Discussion: Is Rule Zero passé?

[TheMyth]

So, ever since I started gaming back in the 1980s, I was always under the impression the DM was in charge. He or she was running the game, acting as referee, rules arbiter, etc.

This was codified under the idea of Rule Zero (or Rule One, or however each game system explained it.)

Over the past few years, I have been encountering more and more players who seem to think it's ok to argue about anything and everything. Or they just do things that break written rules or stated house rules. When confronted, some of them seem stupified with this decidedly undemocratic way of gaming.

And I have been encountering more of the similar in online blogs, etc.

So...what's up with this? Is it wide-spread? How have you adapted?

In my experience, DMs have to do a lot of prep for a session (let alone adventure or campaign). Does this make things more difficult or easier?

[Bruce The Black]

I play online with roll20. This is indeed a far ranging plague on the hobby but it's one I use as a tool to find good players and weed out the bad. I'm pretty up front about it in my game advertisements. Even going a little over the top to really drive home my style of play and letting it known up front if you have any issue with it, I am free and fast with the boot. This has worked out well for the most part.

The only game I have STILL ended up with trouble even with all that is 5E but it's been years since I ran a modern ttrpg. Picking a good OSR game seems to lesson the issue greatly. I would be shocked if you had many issues with a OD&D game onm roll20, well other than the six 5E players who submitted a 5E character to your game because they didn't even bother to see what system you were taking applications for.

[Punkrabbitt]

I just saw references to "Rule 0" on a blog I read earlier today, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is. May someone please clarify Rule 0 for this brain-damaged little raccoon? Thank you.

[yesmar]

I don’t recall “Rule Zero” being a thing back in the day. It seems to be a more recent addition. I don’t subscribe to it, myself. In fact, Vol. III, p. 36, has the closest thing I consider to be a “Rule Zero” —

[T]he best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!

In other words, make stuff up. That’s the real Rule Zero.

[TheMyth]

Aug 19, 2024 18:42:19 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

I just saw references to "Rule 0" on a blog I read earlier today, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is. May someone please clarify Rule 0 for this brain-damaged little raccoon? Thank you.

Um. I pre-defined it in my first sentence:

Rule Zero means the DM/GM/referee/etc. is in charge of arbitrating the rules of whatever game is being played.

[Falconer]

It sounds like Mike Carr’s guideline #2 from the Foreword of the 1e PHB:

“Cooperate with the Dungeon Master and respect his decisions; if you disagree, present your viewpoint with deference to his position as game moderator. Be prepared to accept his decision as final and remember that not everything in the game will always go your way!”

[Punkrabbitt]

Aug 19, 2024 21:48:10 GMT -6 TheMyth said:

Aug 19, 2024 18:42:19 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

I just saw references to "Rule 0" on a blog I read earlier today, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is. May someone please clarify Rule 0 for this brain-damaged little raccoon? Thank you.

Um. I pre-defined it in my first sentence:

Rule Zero means the DM/GM/referee/etc. is in charge of arbitrating the rules of whatever game is being played.

Thank you. I didn't put it all together in my head.

[hamurai]

Aug 19, 2024 23:03:28 GMT -6 Falconer said:

It sounds like Mike Carr’s guideline #2 from the Foreword of the 1e PHB:

“Cooperate with the Dungeon Master and respect his decisions; if you disagree, present your viewpoint with deference to his position as game moderator. Be prepared to accept his decision as final and remember that not everything in the game will always go your way!”

That's how I do it as DM.

I don't mind people disagreeing with one of my decisions, especially when they have good arguments to back them up.

What I do mind is people trying to discuss almost every decision, or not discussing at all, but accusing me of doing something wrong or unfair. I only had this happen once, though, and I reminded the player of the above rule. he chose to leave the game and we all had a great evening without disturbances afterwards.

My guess would be, it's "easier" to be a rules-lawyer in an online game when you might have several monitors with PDFs ready to re-read every rule within a second of its appearance in the game. Additionally, the perceived distance in online games changes things a lot. It's less of a step to argue with a GM avatar pic than with a real person sitting next to you. My group noticed both these things in Covid times.

