As I have discussed on many ocassions since I joined in 2003, there is a fallacy that many gamers believe erroneously as fact. To my knowledge, this fallacy has never been named, nor codified in any way. As most fallacies are named after the person who identifies and subsequently codifies the fallacy, I propose the Kerrigan Fallacy, more accurately known as the Rule 0 Fallacy.
The Kerrigan Fallacy (Rule 0 Fallacy)
The DM is always right. Rule 0 exists as proof of this fact.
This fallacy has at least three (more detailed) variations in language (although I expect additional variations to exist).
A DM can always make a Rule 0 decision. As such, discussions of the RAW or RAI are irrelevant at the table, and players have no right to bring awareness of the RAW or RAI to the DMs attention, for the purpose of clarification, or discussion.
Rule 0 grants the DM complete authority to make any (and all) changes to the rules they desire. Such rulings can be made at any time, without consultation or consent of other players, even if such rulings contradict the RAW, RAI, or previously established rulings, or house rules.
Rule 0 grants the DM the authority to make any additions, subtractions, or substitutions to/of the established rules (including established house rules) at any time, without consultation or consent of their players.
This is a fallacy for the following reasons.
- Firstly: Rule 0 is by default a deviation from the expected game state and rules. In order to understand in what manner (and to what degree) a house rule deviates from baseline, you must first have a firm understanding of the rule(s) that the house rule alters.
- Secondly: if a DMs ruling deviates from a players expectations, this must be addressed in order for all participants to be on the same level of understanding. It is irrelevant as to the cause, whether it be the DM ruling contrary to the published rules or official errata (RAW), the rules as intended, or an official FAQ (RAI), or a previously established houserule. It is equally irrelevant in the situation wherein it is a players or the DMs understanding or interpretation of a rule(s) is in error. All that matters is that a deviation from the players understanding of the rules has occured, and that this must be addressed. As such, it is important for this misunderstanding of expectation to be corrected through discussion with all participants involved, players and DM alike. By extension, such discussion necissitates both sides discussing their understanding of the rules in order to determine the point at which the misunderstanding occurs. This in turn, involves discussion of the source material that each party is making reference to.
- Third: Consistency in rulings should be maintained in order to prevent feelings of favortism, or punitive action on the DMs part, as well as to give a common frame of reference for all participants (both players and DM alike). When a rule is deliberately changed (either for balance purposes, or DM preference) or accidentilly changed as a result of DM error or faulty memory, one of two things must occur.
- The new rule is maintained for the duration of the session, as a session house rule. At the end of the session, the DM can either establish the session house rule as a permanent house rule, or may call for a vote. If, for any reason the session house rule does not become a permanent house rule, the rules revert to previously established rules and houserules. In either case, the DM should attempt to remain consistant when ruling on this issue in future, either upholding the houserule.
- The ruling is immediately discarded, and the correct rule is added in its place. In this instance, the outcomes of prior actions based on the erroneous ruling are retconned (if possible), or are alternatively upheld, but all future actions in this session are based on the corrected ruling. In either instance, it then becomes the DMs duty to remain consistant with the ruling in future sessions. Failure to do so will result in this issue being addressed in future sessions, with additional discussion and rulings as required.
- Four: All participants at the table have an unspoken social contract. Part of this contract is an unspoken agreement to play the game by certain rules, whether it be the RAW, RAI, houserules, or a combination therein. The DM is granted authority to make alterations to the rules as required, however this does not grant them authority to violate other elements of the social contract. Elements which include mutual respect, equitibility and lack of favortism, and most importantly - the fact that everyone has agreed to play by a certain ruleset. As such, when the DM makes alterations to the rules, a new agreement must be reached with all participants at the table, else the DM is in violation of the unspoken contract requiring agreement on the players part.
Conclusion: As demonstrated above, regardless of reasons - players have agency and authority to question the DM regarding their rulings, if only for the sake of clarity of understanding. As such, players have agency in raising awareness of the printed rules and official errata (RAW), Developer Clarifications such as tweets, FAQs, or website articles (RAI), or previously established houserules.
It is the DMs responsibility to address player concerns over all disagreements with the rules, and while they are free to Rule 0 at any time, this does not mean that it invalidates player discussion, nor does it make DM rulings beyond discussion or negotiation, as all rulings require consent of all participants, due to the unspoken social contract upon which the game is founded.
Continously reading the word agreement in there, I could picture nothing but Darth Vader.
A good read on Rule Zero.
iserith wrote:
I thought there was another name for the "if the DM can fix it, it's not broken" falacy.
"If a DMs ruling deviates from a players expectations, this must be addressed in order for all participants to be on the same level of understanding."
This makes the presupposition that "equal level of understanding" is both necessary and desireable. That is open to debate.
It's an eloquent attempt to render your personal philosophy an immutable law, but it's built on questionable - and unquestioned - assumprtions.
Back to the drawing board!
mellored wrote:
Your fallacy is incorrect, because it is a matter of the social contract at any specific table.
Asserting that it is always the case that the DM is always right is not true. Asserting that, at my table, the DM is always right is a simple fact, because our social contract includes that information.
Further, a lot of the time, both I and other posters use 'in my game' as a shorthand for 'in my group's game' and 'things I do not like' as 'things a majority of my group do not like'. If I say I'm doing X because Y, that doesn't necessarily mean I made the decision on my own without even knowing the players involved. It usually means I made the decision because the new guy in my group is someone we've been playing with for over ten years, I know my players, I know what we all like and I can make a group decision without bothering to consult them beforehand; I just have to run everything by them in summary to make sure we're all on the same page.
Also, in older editions, this was not part of a social contract or ever a fallacy. You say this fallacy has existed since the inception of the game; well, at the inception of the game, the rulebooks explicitly state that the DM is always right and does not need the approval of players! This stopped being true in 3E, but prior to 3E, it was, in fact, RAW that the DM is the living incarnation of RAW and nothing else matters.
ankiyavon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Players have input. They should, as Dungeons & Dragons is ultimately a cooperative game.
Rule Zero gets wielded as a bludgeon when it ought to more appropriately be wielded as a band-aid. Rule Zero ought to properly be invoked when there's a rules disagreement, and the DM needs to move the game along, but the game can't move along without a ruling. In short, Rule Zero is a quick fix. If it becomes lasting, it's more properly identified moving forward as "House Rule".
If players, in a majority fashion (or unilateral fashion), disagree with how their DM has ruled, there's two things that should happen:
1) The DM changes the ruling to keep the players, or
2) The players leave, likely having a smaller group of the dissidents, one of whom will probably take over as the new Dungeon Master.
Emerikol. wrote:
Perhaps the fallacy needs rewording. I would say instead that rule 0 does give the DM permission to alter, remove, or replace the rules of the game. It does not give the DM permission to alter, remove, or replace the rules of the group's social contract. The fallacy here is assuming that because of rule 0, the social contract cannot in any way restrict the DM's ability to alter, remove, or replace the rules of the game.
Kalani wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
I don't think it's an actual fallacy, and I sure don't think it deserves a title. Your level of proof seems to be "Because I disagree with it".
I will provide an example, from 5e. From an interview Mike Mealrs recently did with Escapist magazine, Mearls explains how there is no complete rule on hiding, by the intent of the designers:
Interviewer: "Do you have any other examples of what you think of as the DM’s power and responsibility?"
