It falls into the category of "why yes, red cars are faster!" Uhhhhhh, really???

1. A player had his cleric suffer a crisis of faith, now believing that he is not one of his Deities chosen because of some in-game abilities that did not have the assumed effect. This was interpreted that he was not as close, important to his Deity or that he had disappointed or angered him in some way. Nevertheless he wanted to remain a servant of said deity but in a reduced capacity. When he went up a level and through some communing and some minor roleplaying scenes I used Rule 0 to enact the players wishes.
I transformed his 13 levels of cleric to 13 levels of Paladin. He wanted to rely less on his deity's mercy and more on himself to get the job done. He assumed he wasn't worthy to wield Kelemvor's direct might.

2. I changed the workings of Banishment to banish its victims to their heart's desires. Using Rule 0. Thus I placed 3 scenes before them that included items/places/people that were important to their characters. The players chose which was most important for their characters and that is where they were banished to. Allowing each of them to pursue character goals.

3. Our sorcerer at the table had struck a power pact with a devil some time ago. The newly forged Paladin (1 above) used Divine Sense in a scene and I using Rule 0 to rule that the sorcerer exhibited a fiendish taint which was inadvertently noticed by the Paladin. This led to 1-2 hours of intense and impressive roleplaying scenes between the PCs which revelation threatens to tear the party apart, significantly hamper their current mission and possibly irrevocably destroy relationships with NPCs and organisations. To the point where drastic character measures are being decided based on the future actions of the Paladin.

All the above occurred yesterday in our roleplaying session thanks to level of flexibility afforded to me by Rule 0.
As I understand it, in more structured games such as DW or AW I am beholden to the die to create hard moves. And that's fine.
I don't want to be that restricted, I love the freedom Rule 0 provides me. And based on the reactions of my players, so do they.

 

[soviet]

1. A player had his cleric suffer a crisis of faith, now believing that he is not one of his Deities chosen because of some in-game abilities that did not have the assumed effect. This was interpreted that he was not as close, important to his Deity or that he had disappointed or angered him in some way. Nevertheless he wanted to remain a servant of said deity but in a reduced capacity. When he went up a level and through some communing and some minor roleplaying scenes I used Rule 0 to enact the players wishes.
I transformed his 13 levels of cleric to 13 levels of Paladin. He wanted to rely less on his deity's mercy and more on himself to get the job done. He assumed he wasn't worthy to wield Kelemvor's direct might.

2. I changed the workings of Banishment to banish its victims to their heart's desires. Using Rule 0. Thus I placed 3 scenes before them that included items/places/people that were important to their characters. The players chose which was most important for their characters and that is where they were banished to. Allowing each of them to pursue character goals.

3. Our sorcerer at the table had struck an agreement with a devil some time ago. The newly forged Paladin (1 above) used Divine Sense in a scene and I using Rule 0 to rule that the sorcerer exhibited a fiendish taint which was inadvertently noticed by the Paladin. This led to 1-2 hours of intense and impressive roleplaying scenes between the PCs which revelation threatens to tear the party apart, significantly hamper their current mission and possibly irrevocably destroy relationships with NPCs and organisations. To the point where drastic character measures are being decided based on the future actions of the Paladin.

All the above occurred yesterday in our roleplaying session thanks to level of flexibility afforded to me by Rule 0.
As I understand it, in more structured games such as DW or AW I am beholden to the die to create hard moves. And that's fine.
I don't want to be that restricted, I love the freedom Rule 0 provides me. And based on the reactions of my players, so do they.

I don't see how any of these rely on the GM having unilateral authority to change the rules. Can't they all be resolved under any system simply by saying 'Hey everyone, why don't we do this?'.

 

[Imaro]

I don't see how any of these rely on the GM having unilateral authority to change the rules. Can't they all be resolved under any system simply by saying 'Hey everyone, why don't we do this?'.

I'm curious... in a situation like this where some players are ok or want this to happen and others don't... how do you resolve it?

 

[soviet]

I'm curious... in a situation like this where some players are ok or want this to happen and others don't... how do you resolve it?

Some or all of these examples seem to have been with the consent of the players, but in general I would have a brief discussion about it.

I suggest that if people feel strongly enough about it that they would still object, and there is no compromise, having a rule zero sentence in the gamebook is not going to meaningfully smooth things over.

 

[Aldarc]

1. A player had his cleric suffer a crisis of faith, now believing that he is not one of his Deities chosen because of some in-game abilities that did not have the assumed effect. This was interpreted that he was not as close, important to his Deity or that he had disappointed or angered him in some way. Nevertheless he wanted to remain a servant of said deity but in a reduced capacity. When he went up a level and through some communing and some minor roleplaying scenes I used Rule 0 to enact the players wishes.
I transformed his 13 levels of cleric to 13 levels of Paladin. He wanted to rely less on his deity's mercy and more on himself to get the job done. He assumed he wasn't worthy to wield Kelemvor's direct might.