[Bruce The Black]

No Rule will protect the player from a Bad DM. If you have played rpg's for long you have run across a bad DM. Hell most of us have been a bad DM at one point or another"or in my case at multiple points".

DMing is a skill and like any skill it takes something like 10,000 hours to master and even then, sometimes your masterwork game ends up...BAD. It happens. Being able to tell when it's happening and do something about it takes a lot of experience.

Being able to look critically at your own game and be willing to do something about it is yet another hard part of the running the game. So being willing to listen to a players concerns and fairly alter things if you have made a mistake is all part of the game. Sometimes in the heat of the game.

Being a player however is a totally different skill set with some overlap but not as much as you might think. Some of the worst players are also DM's. Players often do not have the same goals as the DM. The same investment in the game or in putting the health of the game first.

The game can survive the loss of players"though to be sure that is a red flag". I once had one game last 22 years and at several points of that game I the DM was the only one still playing that same game.

All that is basically a long winded way to say" The DM has to be the authority at the game table but a good DM listens to his players and should fix the game when he inevitably breaks it."

I should have just led with that!

[gonyaulax]

No, it is not passe.

Questioning rulings is healthy up to a point: this helps to develop new rulings where the rules are fuzzy or to re-interpret them as the DM steers the game in his own direction.

But D&D, probably ALL RPGs have rules that are . . . let us say, "nebulous" in nature. BY DESIGN, they cannot cover every possible situation that may come up in a game. And as far as the situations that ARE covered by certain rules, perhaps the DM wants to move the game along, perhaps he needs to make it slightly harder (OR EASIER) on the player characters in order to facilitate other near future events. Whatever.

D&D is not chess. The rules of chess are finite and absolute because the game itself is finite and absolute. There is no randomness or luck or chance in chess other than picking who gets the white side and thus goes first. Now, compare that to how much luck and chance and choice and . . . CHAOS there is in D&D.

Ultimately, like it or not, this is the main reason there has to be bosses, supervisors, chief engineers, head chefs, symphony conductors, football referees, baseball umpires, etc., etc. When a consensus cannot be reached, then there has to be one person to make a final decision. This idea goes down somewhat easier with those of us that have *ahem* somewhat more life experience than younger folk. What I mean by that is that I started playing D&D between when the Deities & Demigods was published and when the first hardcover Monster Manual was published. But all of us were college sophomores and juniors! Yeah, we argued, but we knew that if we were going to have a game someone ultimately had to be in charge. I remember listening to someone during that time describing a game where 13 to 15 year olds were the rule. Gaaaaaahhhhh!

At this point, I would advise re-reading the previous post by Bruce the Black. He captures it very well. I hope I haven't obscured the points he made.

Only one more thing: I don't think it is emphasized enough that D&D is very much a COOPERATIVE game. Yes, the DM is in charge, but he has a responsibility to the players to be the best he can be at his job. But the players have responsibilities to the game as well and they need to be aware of that. I've never played in a group where the ultimate goals of all the players matched: that is, one mainly wanted gory combat and lots of it, and one wanted exploration to find out "what's out there", and one wanted to "infiltrate" and gain political power, and one mainly want to role-play the interactions in the local bar. Yet, we all managed to get what we wanted by letting others get what they wanted. It all worked as long as you can put selfishness aside.

If you truly cannot . . . go play solitaire.

[Parzival]

To me, Rule Zero is: The game is about having fun, and that means for everybody playing, including the DM.

But in the spirit of the OP, I think that while the DM is the rule book and the final arbiter, the DM should be acting along the lines of what the group expects and appreciates as fun— but he’s also part of the group, and they need to allow for what the DM expects and appreciates as fun. Therefore, it is essential that everyone has a clear understanding of what the game will be like, and agree that the DM is indeed the judge of what happens in the game. If all do not agree, then inevitably for someone the game will wind up not being fun. Fun is paramount; all other considerations must dissolve before it.

