The True Rule 0.

[boredgremlin]

See this is why i buy all the books that sword and sorcery comes out with. They might not have as many goons but they are much meaner. Loyal customers can get protection from the WoTC goons.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, we all know WotC has shock troops...

Don't they have a recruitment office. I want to be a shock trooper too and keep others in line.

 

[Zappo]

But the question remains: Should D&D standard ruleset be designed for "realistic roleplaying" in the first place?

No. If I had to suggest a shift in D&D's design goals, I'd make it adhere more to the literary fantasy genre. Right now, D&D is its own subgenre - an enjoyable one, though.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Well, if the GM decides he's happy to scrap his idea and run a heroic character game, that's fine. But GMing takes far far more effort than playing and in my experience it's far more important that a group is playing what the GM wants than what the players want, players can compromise a lot and still have an enjoyable game, a GM who has to compromise on what they want is likely to burn out quickly and cease to enjoy the game, which usually means a swift end to the game or, worse, a miserable experience for everyone.

Personally, I wouldn't play in a game that is absolutely not to my liking. And why should 6 guys play games they don't enjoy just so that one guy can put his visions into play - visions he may have created all by himself, withoug looking what others might enjoy or not.

I know my view is extreme, but yours is, too. The proper thing is a compromise on both sides.

 

[Mirage_Patrick]

I love being in a group with plenty of DM's....the whole "DM is god" dissappears quickly when there are two other people more than willing to pick up the game if he gets too upity

 

[S'mon]

Personally, I wouldn't play in a game that is absolutely not to my liking. And why should 6 guys play games they don't enjoy just so that one guy can put his visions into play - visions he may have created all by himself, withoug looking what others might enjoy or not.

I know my view is extreme, but yours is, too. The proper thing is a compromise on both sides.

I think we disagree more on emphasis. As player, I won't play in a game that is definitely not to my liking, and I have left plenty of games. I've even refused to play a few genres, eg Shadowrun. On the other hand, I recognise that being a player is far easier being a GM, and furthermore as a player it's often best to kick back, relax and try out new experiences. You can discuss it with the GM later, what things you liked and what you didn't. The best game is one that everyone enjoys. The second best is one that the GM enjoys and most of the players are willing to try out and see if they enjoy. The worst game is the one the GM doesn't enjoy. It's not a paid job, after all, but it is hard work GMing - unlike playing, in my experience. Sure I may put a lot into creating & developing my PC, but nothing like what a comparable GM does.

 

[S'mon]

I love being in a group with plenty of DM's....the whole "DM is god" dissappears quickly when there are two other people more than willing to pick up the game if he gets too upity

I mostly GM (suprise) but when somebody else in my group GMs I recognise that they're now God (as long as they're GMing).

 

[D+1]

Just to bandy semantics...

The Player's Handbook has a blurb about the DM having the right to change the rules. However, there is one rule he cannot change. One rule that he cannot trump. The true "rule 0"

The rule of fun.

I disagree. Nobody is REQUIRED to have fun while playing D&D. There are occasions when players seem particularly prone to being fun sponges sucking up all the enjoyment around them in addition to being determined not to get into the spirit of the game themselves but they are thankfully rare IME. But people aren't at the table so that they can have fun INFLICTED upon them. People will enjoy what they enjoy; they will prefer what they prefer in matters of what genre is being played, the levels and type of humor, the frequency of roleplaying versus combat, etc.

These aren't things that you can RULE. They are very, very important to be sure. They need to be discussed and given due consideration by everyone, but fun is relative. It's different for everyone and you can't please everyone all the time.

Simply put - this is a game. Games are meant to be fun. Whatever else occurs, if the players stop enjoying the game, then they have little or no reason left to play. Remember that if the players don't play there is no game.

Then call it the "Unwritten Rule", both in the respect that it isn't actually graven in stone anywhere and that it shouldn't have to be.

I've been noting a trend in the house rules and main rules forum (where I lurk more often than post) towards realism. If that's what everyone at the table enjoys, fine. But rules that slow the game down or add complexity in place of action should be looked at with a wary eye.

Well, the purpose of having a Rule 0 [The DM gets to change the rules] is to allow the DM to make the changes that he knows are necessary to maximize the fun for his players. To emphasize realism, complexity, simplicity, heroics, or whatever by making changes to the rules is one thing - the DM not KNOWING what his players consider to be fun and the players not INFORMING the DM that he's pushed his game in the wrong direction is quite another. That's not a rule-related issue really, it's a skill (or lack thereof).

 

[Mirage_Patrick]

I mostly GM (suprise) but when somebody else in my group GMs I recognise that they're now God (as long as they're GMing).

I agree to a point. GM is definitely always the final decider, I have no desire to sit and argue all evening. I have just gotten a little amuzed at some of the posts I have seen (not necessarily in this thread mind you) in which people act as if everyone should bow down an worship the DM because of what they do as if it is not a group activity...and without the players it would simply be called writing a story. Perhaps I am jsut lucky though that in every group I have been in the past 10 years we have had multiple DM's and if one felt put upon or burnt out, another was happy to step in and run for a year or two. For this same reason the old argument "if you don't like it, get yourself another DM" has never held much weight...for we have "asked" the DM to step aside in the past and another one of us stepped in.

I am a firm believer in that the purpose of the game is for everyone to get together ad have a good time. That should be both the DM and the players...it is therefore by its very nature a give and take, for the game cannot exist without both sides.

YMMV of course

 

[Ranger REG]

There is a thread in the Wizards's messageboards that discuss whether Rule 0 is even necessary at all. What's your response?