Mike Mealrs: "Our rules for stealth, which may sound like a funny example. But having worked on 3rd and 4th edition, creating a set of rules for hiding from other people and monsters that run without a DM, is crazy. You always end up with a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules."
"So we just came out and said you know what, let the DM decide. We’re going to tell you the mechanic and just say, look DM, does it make sense that a player can hide in this situation? If so, let the player make the check. If not, don’t let him make the check. If maybe, then maybe advantage or disadvantage, that covers the middle ground."
"There is this funny thing that happens, and stealth is a good example of this. If you want to make a rule that is DM-proof, you end up with a rule that when humans try to read it, it just seems really weird. It’s like the old Carl Sagan quote from Cosmos, “If you want to create an apple pie, you must first create the universe.” I just want to make an apple pie, why are you describing how to make a black hole? Because this is way beyond what I need. So the rules just take on this tone where it doesn't seem like what’s actually happening at the table."
"Instead when you rely on the DM, it’s more the human element, and the rules just seem sensible. You can hide, when people can’t see you. Of course, if someone can see me, then how can I hide? It just seems like common sense. Where, when you’re like, use the grid, and here’s the different gradations of cover, it ends up introducing all this jargon. We can take the simplest concept, like trying to hide, and turn it into something which looks completely alien to someone just reading it."
Was I the only one expecting a Starcraft reference?
Anyway, good read. I'll meditate on that a bit before formulating a proper comment.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
*deleted*
Mistwell wrote:
mellored wrote:
I'm curious how your fallacy embraces / rejects the following supposition / scenario:
I will often make "non-precedential" rulings (I'm a lawyer, I'm big on precedent). I would rather get the rule wrong than spend ten minutes looking it up. I note that I don't know the rule, work it out with the players via email, and adopt the RAW/RAI at the next session. If a player want to go digging for the rules, I'll often give them thirty seconds. If they can't find it, I make a ruling, it binds for the session (for consistency), and can be overturned via email.
As such, I am, by GM fiat (for the benefit of the game / simplicity / speed) making a ruling that may reject / contradict RAW/RAI.
If the DM doesn't put forth a game the players want to play, the players leave.
The the players don't adhere to the way the DM wants to play, the DM can leave.
If _a_ player doesnt agree with how the DM is ruling something, they can ask the other players to get involved (democracy) or leave.
There's no equality between the roles of player and DM - there's not supposed to be, in any ttrpg I've ever seen. The players play a with a finite set of options set forth on their character sheet and in the basic actions listed for all. You can try anything you want and always could in any version of DND or any ttrpg, but your listed talents and accomplishments influence your odds.
The DM literally has no limits. They own reality in the gaming world. The scenario could be that a moon is crashing into your world, and the players have to stop it, or get off of the planet. The scenario could be a duplicate of the party from the future attacks the party trying to stop them from what they are _going_ to do. The characters may find a magic item - up to the dm. The characters may lose all of their handheld/free items in the sinkhole - up to the dm. The sun may suddenly go out, plunging the entire world into a black cold which inhibits anything having to do with vision and movement - up to the DM.
There's no interpretation of rule more powerful than what the DM can already, and should already, be doing. Now, I'm a fan of the more "modern" tactics of running a game: be a fan of the players, fail forward, etc, but still, if a rule can be interpretted either way, or a DM simply believes that something breaks the continuity and atmosphere they wish to present at the table, then its their table. If you don't like that game, go find another.
Another point that comes up in these sorts of arguments a lot and could be considered a fallacy is the "find another game" fallacy. This argument, oddly enough, gets used by both sides. On the DM power side, it's "if the players don't like my rules, they can find another DM" and on the player power side it's "if the DM does [insert thing the player doesn't like], no one will want to play with them." Either way, it comes down to using the threat of someone leaving or being kicked out of the play group to try to browbeat the other party into accepting certain terms in the social contract. And either way, it presupposes an abundance of players to replace the ones who leave or an abundance of DMs to replace the ones who are exiled. And in many (perhaps even most) cases, there is no such abundance. Often, the players can't just leave the game because it's the only game available. Similarly, the group often can't just boot DMs out, because no one else has the time, system mastery, or inclination to run the game. I still don't think it's fallacious logic per se to use this argument, but it can be when attempting to apply the "find another game" argument to all groups universally. Again, not sure it's a common enough approach to merit a title though.
The Kerrigan Fallacy is the assumption that if a simpering figure skater is Giloolied at the behest of her trailer-park rival that it is of any real importance to the world.
CitizenKeen wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
As the DM, you can. Until you can't.
Kalani wrote:
"I guess what I am basically trying to say is.... Rule 0 doesn't give the DM authority to make "my way or the highway" ultimatums."
Personally I would phrase it as "No one should have to do something they don't enjoy or feel good about." but really, it's the same thing.
Having said that, it's great that you have so clearly and concisely summarized the fundamental difference of opinion. I think giving the DM that authority is very much one of the things Rule 0 does.
How wisely they USE that authority is part of what makes a good - or at least, sought after - DM.
I totally disagree with the OP concept of the Rule 0 Falacy. GMing is an art, one that take a lot of practice to master. There are times to invoke Rule 0, times best to ignore it, and the art is knowing which.
As for the "find another game fallacy" fallacy, if you cannot find another game, then you can always become the DM. If you are a better DM, the other players will decide to play in your game instead of your former DM's. If not, then obviously you are the problem, not the DM.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
At any rate, I think "rule 0 doesn't give the DM ultimate authority over the rules" is framing the issue incorrectly. Rule 0 does, in fact, do exactly that, as it pertains to the game. It does not, however, give the DM any authority over the social contract, which may or may not contain stipulations as to when and how the DM may use the authority granted to them by Rule 0.
For instance, I take it Emerikol's group gives him free reign to use Rule 0 in any way he sees fit, at any time. I take it his group enjoys this style of play, therefore he is not violating social contract by exorcising that power.
In my group, on the other hand, I have the final say in any rules disputes during play. After the session, any player that disagrees with my ruling may look up the RAW, and we will use that ruling in future games. If the players agree with my ruling or prefer it over RAW, we implement it as a house rule. If RAW does not cover the situation, we work together to create a mutually satisfactory house rule. I have the power to make any changes to the setting I wish, and to make house rules provided they are approved by the players. My group and I all enjoy playing this way.
There is really not so much a fallacy here as there is a difference in play styles. Just because Emerikol's play style is different than mine does not make his playstyle fallacious, not does it make my playstyle so. It would be a fallacy for either of us to suggest that rule 0 gives us the power to overturn the social contract within our groups. But I'm pretty sure neither of us are saying that, so it's kind of a moot point.
"There is really not so much a fallacy here as there is a difference in play styles. Just because Emerikol's play style is different than mine does not make his playstyle fallacious, not does it make my playstyle so. It would be a fallacy for either of us to suggest that rule 0 gives us the power to overturn the social contract within our groups. But I'm pretty sure neither of us are saying that, so it's kind of a moot point."
Well stated.
Kalani wrote:
Yet another thread that boils down to "I want to play a dragonborn in your campaign you said no dragonborn in."
Kalani wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
WHY do I keep reading these threads? I really need to find a magic item to increase my wisdom save...
I find it funny the Oberoni falalcy still gets thrown around I was here when that thread went up and it was in something like 2002 or 2003 and it seems to have become part of this boards mythology and has even crept its way around other sites.