[Punkrabbitt]

OK, so I have this to say about that:

Rule 0 is a fundamentally necessary part of any roleplaying game, in my opinion. I cut my teeth on Holmes D&D and Traveller LBB's 1-3, and the amount of rulings, background, and customization that was literally required to play the game by necessity meant that there would be a lot of referee fiat. And that's exactly what the DM/GM/Narrator/Storyteller/What-Have-You should be: a referee making sure the rules are applied impartially. If there are house rules, everyone should be reasonably aware of them before playing. When rulings are made, it should be made in fairness. My favorite DMs have always been the ones who ran the game as impartially as possible, meaning that maybe things got tough and bad decisions could lead to a TPK, but it wasn't a case of players vs. GM. DMs who played favorites, fudged things too much, or were making things difficult just for the sake of spite led to games that were just no fun.

Does that make sense?

[DungeonDevil]

Aug 19, 2024 21:48:10 GMT -6 TheMyth said:

Aug 19, 2024 18:42:19 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

I just saw references to "Rule 0" on a blog I read earlier today, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is. May someone please clarify Rule 0 for this brain-damaged little raccoon? Thank you.

Um. I pre-defined it in my first sentence:

Rule Zero means the DM/GM/referee/etc. is in charge of arbitrating the rules of whatever game is being played.

That's my philosophy as well, but, I assure you, it is very unpopular at tables where people insist that the stack of expensive rulebooks that decimated their bank accounts are the SUPREME AUTHORITY!!!111. (The concept that A Book is the supreme authority goes back a few thousand years now.)

[gonyaulax]

Aug 21, 2024 4:18:34 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

Aug 19, 2024 21:48:10 GMT -6 TheMyth said:

Um. I pre-defined it in my first sentence:

Rule Zero means the DM/GM/referee/etc. is in charge of arbitrating the rules of whatever game is being played.

That's my philosophy as well, but, I assure you, it is very unpopular at tables where people insist that the stack of expensive rulebooks that decimated their bank accounts are the SUPREME AUTHORITY!!!111. (The concept that A Book is the supreme authority goes back a few thousand years now.)

If you are a part of that group and do not agree with that group and have been unable to change their positions on that topic, then you always have the option of last resort:

Vote with your feet -- Play at a different table.

I would rather not play at all rather than try to play in a group that spent more time arguing than playing the game.  In fact, I (as DM) called a halt to a (almost) campaign when it became obvious that this particular group of players was not going to "jell".  And it really, REALLY, wasn't fun for me.  It was quite a chore.  So why spend my time doing that?  So (for a time) I quit.

[gonyaulax]

Aug 20, 2024 18:16:11 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

OK, so I have this to say about that:

Rule 0 is a fundamentally necessary part of any roleplaying game, in my opinion. I cut my teeth on Holmes D&D and Traveller LBB's 1-3, and the amount of rulings, background, and customization that was literally required to play the game by necessity meant that there would be a lot of referee fiat. And that's exactly what the DM/GM/Narrator/Storyteller/What-Have-You should be: a referee making sure the rules are applied impartially. If there are house rules, everyone should be reasonably aware of them before playing. When rulings are made, it should be made in fairness. My favorite DMs have always been the ones who ran the game as impartially as possible, meaning that maybe things got tough and bad decisions could lead to a TPK, but it wasn't a case of players vs. GM. DMs who played favorites, fudged things too much, or were making things difficult just for the sake of spite led to games that were just no fun.

Does that make sense?

Y E S ! !

[DungeonDevil]

Aug 21, 2024 9:26:56 GMT -6 gonyaulax said:

Aug 21, 2024 4:18:34 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

That's my philosophy as well, but, I assure you, it is very unpopular at tables where people insist that the stack of expensive rulebooks that decimated their bank accounts are the SUPREME AUTHORITY!!!111. (The concept that A Book is the supreme authority goes back a few thousand years now.)

If you are a part of that group and do not agree with that group and have been unable to change their positions on that topic, then you always have the option of last resort:

Vote with your feet -- Play at a different table.