2. I changed the workings of Banishment to banish its victims to their heart's desires. Using Rule 0. Thus I placed 3 scenes before them that included items/places/people that were important to their characters. The players chose which was most important for their characters and that is where they were banished to. Allowing each of them to pursue character goals.

3. Our sorcerer at the table had struck an agreement with a devil some time ago. The newly forged Paladin (1 above) used Divine Sense in a scene and I using Rule 0 to rule that the sorcerer exhibited a fiendish taint which was inadvertently noticed by the Paladin. This led to some impressive 1-2 hours of roleplaying between the PCs which revelation threatens to tear the party apart and significantly hamper their current mission and possibly irrevocably destroy relationships with NPCs and Organisations. To the point where drastic character measures are being decided based on the future actions of the Paladin.

All the above occurred yesterday in our roleplaying session thanks to level of flexibility afforded to me by Rule 0.

I'm not really sure how Rule 0 lets you do this anymore than you would have been able to do otherwise without it. People can and do change the rules of games with or without anything approximating a Rule 0. There are numerous house rules for Monopoly and Uno, for example, that people play with despite an absence of Rule 0 in these games. There are likewise a lot of various house rules, modifications, and adjustments to play in TTRPGs that lack a Rule 0 too. Rule 0 almost feels like a placebo or Dumbo's magic feather.

As I understand it, in more structured games such as DW or AW I am beholden to the die to create hard moves. And that's fine.
I don't want to be that restricted, I love the freedom Rule 0 provides me. And based on the reactions of my players, so do they.

I fail to see how your above gameplay or Rule 0 is pertinent to the GM making moves in PbtA when players fail on their rolls. A GM is not required to make a hard move on a 6- roll. Sometimes soft moves are more appropriate. When GMs make moves in PbtA please note that the most important guideline is "follow the fiction." This is to say that the Moves the GM makes should follow the preceding fiction. The GM is as much beholden to the dice as they are to the fiction.

 

[Imaro]

Some or all of these examples seem to have been with the consent of the players, but in general I would have a brief discussion about it.

I suggest that if people feel strongly enough about it that they would still object, and there is no compromise, having a rule zero sentence in the gamebook is not going to meaningfully smooth things over.

Well the thing is that if all players have agreed to the social contract of rule zero they trust the judgement of the DM to make the calls for the betterment of the game overall... so while you may personally object to a particular suggestion, you have agreed to ultimately put faith in the fact that you have given this person the power to make the definitive decision on those type of calls. This alleviates any type of deadlock decision where half the players are for and half are against a particular suggestion, and, again when playing in a traditional style, allows the player with the most holistic view of the overall campaign, including player goals and desires, to make the decision.

EDIT: Which is to say I've seen my fair share of group back and forth that ultimately goes nowhere for hours, leads to bad blood between specific players, because it becomes more personal, and also the dynamic where some players feel they have to side one way or another, not because it's what they desire but because of the dynamics of the players outside of the game.

EDIT 2: Also the DM being the final authority doesn't preclude him/her/they from listening to both sides and taking other views into consideration.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Some or all of these examples seem to have been with the consent of the players, but in general I would have a brief discussion about it.

To be fair its at the consent of the players that allows me any unilateral authority over the game. If I narrate something nonsensical or make a mistake, or seemingly forget something the players are able to remind me and either I correct it or I inform them some hidden backstory has yet to be revealed. But everything I do is always at the consent at the table.

I suggest that if people feel strongly enough about it that they would still object, and there is no compromise, having a rule zero sentence in the gamebook is not going to meaningfully smooth things over.

Rule 0 exists because the DM is the unilateral authority in the game not only on narration but also interpretation of the rules and to amend the rules. If that rule never existed then it have to go to the table and you'd likely see issues croping up. Having 1 person whom you already accept as primary person for the creation of the fiction also be responsible for the mechanics makes sense. Divesting the latter to the rest of the table is likely to see conflict and have the likely event of messing with story creation.

Also ninja'd by @Imaro

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm curious... in a situation like this where some players are ok or want this to happen and others don't... how do you resolve it?

I would discuss the issue with them, with the exact approach depending on the nature and severity of their concerns.

E.g., if they mention it privately rather than bringing it up during session, I would discuss it with them privately first, and if no resolution can be achieved there, bring it to the group's attention. Whenever possible, even for really non-issue things like "someone can't make it to session this week, so we are just not going to have one," I try to avoid explicitly naming people unless there's very good reason to do so (e.g., if someone is taking a leave for a few weeks, not just a one-off.) I find that that makes people more willing to come to me if there's an issue.