I am not sure that I agree with this "fallacy" for a few reasons:
1. 5e seems to be based on a "make rulings, not rules" framework which means that it really is up to the DM to make the call about what is happening and
2. the wording seems to indicate that the DM can not make a new Monster or Encounter or Spell unless the Players have agreed to it before hand, which seems counter intuitive to me.
Just picking up on something in the original post:
Secondly: if a DMs ruling deviates from a players expectations, this must be addressed in order for all participants to be on the same level of understanding.
Mistwell wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Your "Fallacy" is a fallacy.
D&D, except for 4th edition, is designed as a framework and guidlines, not rules as law. The whole intention in the creation of D&D was to provide people with a framework they could customize to their liking. As D&D is not a Rules as Law product, there isn't a fallacy when people customize the game as they were intended to do.
I also find it very interesting that you want us all to treat D&D as Rules as Law, what I do at my table has no effect upon you, so what is the motivation?
Edit: Clarification: I refer to 4th as being different due to "Everything is Core" which inhibits customization to a significant degree.
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Regarding custom monsters requiring PC consent..That is an extreme interpretation of my statements, taken to its logical extreme. The tone of my statement is about moderation in all things. As such, do not try to twist it to a logical extreme, as that is violating the spirit and intent of my statements.
Centauri has the gist of it.
The DM is well within their rights to excersise their power as a DM to make rulings, tweak monsters, etc.... If it doesn't cause a problem, the players have agreed to such changes by unspoken consent. It is only when the players specifically inform the DM that they have an issue with X, Y, or Z that a problem occurs, and a discussion is required. In some situations, the DM is well within their rights to make their rulings final during a single session, and tell the player that it will be discussed at the end of the session....After which they allocate time for such discussion, and keep their promise of discussing it as stated previously.
A good example of which is if the discussion is one that requires more than a few minutes of game time to resolve. The DM makes a session ruling, with the promise of discussing it further and coming to an agreement as a group at the conclusion of the game session, prior to the next game session, or at the start of the next game session. If a player is not satisfied with such a statement, it is the player who is being unreasonable, as this is a fair, yet temporary compromise.
Those who are interpreting this to mean you must give the players everything they ask for...... Reread the thread again. This applies equally to players as it does to the DM. It is the responsibility of all parties involved to compromise. Players included.
Some things should generally be allowed however, even if they are strongly discouraged. Examples of which include all core races and classes, including "rare" races such as dragonborn. The DM is well within their rights to tell the player of such a race (or class), that X is not native to my campaign. You are welcome to play one, but you are native to a far off land, or another world - and as such, you may be unique within the setting.
For example:
If such a player wants to play a monk in a campaign where the DM really doesn't like oriental flavour, the DM can then stress that it would be highly unlikely for the player to encounter oriental weapons and armor during their campaigns, but that they will instead find their european, arabic, or elvish counterparts (depending on games flavour). The DM can also stress that the campaign will not take on an oriental flavour. This may require the player refluffing their monk so that it fits in with the flavour of the current campaign. Instead of being a wuxia monk from an oriental monestary, such a character might represent a member of a secret society of psychic warriors. This order uses psionics (refluffed ki) and acts as the assassins and templars of the Shadow King, a powerful necromancer who rules a neighbouring kingdom. Instead of using Ki, all of their powers have the psionic keyword (in 5E it is basically identical to spellcasting with a different keyword).
The DM may also rule that the characters do not actually use traditional martial arts. Instead, they telekinetically control their physical limbs using psionic energy, pushing them beyond their normal limits. Mechanically, this is identical to the Martial Arts and FoB abilities, except it takes on a vastly different tone. Psychic Warriors (monks by another name) in such a setting train for years honing their mind (rather than their body), learning how to move their body with their mind and imagination. Such characters do not spend years mastering a martial art. They imagine their body performing whatever maneuver they can conceive, and move their limbs and muscles like a marrionette on a string... In much the same way that Eric Doyle from Heroes did, except with their own bodies rather than another persons.
This is a compromise. The Player gets to play the class they want, and it is reflavoured and tweaked (slightly) so that it fits the tone and flavour of the DMs campaign. Win. Win.
Not so much a fallacy as instead rule zero has the DM treat the players as small children for whom he knows best and the players must act like that or practically instantly there's a train wreck. Anyone who actually acts like they are even slightly close to being equal to the DM instantly causes argument at the table.
It's a socially disruptive rule.
Gatt wrote:
Even if it is not a true fallacy, this is definately a social problem that is rampant within the gaming community, and it is time to start addressing it. We are at the birth of a new edition. If we want RPGs to continue for another generation, it is time we started acting with the maturity necessary to encourage new gamers to become gamers for life. Treating them like children, and being punitive and dictatoral will only drive new players away. It also alienates long time gamers many of which have already suffered at the hands of an abusive DM. Eventually, they will say "enough is enough" and walk away from the hobby entirely.
There is only so much abuse someone can take before they ask themselves whether continuing the hobby is worth the emotional and psychological cost. At the time when Wizards purchased TSR, the RPG industry was dying. It was an aging industry, with an aging player base....Many of their players may have started out as teenagers, but now have family and other commitments, and leave the hobby for those reasons.
In any case, 3E revitalized the entire industry - not just DND. It brought thousands upon thousands of new players to the industry, and all RPG companies saw a resurgence and revitalization in their player base as a result. Now, 14 years later - the player base is once again shrinking. 5E is an effort on Wizards part to attract the next generation of gamers, the younger crowd, and those who have left the game (or the hobby) for various reasons.
It is our responsibility as players and DMs to provide a welcoming atmosphere that does not alienate or upset newcomers to the hobby. To do so, is to hammer yet another nail in the industries proverbial coffin, as such players may walk away in disgust, and then tell their friends that TTRPGs are horrible, and that people treat each other like crap. Don't play those games. Word of mouth can sink or save a company. It can most definately sink or save the industry.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Gatt wrote:
I did a little historical reading, just to see if I had an opinion on this. What I've noticed is that there was a distinct shift in "There IS a Rule 0" to "There ISN'T a Rule 0" between 2e, 3.5 and 4. The tone of the introductory chapters are very different from rule-set to rule-set, with 3.5 being the most "DM is ultimate authority." 3.5 is almost close enough to for me to reject the 'fallacy' label for that system, because it explicitly refers to the DM being in charge, and even suggests, in dire situations, to remove a player from the game. (Neither other book suggests this at all.) I understand that the OP's points were subtly different than the RAW text, even in 3.5, and I'm not disputing the validity of this thread. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any particular opinion -- I firmly think this dynamic is unique and determined by each group that plays D&D on a regular basis. Still, it was enlightening to see what the RAW said. All in all, I think anyone can interpret the rules in any way imaginable. And I think the RAW were created that way on purpose, because no single style of play is "correct." Anyway, here are a few snippets worth chewing on.
DMG 2e, page 8: (This one makes me giggle...)
The Dungeon Master Guide is reserved for Dungeon Masters. Discourage players from reading this book, and certainly don't let players consult it during the game.
DMG 2e, page 9:
One of the principles guiding this project from the very beginning, and which is expressed throughout the book, is this: The DM has the primary responsibility for the success of his campaign, and he must take an active hand in guiding it. This is an important concept. If you are skimming through this introduction, slow down and read it again. It is crucial you understand what you are getting into. The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you.