I would rather not play at all rather than try to play in a group that spent more time arguing than playing the game.  In fact, I (as DM) called a halt to a (almost) campaign when it became obvious that this particular group of players was not going to "jell".  And it really, REALLY, wasn't fun for me.  It was quite a chore.  So why spend my time doing that?  So (for a time) I quit.

Maybe there is some wisdom to the creed that only Referees ought have access to the rulebooks.

[Parzival]

Aug 21, 2024 9:51:45 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

Maybe there is some wisdom to the creed that only Referees ought have access to the rulebooks.

That’s my standing rule. Nobody but the DM consults a rulebook during play. Exceptions may be granted for spell details or very rare PC special abilities, but really those details need to be known and noted by the player before play begins— you select a spell, you should know how it works. In fact, I don’t want extra rulebooks at the table.
And no, you can’t look at the Monster Manual/List/Book— you’re not the DM. Your PC doesn’t know that stuff, and neither should you.

[TheMyth]

Aug 21, 2024 10:53:59 GMT -6 Parzival said:

Aug 21, 2024 9:51:45 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

Maybe there is some wisdom to the creed that only Referees ought have access to the rulebooks.

That’s my standing rule. Nobody but the DM consults a rulebook during play. Exceptions may be granted for spell details or very rare PC special abilities, but really those details need to be known and noted by the player before play begins— you select a spell, you should know how it works. In fact, I don’t want extra rulebooks at the table.
And no, you can’t look at the Monster Manual/List/Book— you’re not the DM. Your PC doesn’t know that stuff, and neither should you.

Now THAT is truly controversial! That a player should leave the rules ALMOST COMPLETELY to the referee.

So...what about when a player uses a spell, expecting it to work a certain way, but a ref must re-clarify?

(This came up with me recently with regard to ILLUSION spells -- the bane of a DM's existence.)

[Parzival]

Aug 21, 2024 12:38:38 GMT -6 TheMyth said:

Aug 21, 2024 10:53:59 GMT -6 Parzival said:

That’s my standing rule. Nobody but the DM consults a rulebook during play. Exceptions may be granted for spell details or very rare PC special abilities, but really those details need to be known and noted by the player before play begins— you select a spell, you should know how it works. In fact, I don’t want extra rulebooks at the table.
And no, you can’t look at the Monster Manual/List/Book— you’re not the DM. Your PC doesn’t know that stuff, and neither should you.

Now THAT is truly controversial! That a player should leave the rules ALMOST COMPLETELY to the referee.

So...what about when a player uses a spell, expecting it to work a certain way, but a ref must re-clarify?

(This came up with me recently with regard to ILLUSION spells -- the bane of a DM's existence.)

I think it’s the way the game is meant to be played— in fact, that’s why there are separate books, and the details of actual play are largely in the books for the DM, pretty much across the editions. The players say what the characters try to do. The DM tells them if it works. You don’t need a book to do almost anything a PC can do. For that matter, the DM really shouldn’t be relying on them in play. Make a ruling and roll on!

And yes, the player should know how his spell works… but the ruling is up to the DM (who should know how it works as well).

Keep the books away from the table, and it’s harder to stymie the session by constantly looking things up to contradict the DM.

Just say No to rules lawyers. 

[yesmar]

I think it is perfectly fine for players to have the rule books. Per Vol. I, p. 4:

If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS and DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein. If your referee has made changes in the basic rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you play. Aquick check of some rule or table may bring hidden treasure or save your game "life".

I agree with the foregoing, but do consider Referee judgements to be near-final. I’ll reconsider if you present a good argument, but if I say we’re done then we accept the ruling and move on. Rules lawyers can get a lightning bolt from “above” for all I care. •ᴗ•

As for players “knowing” stuff from ca. 1974, no big deal. I create all the good stuff anyhow.

[Parzival]

My experience is that the game runs smoother if the players aren’t consulting the rulebooks at all— or, for that matter, the DM. Nothing is more tedious than stopping the game to look up a rule detail. If you don’t know, make it up and keep going. (But if you’re the DM, you should know…) Which is why it’s better to play with OD&D or B/X/E than other editions: fewer rule details = more fun.

