Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9001756" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Regarding Rule Zero… I don’t even know that it’s explicitly stated as being a thing in 5e. It’s certainly mentioned that the rules are there to serve the game and the DM’s in charge and all of that… but it’s never explicitly stated. Those statements are not clearly defined. They’re more suggestions than anything else. A reminder that you can change things if needed rather than an explicit rule. It’s interesting to me how it’s perceived as being so explicit yet it doesn’t actually exist. And then games that offer more clear principles on how to GM are viewed as lacking explicit guidance on how to alter the game when needed. Yup. The branch of conversation that led to the finger pointing was based on something I said about D&amp;D doesn’t need as much DM control as many are stating as their preferred amount. [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] then responded that there are many&nbsp; folks dismissing anything but cooperative games. I don’t really know what RPG wouldn’t be considered cooperative, but I think he meant those that have strong GM authority. I don’t think anyone’s really being dismissive of DM control so much as being direct about it. I don’t think any of my comments about my 5e Temple of Elemental Evil game were dismissive. I don’t think anyone is being dismissive of anyone’s game or their preference. I just think many people here prefer more DM control than is necessary. Look at the recent focus on Rule Zero. This is just another way to take something that no one needs permission to do, and interpret it in a way that gives the DM more authority.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 9001756, member: 6785785"] Regarding Rule Zero… I don’t even know that it’s explicitly stated as being a thing in 5e. It’s certainly mentioned that the rules are there to serve the game and the DM’s in charge and all of that… but it’s never explicitly stated. Those statements are not clearly defined. They’re more suggestions than anything else. A reminder that you can change things if needed rather than an explicit rule. It’s interesting to me how it’s perceived as being so explicit yet it doesn’t actually exist. And then games that offer more clear principles on how to GM are viewed as lacking explicit guidance on how to alter the game when needed. Yup. The branch of conversation that led to the finger pointing was based on something I said about D&D doesn’t need as much DM control as many are stating as their preferred amount. [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] then responded that there are many folks dismissing anything but cooperative games. I don’t really know what RPG wouldn’t be considered cooperative, but I think he meant those that have strong GM authority. I don’t think anyone’s really being dismissive of DM control so much as being direct about it. I don’t think any of my comments about my 5e Temple of Elemental Evil game were dismissive. I don’t think anyone is being dismissive of anyone’s game or their preference. I just think many people here prefer more DM control than is necessary. Look at the recent focus on Rule Zero. This is just another way to take something that no one needs permission to do, and interpret it in a way that gives the DM more authority. [/QUOTE]

Verification