D&D General A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

[Emerikol]

I refer you to all the cope about the DM still having ultimate authority.

They do have the final authority. That though doesn't equate to what was said.

Nope. We've been getting by just fine without it.

I think if your game is humming along, then you just don't recognize it or your players are all just whatever is fine.

Ah, the players as a scary and dumb rabble vs the rational chad DM. Yeah, that's a healthy relationship to have in a leisure activity.

No. In a roleplaying game, players will often choose poorly when it comes to what their characters can do an why and it can often kill a game. I liken it to some animals will eat themselves to death if given enough food. And no I am not saying they are animals before you make such a remark. It's an analogy.

The DMs job is to keep his players hungry for the next thing and eager for exploration. It is not to sate every whim they've ever had.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If they want to run for that group, then they should actually discuss things with the group like adults and come to some sort of understanding. Collaborative game is collaborative. And if they're going to sulk and let the game suffer if they don't get their precise way... maybe just don't DM at all because that person does not have a good temperament for doing a good job.


I find curated setting to be anathema to collaborative play if it's curated by the one guy.



They still are super special weirdos. They're being controlled by essential aberrant outsiders as part of a narrative that would not exist without them. They actively get more powerful through murder and theft. They are granted a will separate from the will that commands the entire rest of the world.

And that's before we get into the ways they have been inherently mechanically different at all times except for then years in the 00's.

Let's just say there's a lot I disagree with here (nearly all of it, in fact) and leave it at that.

 

[Emerikol]

Gygax was wrong about a bunch of things, that included. I’m not typing this on a Turing machine, despite the fact that Alan Turing is one of the fathers of computing.

You don't know what a Turing machine is to make that comment. A Turing machine describes a computer language and it's capabilities and not an actual physical machine unless you want to low level assembly language to be your Turning machine. Almost every language including assembly is a Turing machine these days. Turing expressed a minimal set of requirements and most machines far exceed them at this point.

 

[Cadence]

Its sometimes used for unanimous decision making, but that's not the more general usage: note its commonly used for things that have general agreement but not universal agreement.

And now I've jumped down the rabbit hole of looking up what it most commonly means.

One I found interesting was lack of strong disagreement. In any case it points out the wide space between majority rule and unanimity.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They do have the final authority. That though doesn't equate to what was said.

It's exactly what was said.

I think if your game is humming along, then you just don't recognize it or your players are all just whatever is fine.

We like... talk to each others. As friends. As equals. We got to know each other and our tastes and collaborate.

No. In a roleplaying game, players will often choose poorly when it comes to what their characters can do an why and it can often kill a game. I liken it to some animals will eat themselves to death if given enough food. And no I am not saying they are animals before you make such a remark. It's an analogy.

It's a defaming analogy and I find it pretty gross.

The DMs job is to keep his players hungry for the next thing and eager for exploration. It is not to sate every whim they've ever had.

And no one is saying that. Nothing that is being said has anything to do with any of that. This is about discussing how rules work and restrictions on what rules are even being used. This isn't players suddenly deciding the villain dies of cancer on the spot.

 

[Oofta]

You said : you fail to see how the formulation of rule zero could have an impact on bad DMs.

It can. First, you keep repeating the canard that bad DMs are rare, therefore we don’t need to take them into consideration when providing advice.

This is incorrect. We were all bad DMs at one point (when we started), so we all could, and in fact did benefit from advice like « it’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as the change is more fun for everyone ».

Second, the formulation of rule zero isn’t just for bad DMs. Good advice is good, even if we already know it. We’re human, and sometimes a refresher helps keep the important stuff top of mind.

I don't think an inexperienced DM is automatically a bad DM. They're just inexperienced. You have yet to explain why rule 0 leads to bad DMing for people that would not already be bad DMs.

 

[Emerikol]

If they want to run for that group, then they should actually discuss things with the group like adults and come to some sort of understanding. Collaborative game is collaborative. And if they're going to sulk and let the game suffer if they don't get their precise way... maybe just don't DM at all because that person does not have a good temperament for doing a good job.

A DM knows his own environment. He is not going to design a game no one wants to play. If what he likes is not popular he probably just won't DM.

And you use such strawmen all the time I wonder if it is even worth rebutting at this point. A DM has the final say. Having the final say does not in anyway reflect on how willing you are to receive input or react to that input. Not related.

A DM though that is a good DM will never lack for players. They should find the type of game they really love DMing and do that really well. It's worked wonderfully for me. We are lacking DMs and when they see people like you, they just decide "I'll be a player" because they aren't wanting to have everything go through a committee. DMs need to be passionate about their setting and want to make it as fun as possible.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A DM knows his own environment. He is not going to design a game no one wants to play. If what he likes is not popular he probably just won't DM.

If what they were designing wasn't popular, they wouldn't have to fall back on having final authority to force it.

And you use such strawmen--

Ah misapplication of Psych 101. No need to go farther.

 

[Emerikol]

If what they were designing wasn't popular, they wouldn't have to fall back on having final authority to force it.

They can't force it. The players don't have to play. The DM has final say over his campaign setting and the rules for playing in that campaign. He has no say on who plays in his campaign. But my wait list is full so I don't need players like you. Provide a great campaign you are passionate about and you will get some players.

Ah misapplication of Psych 101. No need to go farther.

This is Philosophical Logic not Psych 101.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is Philosophical Logic not Psych 101.

It's bad internet buzzwords to pretend to win points.