[Bruce The Black]

I will say that the classic way of viewing rpg's doesn't work well with this new modern mutation of rpg's.

In a lot of modern games playing the game at the table is a small part of the actual activity of role playing. think the DM spends time on the game? What about a player who spends hours and hours creating his character? Picking just the right feats and skills along with the right race abilities and equipment to maximize some rare rule aspect to create the "Perfect" character?

I have come across MANY people who do not even ever play rpg's at a game table but instead spend all their time doing this. The idea that some guy sitting in his house working on "His" game can just arbitrarily change those rules and nullify all your hard earned work on your characters is appalling!

How DARE you Sir!

Ha Ha! This is a very real thing. It is not rare in today's ttrpg. Add to this You Tube channels doing this exact same thing and hours and hours of online videos on every last rule aspect and feat and skill aspect and you have built a Frankenstein monster that is the modern ttrpg market.

I myself have dipped by toes in such behavior playing Foul Monstrosities such as 5E and Pathfinder 1/2E! Luckily at the last moment I made my save verse Dullardry and fled back to the safety of the OD&D.

Let my tragic tale be a warning to you all!

[Finarvyn]

There has been an interesting evolution in RPG style over the decades. When I started, only two of us (myself and the DM who taught me the game) knew the rules, and the players just tried what they wanted and rolled dice when they were told to roll dice.

For my group in the 1970's we had a rift when AD&D came out because one faction (mine) held onto OD&D's loose style while the other faction (my friend Mike) was enamored with the notion that all rules had been codified. Mike's games would often shut down for 20 minutes while he looked for a rule that he was sure he read somewhere.

Even through the 1990's around half of my players hardly knew the rules at all.

At my table, the newer generation of players has a new philosophy that knowing the rules equates to mastering the game. These players want to read the monster manual even if they aren't running a game, they want to google information during play so that they "know stuff" when needed. It's a very different style, and I'm working hard to combat it.

[gonyaulax]

Aug 22, 2024 4:15:00 GMT -6 Bruce The Black said:

I will say that the classic way of viewing rpg's doesn't work well with this new modern mutation of rpg's.

In a lot of modern games playing the game at the table is a small part of the actual activity of role playing. think the DM spends time on the game? What about a player who spends hours and hours creating his character? Picking just the right feats and skills along with the right race abilities and equipment to maximize some rare rule aspect to create the "Perfect" character?

I have come across MANY people who do not even ever play rpg's at a game table but instead spend all their time doing this. The idea that some guy sitting in his house working on "His" game can just arbitrarily change those rules and nullify all your hard earned work on your characters is appalling!

How DARE you Sir!

Ha Ha! This is a very real thing. It is not rare in today's ttrpg. Add to this You Tube channels doing this exact same thing and hours and hours of online videos on every last rule aspect and feat and skill aspect and you have built a Frankenstein monster that is the modern ttrpg market.

I myself have dipped by toes in such behavior playing Foul Monstrosities such as 5E and Pathfinder 1/2E! Luckily at the last moment I made my save verse Dullardry and fled back to the safety of the OD&D.

Let my tragic tale be a warning to you all!

Yeah, OK.  I can see my problem now.  We're really talking about (at least) two different games.  (I am not trying to throw any shade at 3e - 5e.)

I get it.  When "building the 'best' character" is so important and takes so much time AND ABSOLUTELY DEPENDS ON ALL RULES STAYING STABLE, then the players have a right to be upset when the DM goes and "wings it".

All of my previous posts above should be taken from the standpoint that they probably apply only to the games of 2nd Edition or earlier.

I think it was Matt Finch who commented on the fact that most players of modern D&D, when presented with a problem or puzzle for the party, immediately looked down at their character sheet for a solution.  I would prefer to run a game where it is the ingenuity of the PLAYERS and not the STATS on their sheets that define success of the campaign.  When a problem or puzzle is presented to the party, I'd hope that they immediately look at each other and at least one of them say, "How about we try this . . ."