DMG 3.5, page 6:
ADJUDICATING
When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’re in charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don’t rebel (more on that later).
DMG 3.5, page 11:
Sometimes one player’s actions ruin the fun for everyone. An obnoxious, irresponsible, troublemaking player can make the game really unpleasant. Sometimes he gets other characters killed because of his actions. Other times he stops the game altogether with arguments, tantrums, or off-topic conversations. Still other times he might keep everyone from playing by being late or not showing up at all. Ultimately, you should get rid of this player. Don’t invite him next time. Don’t play the game with someone you wouldn’t enjoy spending time with in another social setting.
DMG 3.5, page 13:
Player–DM Trust: Players should trust the DM. Trust can be gained over time by consistent use of the rules, by not taking sides (that is, not favoring one player at another’s expense), and by making it clear that you’re not vindictive toward the players or the PCs. If the players trust you—and through you, the game system— they will recognize that anything that enters the game has been carefully considered. If you adjudicate a situation, the players should be able to trust it as a fair call and not question or secondguess it. That way, the players can focus their attention on playing their characters, succeeding in the game, and having fun, trusting you to take care of matters of fairness and realism. They also trust that you will do whatever you can to make sure they are able to enjoy playing their characters, can potentially succeed in the game, and will have fun. If this degree of trust can be achieved, you will be much more free to add or change things in your game without worrying about the players protesting or scrutinizing every decision
DMG 4, page 12:
Sometimes this role mediating the rules means that a DM has to enforce the rules on the players. If a player tells you, “I want to charge up here and attack the orc,” you might have to say, “No, you can’t charge to there, it’s too far.” Then the player takes this new information and comes up with a different plan.
DMG 4, p.28
Saying Yes
One of the cornerstones of improvisational theater technique is called “Yes, and . . .” It’s based on the idea that an actor takes whatever the other actor gives and builds on that. That’s your job as well. As often as possible, take what the players give you and build on it. If they do something unexpected, run with it. Take it and weave it back into your story without railroading them into a fixed plotline.
Kalani wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Basic philosophical revelations that aren't often had:
There is not one singular way of determining who is being a jerk. There are many cultures with many differences in how they determine what is being a jerk, even if they have the same coloured skin as you.
They should teach this one in schools.
But they don't (the jerks! - okay, that was a joke!)
quindia wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
You are always playing the DM's game, whatver rule set that may happen to be.
I am Kerrigan. Or at least, I usually am...Its an online handle of mine I have been usince since Starcraft I was released (pre-broodwar). It is also my online Blizzard name (which I think is pretty cool).
I used to go by glimeral on this site however (glimeral being the name of a character in one of my RPG sessions). But I digress.... Kerrigan = me. At present however, I am using my actual RL name for my avatar. I do not recall doing that, but it is the case....Hold on, I am going to change the name of my avatar to my usual handle. That solves everything with the exception that previous comments that use my name instead of my handle would appear out of place.
EDIT: Nevermind. The settings do not give me the ability to change my handle (weird).
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
This really only applies to people who play with strangers and people who play with jerks.
Rule 0 to me means make sh** up, and have fun. That's it.
Failing all of that, just shut up and play a video game or something. TTRPG's aren't the only games out there, and one can live a fulfilled and awesome life without them.
Kalani wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
iserith wrote:
I would add a fifth point: Most GMs aren't game developers. They aren't going to have the skill and understanding of game design to consistently make good houserules. Often they will make things worse.
Kalani wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
iserith wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
its amazing how fond of rule 0 my players become when follwing the RAW results in TPK.
animeus wrote:
Yes how dare the DM follow the rules in the rule book and make judgement calls on situations. That jerk.
Players and posters on this site seem to love rule 0 when a particular existing rule seems over constrained and limiting when their common sense would suggest otherwise, but hate rule 0 when a rule appears overly broad and results in mechanics in their favor even in situations that would go against common sense. In the first type they shout "rule of cool", and in the second "RAW!"
But that's just human nature I guess.
animeus wrote:
iserith wrote:
NOTHING about Rule 0 in any way changes a DM from what they are.
A HUMAN being. Human beings make mistakes and have errors in judgement. Simply being able to point to rule 0 does not make you infallible or superhuman.
Acknowleding that you are a human being and make mistakes does NOT cause problem players to appear and over run your table.
Pretending you are perfect does not make problem players disappear.
THAT is where the fallacy around here is. People acting like rule 0 and being a DM makes them incapable of mistakes.
Devils-Advocate wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Others have already noted that this is not a fallacy, but a disagreement. However, I want point out that the formulation of the disagreement itself can be troublesome by its use of contractualism. Feminist philosophers have pointed out how contractualism fails to address the ingrained and sometimes immoral prejudices of the group as a whole, as influenced by the dominant culture having power over the group. Whereas other people point out that a social contract may explicitely include a strong view of Rule Zero, I point out that it may also contain an implicitely strong view of it, and may even distribute the power of that rule to arrangement totally irrelevant to the game's explicit roles.
Psikerlord wrote:
That is all...
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
I have always held on to this version of Rule 0, both as a player and a DM.
"What the DM says goes, and if he says enough stupid ****, theDM goes too."
Seriously. DM is a position. It conveys authority. When you choose to DM a game, you are the final say on what happens in that game. That is rule 0. No rule trumps rule 0. You are the final arbiter and you are bound by no other rule.
Now. Given that truth. You are there to run a game and provide fun for a group. If you use your power wisely and benevolently then you'll have a good game and players will flock to your table. If you are a jerk and misuse your power then you ought to have them flee your table even if in some cases due to scarcity they don't. A good DM has good motives. Every DM makes mistakes. It's not the players job though to police the DM. It's not about being perfect. It's about being invested with the authority.
Don't confuse the two things. Players do obviously have the right to try and change the DMs mind and ultimately the right to quit that campaign and join another. In the end though the final decision is the DMs. And I really believe any DM that believes passionately about something in his setting and gives it up because of player pressure is not going to end up a good DM. I believe players who have to have one exact thing are not good players to have. In a world where you have established yourself as a good DM, you can just boot those players. Their attitude is kind of like going to a star wars movie and complaining that there are no hobbits in it. Surely any reasonable person has a great variety of tastes that they can choose from without having to have item X. Obviously if you have exactly one group and no other options then you need to discuss your campaign ideas and get acceptance before you start the building process.
The DM has ultimate authority over the game. This is a natural rule. You typically have 3-6 players and 1 DM. Let's say you have a conflict, one player wants to play a Dragonborn, the DM says no Dragonborn in this campaign. They cannot come to a resolution so the end game is one of the two walks. Without the player you still have a game, without the DM the game is over. To unseat the DM you needs multiple players in agreement and a replacement DM, effectively creating a new game.
Now, this isn't to say the DM is always right. They can be a terrible DM, but they still have ultimate authority over their game. Trying to apply strict interpretation of the rules doesn't magically make them a good DM. A terrible DM will simply be a terrible DM. If that DM shows no willingness to learn or improve the player's only real recourse is to walk.
A good DM should certainly consider the group. The goal of a good DM is to try and make sure everyone has a good time, to find a style that matches the group and create a great experience. However, the DM also puts a more work in than the rest of the group and they do get to have their way sometimes.