As noted, the nature of the concern will affect my approach. Perhaps the criticism is, "It's not fair that their character gets to be rebuilt from the ground up, but not anyone else." That's a reasonable concern, and we can discuss possible fixes--for example, if they want to rebuild, we can work toward a quick but personal in-game solution for it. Or if they just want everyone to be offered the same opportunity, that can quite easily be arranged. Alternatively, maybe their concern is that this puts undue focus on just one character and their personal crisis of faith, at which point I would reassure the player that I take it extremely seriously to give every character opportunities for cool story; if they aren't happy with how things are currently going, I am more than happy to work with them to improve, perhaps introducing more story hooks, framing more scenes that address their interests, or coordinating with them to produce engaging personal narratives similar to such a "crisis of faith that it changes how I fight" kind of thing.

I am, of course, assuming that the complaint is in good faith. If it is not in good faith, I will endeavor to be positive but push the player toward a healthier understanding of the situation. For example, if the player is opposed simply because "character rebuilds shouldn't be allowed," I would hear them out, and then present my case for why unjustified character rebuilds are certainly a problem, but this one is justified, and that this rebuild is pretty focused and constrained, rather than becoming a radically different person. There may be other examples, this is just one. Should that effort fail, and the player remain opposed for bad-faith reasons, well, that strongly implies that this player is a bad fit for my game, and I might end up having to ask them to leave, as they are being disruptive for reasons that seem petty and inappropriate.

Of course, I try to keep an open dialogue with my players basically all the time, and (as I have said in many posts), I will bend over backwards to support genuine player enthusiasm, meaning the player being enthusiastic about something that is not abusive, coercive, or exploitative. As a result, by being even-handed, open, and supportive, I am usually not in a situation where a player really digs in their heels and says no--if anything, I'm more egging my players on, rather than having to persuade them to go with something.

 

[soviet]

Well the thing is that if all players have agreed to the social contract of rule zero they trust the judgement of the DM to make the calls for the betterment of the game overall... so while you may personally object to you are ula particular suggestion, you have agreed to ultimately put faith in the fact that you have given this person the power to make the definitive decision on those type of calls. This alleviates any type of deadlock decision where half the players are for and half are against a particular suggestion, and, again when playing in a traditional style, allows the player with the most holistic view of the overall campaign, including player goals and desires, to make the decision.

In theory but there is still a significant social contract in non-rule zero games, including the need for compromise and to move on with the game, as well as the particular role of the GM in that system and group.

I just don't recognise the existence of any potential impasse that players in your game would quietly accept because of rule zero, while players in my game would deadlock the game and refuse to move on because of no rule zero.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well the thing is that if all players have agreed to the social contract of rule zero they trust the judgement of the DM to make the calls for the betterment of the game overall... so while you may personally object to a particular suggestion, you have agreed to ultimately put faith in the fact that you have given this person the power to make the definitive decision on those type of calls. This alleviates any type of deadlock decision where half the players are for and half are against a particular suggestion, and, again when playing in a traditional style, allows the player with the most holistic view of the overall campaign, including player goals and desires, to make the decision.

The problem is, that "agreement" is often never actually stated...and a significant portion of the time, it becomes contentious specifically because the DM is using rule zero in a way which seems to be inconsistent with that agreement. I can't tell you how many posters on this forum have said that their argument in favor of doing a thing I personally vehemently oppose (such as fudging) is, in not so many words, "What, don't you trust me?" And such an argument is one of the best ways to make me think someone doesn't deserve my trust.

That is, the player is going to object only in cases where "the judgment of the DM to make the calls for the betterment of the game overall" is being disputed. When the "faith in...[giving] this person the power" has been shaken. At which point you aren't going to make any progress at all by citing Rule Zero or someone's agreement (whether tacit or explicit) with it. Instead, you have to restore the lost trust, reassure the objecting player, make clear that that faith does not need to be disputed. And that's exactly what you'd do without an explicit Rule Zero everyone has agreed to, isn't it?

EDIT: Which is to say I've seen my fair share of group back and forth that ultimately goes nowhere for hours, leads to bad blood between specific players, because it becomes more personal, and also the dynamic where some players feel they have to side one way or another, not because it's what they desire but because of the dynamics of the players outside of the game.

So, do you genuinely believe that simply having each player explicitly say, "I will trust the DM to exercise power reasonably, and have faith in her judgment, and accept that her decisions are good of the game overall even if they seem to be bad choices," will thus prevent any possibility of any player ceasing to believe that the DM's use of such power actually is reasonable, involves sound judgment, and is solely for the good of the game overall?

Because I don't believe that for a second. The existence of even an explicit agreement (and such things are almost never explicit IRL) does not prevent the possibility of anyone saying, "Wait, that makes no sense at all, how could that possibly be good for the game, even overall???" And as soon as that happens, the aforementioned agreement is already out the window, because the player believes the DM has violated it.

EDIT 2: Also the DM being the final authority doesn't preclude him/her/they from listening to both sides and taking other views into consideration.

Not the way most people talk about it around here. My-way-or-the-highway-ism is rampant among folks championing Rule Zero.