[DungeonDevil]

Maybe the hobby needs to reset by going back to some "high-altitude" geopolitics using a modified version of Diplomacy, and, at least for a while, get away from the "ground-level" micromanagement of extended hexcrawling and dungeon-crawling, which is essentially RPGs: 1:1 skirmish wargaming. From what I remember after studying The First Fantasy Campaign a few years back, DLA and friends did use some of those grander notions: kingdom vs. kingdom, and not exclusively PC vs. monster baddies. Doesn't Hasbro also own Diplomacy? They could certainly do a mash-up of their two IPs and revitalise the hobby. Not out of the question, given how Game of Thrones is the new fixation, and that is ripe for use with Diplomacy. Anyway...just some random thoughts. Now back to work, before the boss catches me!

[robertsconley]

My overall experience is that people have remained people with a similar mix of the enthusiastic, the indifferent, and being not a very nice persons spanning across decades.

Somethings I noted
1) we are older and, as a result of our life experience, experienced more, including notable not a very nice persons in our hobby time. But I remember all the good folks I meet as well and realize it is what it is and pretty much been the same mix all along.

2) What has changed is our ability to connect to with others beyond our immediate geographical location. And to be more aware of what others are doing from a personal viewpoint because of social media.

For me, I got involved in organized gaming in the 1980s, starting when I helped found my college's gaming club. Since then, I have been sporadically involved with helping with conventions and got heavily involved in running LARP events from the late 90s and early 2000s. I adopted the internet early and got involved online early. And finally, publishing and blogging for the past 15 years.

So into contact with a lot of gamer early along with the good times and bad times. While the means we use to interact with each other change (like this forum), at the end of the day I learned people remain people

And one thing that is specific to me is that I grew up in a small town of less than 20,000 people. From around 78 to 82, D&D was definitely a thing among Junior and Senior High students. Moreso while there were at least three dozen kids involved the pool was small enough that the ones that were most into D&D leaped at the chance to play different campaign. So the three dozen of us got to know each other even if it was only causal. So when I helped organize my college gaming club I remember being struck at how familiar the personality types I met were to that group of kids in my hometown.

My final thought, whether it was gaming at college in the 80s or using bits and electrons to game with folks from around the world in the 2020s, there is no substitute for reading up on small group dynamics and getting practice handling the situations that come up. Most of it is written for stuff like volunteer groups and community groups, but it is applicable to keeping a campaign going for a small group of friends or acquaintances.

[TheMyth]

Aug 22, 2024 4:15:00 GMT -6 Bruce The Black said:

I will say that the classic way of viewing rpg's doesn't work well with this new modern mutation of rpg's.

In a lot of modern games playing the game at the table is a small part of the actual activity of role playing. think the DM spends time on the game? What about a player who spends hours and hours creating his character? Picking just the right feats and skills along with the right race abilities and equipment to maximize some rare rule aspect to create the "Perfect" character?

I have come across MANY people who do not even ever play rpg's at a game table but instead spend all their time doing this. The idea that some guy sitting in his house working on "His" game can just arbitrarily change those rules and nullify all your hard earned work on your characters is appalling!

How DARE you Sir!

Ha Ha! This is a very real thing. It is not rare in today's ttrpg. Add to this You Tube channels doing this exact same thing and hours and hours of online videos on every last rule aspect and feat and skill aspect and you have built a Frankenstein monster that is the modern ttrpg market.

I myself have dipped by toes in such behavior playing Foul Monstrosities such as 5E and Pathfinder 1/2E! Luckily at the last moment I made my save verse Dullardry and fled back to the safety of the OD&D.

Let my tragic tale be a warning to you all!

The rhetoric is called "character build". Ugh.

I've tried running play by post games over the past few years (with varying degrees of success).

Several players spent WEEKS creating characters that should have taken a few days. They min-maxed every option just to create some odd chimaerical creation that they tired of quickly before ghosting.

Or, as mentioned, are INCENSED when their carefully crafted Ubermensch was foiled by a ruling against the rules exploit they hadn't foreseen.