So if the DM wants to rule every player must wear a jester hat or get -20 on all rolls, he can do so. The DM is granted that authority by the players and his role. The power of the players is if they choose to continue playing the game.
So in short, your whole fallacy is pointless and wrong. The rule of "don't be a jerk or you are a crappy DM" is also self-evident and doesn't really need explanation.
Kalani wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Just... no.
Look, you don't actually have an argument here. I honestly can't even see how a rule can BE a fallacy. That's not what a fallacy is. The statement that a particular rule exists can be a fallacy. But saying a rule is a fallacy is like saying a chair is a fallacy. Both exist, but since neither are arguments, neither can be a fallacy.
It doesn't make sense.
Go right to the start, the definition(s) of your fallacy:
The DM is always right. Rule 0 exists as proof of this fact. This fallacy has at least three (more detailed) variations in language (although I expect additional variations to exist). A DM can always make a Rule 0 decision. As such, discussions of the RAW or RAI are irrelevant at the table, and players have no right to bring awareness of the RAW or RAI to the DMs attention, for the purpose of clarification, or discussion. Rule 0 grants the DM complete authority to make any (and all) changes to the rules they desire. Such rulings can be made at any time, without consultation or consent of other players, even if such rulings contradict the RAW, RAI, or previously established rulings, or house rules. Rule 0 grants the DM the authority to make any additions, subtractions, or substitutions to/of the established rules (including established house rules) at any time, without consultation or consent of their players.
Kalani wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
An easy way to avoid arguments at the table without relying upon the authority of the DM to quash dissent is to just side with the player's interpretation and move on. It costs the DM nothing to do this and can always be amended later (if necessary) when there is time to look it up.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
SmellyTerror wrote:
SmellyTerror wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I agree with ankiyavon on this one. This is not a thread about a fallacy. This is a thread about someone trying to hard-code the nature of the social contract. The problem is, the code of this social contract changes from table to table, and at many tables the social contract states that this threads supposed "fallacy" is actually one of the rules of that contract. That makes this thread pointless and invalid. It is, as has been stated, nothing but an attempt to name certain preferences as factual.
SmellyTerror wrote:
SmellyTerror wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
SmellyTerror wrote:
iserith wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
To be honest many on these boards come across as scared or vehemeatly against any form of DM/Player colaberation. I know its purely ancedotal but in my experience the more involved the players get in the game the better the game is, the more fun everyone has, the longer the campaign lasts and the easier it is for me to run. I trust my players. I trust any suggestion is made in good faith and is for the betterment of the game. When we disagree in rule inturpretations I can ask them for their logic safe in the fact that is what they think is correct and best for the overall game and are not out for personal gain. If you can trust your players you can trust what they have to say about rules and other game related issues. In return they trust me to listen to their concerns and their point of view and make a ruling that is best for the game. Its not about power and authority its about trust and communication.
Shasarak wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Jharii wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Jharii wrote:
You guys suck the fun out of everything. :P
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Jharii wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Here is how I do it in my campaign. It works great and I have many sad people who want in my games but can't get in because there is no room. I could seat a group every day of the week playing with this playstyle. For the most part I believe it is the original D&D playstyle for the most part.
1. The DM is the final arbiter of anything occuring in the game. The DM is not always right nor does he always do what is best. He is though given the authority to make rulings by the game.
2. The DM is the creator of the setting. The setting informs character creation but does not totally dictate it. Meaning the DM sets the limits and the players choose from what is presented. For me as a player, a large part of the fun of D&D is exploring the world and enjoying the discovery of a consistent fictional setting.
3. During the session arguments or disagreements are not allowed. If it is believe an error in judgment has been made by the DM then the player notes it and brings it up after the session. The DM though is still final arbiter. It is obvious and fair though to hear out the players between sessions an act on that knowledge to the best of your ability as DM. That means sometimes agreeing and sometimes not.
4. The DM's purpose is to provide a fun game for the players. Part of that is being enthusiastic and creatively motivated by what he is providing. Over time he learns what players like and provides things that fall within those parameters. He doesn't have to make every potential player happy every time unless his potential is the size of one single group.
5. In my games, the setting is not improvised. That is because my tastes don't run that way nor do my players. Many people value games that are not improvised so I'm not unique in this preference. Others may prefer more improvisation to varying degrees. I'm not condemning it for anyone that enjoys it. I am saying I don't value it as a player or as a DM.
I realize that FoxFace and others play a different sort of game and like it. That is cool. I do take exception though with people in Foxface's camp who try to imply that my choices are bad even for me and my group and that we'd have more fun doing it their way. I'm not fool enough to believe one size fits all and that your way is not popular with some people. I think it would be wise of you to accept that other people just value different things than you value when it comes to roleplaying.
As for investment in the game. I believe the DM has to be engaged or the game is dead. The players if smart know this fact. Messing with the DMs design and trying to force in things that he's already banned is playing Russian Roulette with the game. I've yet to see a list of character restrictions that I couldn't accept and run with and have fun given the DM did the work to make the setting good. To me that work is a far greater indicator of my having fun than whether I lack a race or class. As a player I really want a deep word. As DM, I provide the exact game I'd want to play in. Perhaps the gold rule applied to gaming.
Now. I do not want to fight. I feel though that there are certain people (Not FoxFace) who seem determined to brand my playstyle as a bad one. They constantly attack and they make generalizing statements that pretty much indicate my approach is generally inferior. They really do have a #onetrueway attitude. If they just espoused their approach and said that was their preference then we'd all get along. We wouldn't playing the same campaigns but so what. We probably wouldn't anyway. I am not though one to take a beating lying down. If certain people who by request remain unnamed continue to kick, I'm not going to lay there and take it. I'm going to respond.
Orethalion wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Jharii wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I believe in a simple phrase.
The more power a DM has, the better DM the DM must be.
Orzel wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Orzel wrote:
If I can opine, "playstyle" is more of a dialectic between the players and the DM than the style or disposition of the DM as a sole agent.
Some players need/want things laid out for them, others want a hand at the wheel once in a while. To suggest that there's an "original D&D playstyle" only shows how little understood this dialectic really is. There can't be an original playstyle because "playstyle" is entirely dependent on the relationship between the DM and the players. Change any element at any time (a new DM, a new player joins the group, an old player moves out of state, etc.) and the playstyle changes.
A "good DM" can keep up with this shifting dynamic between the table and the screen. A "bad DM" stomps their feet and invokes fiat when things leave their comfort zones. Ultimately, DMs who approach this tenuous dynamic from the position of "I am the sole agent of playstyle in this game, and the players can get with it or get out of the way" are doomed to fail, even if they can somehow manage to go on thinking they're the best DM since Arneson and Gygax drew straws in the '70s.
bawylie wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Congrats. Good medal at the debate meet. Completely right. Yet totally inaccurate. D&D is played in the real world. Someone's ultimately in charge of running the game. It's the GM. IYou sit down at their table, you're agreeing they're in charge. This includes ignoring "the rules" if ignoring them enhances the game. Anyone who can't stomach that shouldn't sit down at that table. They should probably play a different type of game, as well.
(I find it hard to believe folks discuss things like this outside the forum "white room." I mean, it's not "Dungeons & Pedantry.")
Lady_Auralla wrote:
cranebump wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Good grief. You actually argued about ice.
Am I the only one who sees the humor in that?
DLfan wrote:
Noon wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Consider it an amicus brief, then.
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
I have been silently reading the posts for the past upteen pages - not because I didn't have anything to say, but as a chance to give other people the floor. With that being said, there is another factor that has yet to be mentioned in this thread, which is in favor of the improv "Say yes" approach.
DMs who lack creativity, and fail to decorate their encounters with a variety of miscellaneous descriptive items stymie player creativity when doing so. While most DMs will describe gross details of a room (chairs, tables, bookshelves etc), there are many who won't even describe such objects.
I have personally encountered several DMs who failed to describe a 6x10ft table that was in the center of the room which the enemies were hiding behind. Without such information, I ran into the room and charged the enemies, only for the DM to "gotcha" me by saying "you can't do that. There is a table in the way". I then countered by questioning why the DM failed to describe such a massive object... His response - you didn't say you were rolling perception to spot the table.... I countered back with - "Thats a DC 0, passive perception should have covered seeing a massive table occupying 1/3 of the rooms dimensions. You described the door in the far corner. It would be harder to spot than the table".
This is an extreme example, but it does occur. On the other end of the extreme - you have DMs that refuse to allow PCs to interact with anything that was not specifically described. While such DMs will almost certainly describe gross details, they usually expect the PC to make a perception check to notice smaller details. I have no problem with requiring a perception check to notice smaller details. That is reasonable. In the hands of a creative DM, entire shelves full of knick knacks, candellabras, skulls with half-melted candles, etc dot the room. This works fabulously when it works...
My problem however, is when this approach is taken by a less creative DM. In such a situation, you end up with sparsely decorated encounters, with few interactable objects. As the only objects which exist in said encounter are the ones the DM has described (either during their opening description, or as a result of a perception check) - the success or failure is determined solely by the DMs creativity (or lack thereof).
By supplementing this approach with the Improv Style - objects the DM fails to describe may be added to the encounter by creative PCs. Yes, some such objects may require a perception check to notice.... but that is an example of saying "Yes...and" to introduce a complication. Complications do not outright invalidate an attempted action, but make it more difficult than what the player may have envisioned.
One thing that confuses me.... Why is it that people opposed to the "Yes and" style of gaming seem to think that the improv style requires you to give the players everything they state without question? Introducing complications is part of the "Yes and" approach. You can make it as hard or as easy as you wish, based on the situation.
Introducing Complications is allowed, and encouraged under this style of play.... In fact, the playstyle can quickly become stagnant if complications are not introduced in order to maintain the games tension, and element of risk.
PC: I swing from the chandallier, and try to land on the enemy orc.
DM: Introduces complication. "Make your action attempt with disadvantage".
Success: You land heavily on the enemy orc, knocking it prone. The orc takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage as a result of the fall, and is incapacitated on its next turn. You may grapple the orc if you wish, otherwise you land in an adjacent square of your choice.
Failure: You fall prone in a random square adjacent to the target (1d8). Minor falling damage may result, or a temporary condition (incapacitated until the start/end of your next turn, etc).
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Who sets the parameters of the conversation? 'Cause I always thought the people having the conversation, including those just entering it, did that, but that's definitely a secret cabal I'm looking to join. "Wrong! Or whatever!! That's not even what the converstion is about!!!" 
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Seems like the OP is circling a fallacy of some sort, it's just not quite the one being articulated.
Part of the issue is that Rule 0 isn't so much a printed rule as a fact of life. If a GM is running a game, he decided which game to run. Choosing to run GURPS instead of Dogs in the Vineyard is orders of magnitude more profound than deciding to run D&D but ban kender. The DM gets to decide what the heck he's going to run, which game, and how modified. No published rule can ever change that, Rule 0 just acknowledges it. As such, Rule 0 doesn't 'grant' any power nor justify anything.
The social contract isn't mathamatics and the GM is human.
Some of us have difficulty with that.
Anyone who's ever gamed at a convention with strangers is acutely aware of the above (2) ..moreso if you've ever GMed at a convention without taking a moment to tell the players your style of laying down the smack, how you deal with rules issues, and whatnot.
jh
Grifford wrote:
I feel like there should be a "misuse of the word Fallacy fallacy".
and the correlaary, "misuse of a named fallacy fallacy". Just because you give something a name and call it a fallacy doesn't mean it is, or that it even necessarily applies when you try to invoke it.
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
I once had a dm tell me that it's was his world and that the characters in it were his characters that he was letting the players use, therefor we as players could not make any choices about the game. We rolled dice and ran the characters during the adventure, but what happened in downtime, or even how we got to the dungeon itself was up to him.
he was the dm and it was his table, so I politely played out that session and never went back. As a player I must respect the DMs table and the work he put into the game. My agency is not made manifest by arguing rules at a table, my agency consists in where or not I play that game.
playstyles differ, and yes DMs should be responsive to the desires of the players, but the dm is an umpire...his rulings within the context of play are absolute. If she makes a mistake, it's appropriate to point it out, once, and then accept her ruling, whatever it is, you can discuss after the game session, but really it's the DMs call. Of course you know you are a bad dm if you are alone at your table on game night.
Jbickley00 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
The final say on what goes on in my campaign (the ones I DM) is me the DM. If it is important to me and not something I just never considered then I do not allow it. In my neck of the woods this playstyle culture is very ingrained. We all want the DM totally invested in his game. It makes it better for.the players when the DM is excited about his setting.
This whole thread would get nothing but universal derision from almost everyone I really know. It's only on these boards that I see everything under the sun philosophically. I don't know of a player that would quit because a DM wouldn't allow his character.concept. So my actual gaming life is pretty non antagonistic. I argue on heremore inone day than I do in myhome game in a year.
mellored wrote:
Sigh... It really irritates me when someone takes a philosophy, exaggerates it to an extreme point, and then makes claims about the extreme.... We are not discussing an everything under the sun philosophy. That is an extreme exaggeration of the principle we are discussing.
We are discussing a collaborative storytelling philosophy, in which players provide input for minor features that the DM neglects to mention (or think of). Environmental objects and miscellaneous details; creative actions; minor traits of an otherwise bland NPC; the existence (or lack thereof) of a mages guild..... etc.
We are talking very minor input, which the DM can elaborate on in whatever way they desire.
We are also talking about a philosophy where the DM does not arbitarily remove or negate player agency, such as preventing characters from performing X, Y, or Z action "for the sake of realism" - or disallowing dwarven mages - because tradition. Instead, we are proposing a philosophy of allowing such things, and using one's imagination to come up with a creative yet realistic example of how such an action might be played out cinematically.
Despite this - people opposed to this idea are taking it to a CW Lewis extreme, and refusing to argue the actual points we are discussing. If you cannot make a rational argument against a point without exaggerating that point beyond the level being discussed, I honestly don't know what to say.
Instead of arguing about ridiculous examples we aren't even discussing - how about you bring your flights of fantasy back to reality and discuss the actual topic, not some fantastically elaborate exaggeration.
Otherwise, you give us licence to discuss your viewpoint to the absurd extreme..... One example of which was recently posted on another thread, which I will elaborate on.
Opposing Viewpoint (taken to the logical extreme)
- A DM who owns all characters, and grants PCs "limited licence" to use their PC within the bounds set out by the DM. Such boundaries can change without notice, based on the DMs whims and desired outcome of a scene.
- A DM who railroads every situation, and only grants players agency to perform a limited number of scripted actions, based on the DMs pre-defined notes.