Honestly, this started as a trickle, but seems to have spread faster than COVID! Lol

[Parzival]

Aug 22, 2024 5:41:14 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

There has been an interesting evolution in RPG style over the decades. When I started, only two of us (myself and the DM who taught me the game) knew the rules, and the players just tried what they wanted and rolled dice when they were told to roll dice.

For my group in the 1970's we had a rift when AD&D came out because one faction (mine) held onto OD&D's loose style while the other faction (my friend Mike) was enamored with the notion that all rules had been codified. Mike's games would often shut down for 20 minutes while he looked for a rule that he was sure he read somewhere.

Even through the 1990's around half of my players hardly knew the rules at all.

At my table, the newer generation of players has a new philosophy that knowing the rules equates to mastering the game. These players want to read the monster manual even if they aren't running a game, they want to google information during play so that they "know stuff" when needed. It's a very different style, and I'm working hard to combat it.

I have one hard rule which will halt all play if broken: NO CELL PHONES AT THE TABLE. Period. You pull that sucker out, game stops. I won’t play as long as it’s out. You can either play with us or play with your cell phone. Not both.

And yes, that means No digital dice. Roll the real thing.

[Parzival]

Aug 22, 2024 12:45:57 GMT -6 TheMyth said:

Aug 22, 2024 4:15:00 GMT -6 Bruce The Black said:

I will say that the classic way of viewing rpg's doesn't work well with this new modern mutation of rpg's.

In a lot of modern games playing the game at the table is a small part of the actual activity of role playing. think the DM spends time on the game? What about a player who spends hours and hours creating his character? Picking just the right feats and skills along with the right race abilities and equipment to maximize some rare rule aspect to create the "Perfect" character?

I have come across MANY people who do not even ever play rpg's at a game table but instead spend all their time doing this. The idea that some guy sitting in his house working on "His" game can just arbitrarily change those rules and nullify all your hard earned work on your characters is appalling!

How DARE you Sir!

Ha Ha! This is a very real thing. It is not rare in today's ttrpg. Add to this You Tube channels doing this exact same thing and hours and hours of online videos on every last rule aspect and feat and skill aspect and you have built a Frankenstein monster that is the modern ttrpg market.

I myself have dipped by toes in such behavior playing Foul Monstrosities such as 5E and Pathfinder 1/2E! Luckily at the last moment I made my save verse Dullardry and fled back to the safety of the OD&D.

Let my tragic tale be a warning to you all!

The rhetoric is called "character build". Ugh.

I've tried running play by post games over the past few years (with varying degrees of success).

Several players spent WEEKS creating characters that should have taken a few days. They min-maxed every option just to create some odd chimaerical creation that they tired of quickly before ghosting.

Or, as mentioned, are INCENSED when their carefully crafted Ubermensch was foiled by a ruling against the rules exploit they hadn't foreseen.

Honestly, this started as a trickle, but seems to have spread faster than COVID! Lol

I despise the term “character build.” Though it can be very satisfying when “Mr. Perfect” dies on the end of a goblin’s sword. Aw…
Not that I set out to do that, but usually someone with a fancy-pants PC assumes the character is immune to death, and makes foolish choices as a result. But Death is the ultimate equal opportunity acceptor when it comes to dumb moves.

[Punkrabbitt]

What Bruce The Black has to say holds merit. I had the chance to play in a 5e game a few years ago. It's not as bad as 3e or 4e, but man are there a lot of rules to build a character with! So, I had an elf ranger. That gave me some rules I had to know, and I vaguely learned those and that was it. I was far more interested in researching the history of the Forgotten Realms because my elf was almost 200 years old and I figured he had seen some Things that might be interesting to bring up in the game play. I remember the other players had rule books and phone apps but I had my trusty dice box and handwritten character record sheet. So they would all tell me what I needed to roll and when, so I managed to do spectacularly when being Sneaky but fumbled a lot when being Shooty. I intentionally kept it siple for myself, not the least because getting really involved in the rues is very difficult for me these days (brain damage and all that.) That is one of the reasons I prefer OSR-style games, both to play in and tinker with. It's easy enugh to wrap my head around and I don't need to refer to 666 pages of rules spread across five or seven books.