- A DM who railroads player creation choices. Racial limitations on class, level, statistics. Sexist limits on ability scores, etc.
- A DM who never allows an important NPC to be defeated due to actions they did not account for.... Even if said actions were written on the players character sheet (eg. Hold Monster spell, or a monks Open Hand technique).
- A DM who arbitarily denies characters the ability to sneak attack (this jerk move was quite popular in 3.5) by making 99% of enemies immune - even those which normally lack such immunity.
Those are not extreme examples of our style any more than some guy showing up and telling everyone to just describe everything without any die rolls or any contribution of his own is an extreme example of your style. Do you even understand the style you are arguing against?
Kalani,
In fairness you started this thread by defining what you thought was a fallacy. It was not. It was.merely your game preferences. If you've not been around long we have already had very lengthy debates about the two playstyles.
I believe the style you profess is a very minority position and that is why you have encountered more of everything in the more traditional style.
What I find interesting is that completely agree with one of your supposed "mischaracterizations".
1. DMs absolutely do have 100% control of what is on the character.creation menu in their campaign.
I run a totally freeform sandbox game. No railroading occurs. Players are still required to choose their characters from the palette of choices I allow. Those choices may vary from campaign to campaign that I run. It would be okay though if I really hated X to just ban X in all my games.
I run a game devoted to actor stance and real in game challenges. My players try to be their characters and avoid metagaming.
If you noticed, I have not argued the point that it is a fallacy for a while. As other people pointed out -its not a fallacy, it is a difference of opinion (which is a fair statement). With that being said, whether it was a true fallacy or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is a major problem that rears its head time and time again.
If it were not a problem, there would not have been Dragon articles written about how to address it for some 30 odd years, and the Improv style "Yes and" would not be discussed in the DMG.
I will state for the record - it is not always a problem, in much the same way that magic items, character optimization, or powergamers are not always a problem. But like them, when it does become a problem, it causes major disruptions to the game.
The major difference? The DM can always resolve problems caused by magic items or character optimization. The DM is also given a large number of tools in order to help address problems with unsportsman behavior at the table - munchkinism, excessive rules lawyering, argumentativeness, etc.
There are few things players can do to address a problem DM who is a dictatoral jerk to their players. As such, advocating a more collaborative approach in which the DM is not allowed to act like a dicatoral jerk, and which players have agency to call the DM on their stuff - is preferable and is one of the few ways to prevent the problem before it occurs.
Also, I find it slightly insulting that you presume I have not been around long on these forums. I have been an active member of these forums since 2003, although there are long periods in which my presence is absent. I am well aware of all the varied discussions that have happened since the early days of this forum... Including those regarding the 3.5 Fighter being weak, or comparisons between 3E and Diablo for example (both of which I spoke on at length during those periods) - the 2E/3E edition wars IOWs.
Just because something has been discussed previously, does not mean it is no longer relevant today. If that were the case, this would no longer be a problem - and it is. I have personally lost friends over jerkish behavior at the game table, and my story is by no means unique.
Noon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Just to add to and clarify Orethalion's point.
Anything can be abused. I'm not a jerk DM at least in the eyes of my players so I don't abuse my power. I realize power can be abused but it doesn't have to be abused. It's often been said that the ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Democracy is ugly. It's better only because over the years you can't keep guaranteeing a benevolent dictator. In D&D though once you find a good DM you are gold. The game ran by player committee is never a better game in my opinion.
Emerikol. wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell covered it but I'll respond to some specifics.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I view it this way (and mind you, I am not saying mine is the only view, it's just how I view it):
The DM is the host of a big formal themed party. He sends out the invitations, serves the food and drink, provides the seating, decorations, party reminders, shelter from the heat or rain or other weather, gives out the party favors, provides some entertainment like musicians or a DJ or a magician or something, maybe arranges for some speeches and toasts, some dancing, etc..
If you don't like the type of party the DM is throwing, because for instance you don't like the food or another guest, or you don't like dancing or that type of music, or you're not available that day or whatever, that's fine.
But if you want to go to a party, you either need to find another one, or throw your own. Because it's not the party-throwers issues here causing you to not go - it's your own issues. It's YOU who didn't like the food, or a guest, or dancing, or the music, or who was busy on that day, or whatever. You really don't have the right, as an adult, to insist they serve instead the food you want, or to not invite the people they want to invite because you don't like them, or to change the entertainment, or to move the date or time to accomodate you. Those are all your own issues and you are the one that needs to adapt if you want to go to the party. Nobody is forcing you to go to that party, and you are fully capable of throwing your own party, serving your own food , inviting your own guests, provinding your own entertainment, on your own preferred date and time.
And if that's not possible because nobody wants to go to your party, or because you don't want to throw a party, that too is your own issue and not anyone else's issue.
Again, just my view, not the only view and not the only valid one.
Mistwell wrote:
Kalani wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
On the party analogy:
When I DM, I am the host. I invite people to my party. Sometimes I have an idea for what type of party it is. Sometime I don't, and let my guests set the tone. Depending on who I invite and who accepts, I can usually guess what type of party it will end up like. Some are going to be quiet thoughtful affairs, and others are going be epic ragers.
If I do have a certain type of party in mind, I'll invite people who I think will enjoy that type of party. Sometimes, however, a person I invite isn't quite interested in what I have planned. Sometimes they decline, but sometimes they suggest something that will make the party more fun for them. I take their suggestion whole-heartedly and make every attempt to incorporate their idea for fun into my party planning. It is very rare for a suggestion to be so out of tune with what I have initially proposed that I have difficulty incorporating the idea, since the people who are suggesting a change are
typically at least interested in the core concept of the party (backyard BBQ, garden party, beer and pretzel poker night, etc).
In practice, it is never difficult to incorporate suggested changes because in essence I self-select by who I invite. I invite people who like garden parties to garden parties. I invite BBQ fans to BBQs. BBQ fans don't suggest black ties and classical music to a BBQ party, even if they enjoy black tie parties on occasion. But they might suggest adding a round of lawn darts or maybe beer pong, even though beer pong is more of a frat party thing.
Also, I don't invite people with dietary restrictions and fail to provide them with something to eat. And if I happen to do so by mistake, I don't begrudge them for bringing their own food. They're making sure they aren't hungry, for godssake.
Sure, I won't invite the recovering alcohol to a rager, but I don't ban them
from my beer and pretzel poker night just because beer is being served. I understand if they don't want to come, but I make sure to provide soda and lemonade in case they do. And if they bring their own drink, no prob. Good on them for taking care of their own enjoyment. My fun at the poker table doesn't rely on all my players drinking beer and eating pretzels. And the my fun and the fun of my fellow players isn't ruined if ine player drinks lemonade instead if beer, or if another guy brings a bag of Cheetos instead of pretzels.
Ultimately though, and most commonly, I invite my friends over, and see what they want to do. I have vague plans, usually some pizza ordered and board games on the table, but when my friends arrive and they want to do something else, we do the something else. I care more about hanging out with my friends than doing something specific at my party. Because even though I'm hosting, it's not my party. It's OUR party that I am hosting.
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rule Zero is not a Fallacy. Rule Zero is Rule Zero. It exists to allow the DM the ability in the game to respond in any way required to any player action not otherwise governed by either RAW, RAI or the internal Logic of the Campaign or Adventure itself. It also exists to allow whichever type of campaign the group may desire to be run, often the group 'desire' comes with the DM's concept for a campaign "I'm starting a Dragonlance campaign set early in the War of the Lance, so no half orcs, no monks, sorcerers or warlocks. Halflings will be Kender and no Drow. The power of the Gods has started to be found again but is very very rare so only one Cleric or Paladin in the group and only one Druid or Ranger. Also the Draconians are still very much the bad guys and bound to the will of Takhisis so I will allow a single Dragonborn and we'll work out an origin as you'd be something other than draconian. "
The DM exists to write the adventure or campaign concepts, personalities, events for the players to interact with, respond and react to player agency and rule on player actions, and to have fun with the group while doing it. Rule Zero helps a DM do just this. The social contract that gets thrown around is very simple: Everyone gets together to have fun with the game and hopefully experience a pretty cool interactive, collaborative story. The DM in this is within Righs to present / suggest any game concept he or she likes. The players are within their rights to say they're not interested. This can lead to a negotiation or a complete change or perhaps people playing a game that isn't fun (in which case the chane game clause should occur, sadly it doesn't always). However the Social Contract of RPGs leads me too...
Rule Zero is superseded only by Rule 7.
If you don't know Rule 7 here it is...
"Don't Be A Dick"
Its sometimes invoked a Wheaton's Law or Brucato's Preface (but in the UK Rule 7 is its longer held term).
Shasarak wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
ChaplingMcGuilicutty wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
ChaplingMcGuilicutty wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Xguild wrote:
Yikes, y'all still arguing about this?
Group 1: You are too INFLEXIBLE when it comes to using DM authority!
Group 2: Am not! You are too FLEXIBLE when it comes to using DM authority!
Neither the DM nor the players are required to be flexible in how they want play to proceed, but without agreement there can be no game. Working out disagreements with others is an essential life skill and is in no way covered by the D&D rules (Rule 0 or otherwise).
Just because the DM is empowered to run the game doesn't make them infallible. The rules can be used to justify a DM ruling, but they can't be used to justify a bad game. And just because a player wants something, doesn't mean that the game is improved should they get it, or ruined if they don't.
The system for handling disagreements will naturally vary from table to table. A minor issue might be able to taken care of on the spot ("Actually, dragon's blessing gives +2". // "Oh, right." or "Not in this place where draconic power is much diminished".) Larger issues or disagreements might be better dealt with after the game so as not to take up precious table time with them.
Either way, being swayed by reason (or even enthusiasm for a concept or creativity) shouldn't be characterized as a weakness, but as an opportunity to further enrich the game and the enjoyment it provides. D&D is a collaborative story-telling game. It requires both players and DM to work together to resolve play with the players controlling the PCs and the DM controlling the setting (everything else). The relationship is cooperative not antagonistic. Failure to realize this has led to the premature death of many a game.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Xguild wrote:
Kalani,
I do believe the skill sets are different and you've made some good points. I fear though you've fallen into the "moderates" are superior mindset when in fact that is not always the case. In politics for example most moderates are those of lesser intellect who can't develop a sufficiently coherent theory of right governing. They are also almost always the ones who elect so it shows why we are in the mess we are in these days. That is not though to say that in this particular case any approach is bad if it works. It works if you have happy players and a fun game.
Here are some questions that I believe affect the sort of game you run
1. How serious and/or dramatic is the game? or as a counterpoint how light hearted and humorous is the game?
2. How focused is the game on setting? Is exploration a key component of play?
3. How important is consistency and coherency of the setting?
4. Do you prefer DM empowered rulings or do you prefer RAW to be strongly defined?
5. How much emphasis is on player choices tactically in combat?
6. Is there a stance focus? For example do people want to be actors limited by all the same limits as the characters they play or do they want to be directors shaping the scenes and helping create the tension?
I'm sure others could add to the list. There are so many questions to be considered. As a DM I try to present a style so that people know what they are getting when they play in my games. I believe I do that particular approach well. It's fun for me and it engages my players. I am the first to admit though that I seek out players with the same values. I am not saying that because MY players like it your players would. I'm sure there are some people who have heard about my games that never even approached me to play. My style is just not for them. I'm happy to avoid them and I'm happy they've avoided me. I wouldn't have a problem being there friend. It's not about someone's personal worth. It's there taste in gaming. That is it.
I only get annoyed and defensive when I am repeatedly attacked and told my playstyle is bad or in one case immoral. It's a game folks.
Emerikol. wrote:
"A DM on a power trip (regardless of which style they claim to follow) is a horror at the table - and one of the most destructive forces in the gaming community.'
See, this is somewhere else we differ. To me a DM on a power trip is a delightful source of mockery and wry gaming anecdotes.
I've sat on both sides of the table. I've BEEN a good and bad DM, and I've HAD good and bad DMs. Neither case has ever influenced my opinion of someone as a person or someones opinion of me as a person or been "destructive to the gaming community".
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
That is only true if you are just saying "yes"... I never advocated for capitulation. In fact, on several occassions I have said compromise =/= capitulation.
You are forgetting the most important part...... "and". The yes, is simply acknowledging the players without invalidating them. The and is the more important part of the equation, and the one many people in this thread are keen to ignore.
And gives you licence to:
- Introduce complications and obstacles
- Maintain consistency of tone, atmosphere, etc
- Make the players work for X, due to placing it in a much harder to reach area (X can be anything - from an item, to information, to defeating the BBEG).
- and so on.
Those on the opposing side of the argument completely ignore the countless times I (and several others in this debate) have specifically called out that it gives you licence to introduce complications.
It is one of the strongest arguments we have presented, and one your side has completely ignored. You keep saying we advocate capitulation (aka, giving the players everything they want, without question, compromise, conditions, or complications).
That is false. That is how you are twisting our words to sound. Capitulation will cause all of the problems you say it will....
Both sides of the debate agree Capitulation = Bad
Our POV requires capitulation about as much as your POV requires you to be ruthlessly adversarial and antagonistic. It is an overly simplified and exaggerated claim, and complete falsehood.
How about, instead of arguing about an extreme we do not believe in - you instead argue the points we actually make, and the principles we actually present.
Compromise, Conditions & Complications, Improvisation, and Flexibility
None of these things mean capitulation.... Compromise especially, and it is the founding principle.
Kalani wrote:
"I want to play a Paladin in Dark Sun."
"Yes, and..."
That equals capitulation. It doesn't matter what follows 'and'.
Kalani wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
I personally do not believe that on "average" a typical group of five people can collaboratively on the fly without rewrites produce a consistent story that is immersive and engaging. I do believe one person can do it given plenty of time and all the rewrites he wants to make. I won't say no one has ever produced a story but I think the groups that could do it to my satisfaction are either non-existant or vanishingly few in number. Whereas, those that could achieve the immersion and engagement I like using my style are not massively rare. Rare maybe to the level I like it but not vanishingly rare or non-existant.
Of course all of these things concerning immersion and engagement are from my own perspective on those things.
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kalani wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Can I play a paladin in dark sun?
yes and you neighbors see you divine casting and report you to the kings ministers, who show up at your door in great force and haul you off to the ziggurat where you are tortured and dissected to see how your power works and how that might benefit the dragon king. Thank you for playing a paladin in dark sun.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Of course I was talking about a good host.
I am betting that Orethalions wife does a great job.