@3:30 thirty years ago people were calling this "The Road to El Dorado" because in practice it basically never happens that players who aren't trying to fulfill their own narrative sense produce a story worth repeating accidentally while trying to win an analog videogame. "The DM should run around behind everyone's backs to create the illusion of accidental storytelling" isn't better for me, but it rose to prominence in the first place because players abdicated their responsibilities to actually do something fun.
14:45 Players should not be asking to make specific checks, players should describe what they want to do. "I want to search for anything hidden around, particularly any hidden doors." The DM then will decide if a check is required, if a check is required they will generally tell the player to "Sure you can search, give me a Perception check." This not only works better because the DM can best decide what check to use here, or lack of a check if no check is required. Without a check the DM could say: "You look around and notice as you move the rug that there appears to be a hidden hatch."
I don't think you're wrong, I just think I disagree philosophically. It's not ME the player describing what I want to do. I'm declaring how I'll be activating my character's skill and I don't think that's up to the DM to decide. However, I'm generally advocating for a reduction in DM power and responsibility at the table, so YMMV
@@MegaBlizzardman Appreciate the response - I mean Player Character (PC), my bad on that ha. That's fair, if the DM as less power and is more of a referee then a PC using a specific skill for a certain situation would be more reasonable.
I think the fundamental issue here is that Rule Zero was never meant to be explicit keys to arbitrarily change the game and that's effectively how you're portraying it, with a heavy amount of biases on other bad habits those sorts of players have. It's an acknowledgment by the designers that they may not have gotten everything to your specific taste and are providing you clear permission to change the content if it increases the amount of enjoyment you get out of what they've designed. Rule Zero is just another tool and when used poorly causes damage to your game, much as I'm not going to be doing my toilet any favours if I try to tighten the bolts of the seat with my hammer. This is true of any ruling and even in how you interpret the language of the rules. A common example of this in 5Es lifespan is flanking. 5E doesn't have flanking rules and so movement isn't highly encouraged once you're engaged. Players "fixed" this by implementing flanking rules by giving a flat +2 bonus or advantage on the rolls (these are the most common house rules I've seen). Both of these changes may make monsters easier to hit, but also encourage movement and provide more weight to what you choose to use your reaction for. This isn't objectively better design, but it's reasonable to suggest that a table of players may enjoy a fight that offers more dynamic movement versus a simpler combat solution that helps streamline fights to get back to the roleplaying. I believe you have reached excellent conclusions through certain principals you're saying are important, but your thoughts around them feel very emotionally and prejudicially driven, particularly with "story" gamers to the point where I'd challenge it's hurting your play. You had mentioned that consistency is key, which I don't disagree with, but then use an example of a player asking to make a perception check to find secret doors. I think this is the other extreme and the problem of _shelving_ Rule Zero where PCs are encouraged to engage with a situation by pressing buttons on their character sheet. PCs should be explaining what their character is doing and engaging with the world. When you emphasize rules over rulings, you no longer have that assurance that the game won't screech to a halt every time you do something not explicitly stated as possible, and so you're telling your PCs to engage only with what's certain. At that point, it's less efficient to have a human in the DM's chair and you would all better be served playing a video game instead of a TTRPG where your inputs can be extrapolated upon, interpreted, and even discussed before an output is given. Playing purely by rules devolves the craft instead of leveraging its strengths of having a thinking, breathing human discussing how to judge the situation and coming up with fantastical outcomes that will create memorable moments.
The fundamental issue here is DM power tripping and seeing the game as "theirs" instead of a collaboration between players and game master to tell a unique story of adversity/success. Arbitrary house rulings on game mechanics that already addressed how to resolve an action is what actually halts the game. If both players and DMs are on the same page, it makes interacting with the world easier and more efficient. When DMs break RAI, it can unbalance the game and make it completely unfun. I'm sorry but not all DMs are great game designers and matter of fact, most suck at it. Their strength is in storytelling, not game physics.
Example - DMs house ruling the spell, Suggestion to be way more powerful than the designers intended all because DMs love the "splitting party loyalties" drama. Suggestion is not Dominate and was never designed to be like Dominate. Suggestion was not designed to be able to turn party member or loved ones against each other. It was intended to be used as a social spell where one could get the victim to do something they don't want but was "reasonable". Some of you DMs get so liberal with interpretations that you made Suggestion more powerful and less limited than Dominate series of spells and thus making those spells pretty useless. If I can just cast Mass Suggestion and get Monsters/enemies to fight for me and kill their former allies, all while not concentrating, why the F would I take Dominate Monster which is 8th level, is concentration and has saves every round? It's dumb. It's dumb to turn a 2nd level spell into a more powerful versions of much higher level of spells. Now the DM has created a "dumb arms race" where PCs are like, "well, if you can do that with Suggestion, so can I!" Great! Now we've turned this game into a contest of which side can cast Suggestion on the other successfully first and make the other team turn on each other. I wanted to play DnD but now I feel like I'm in a Benny Hill senario because of "free thinking" Dmery.... I literally lived through that example and it was excruciatingly painfully stupid. I was so glad when 2024 rules on Suggestion made it clear the spell was never intended to be used to get loved ones to kill each other. If you want a mother to kill her child, you need Dominate. That's just one example of dumb house rulings gone wrong when we should have just stuck to "more reasonable" RAI. F RAW, its all about RAI. More agreement on how the world works mechanically makes for a smoother game.
Fully agreed. I don't bother with encumbrance, I find the headspace it requires not conducive to the types of games I want to run and my players generally agree. I've let players harvest various interesting monster parts and come up with fitting interesting effects for them, a system that's essentially not supported by any books I have. Sometimes I will just accept that a persuasion check succeeds without a roll. Sometimes I won't let it succeed no matter what they roll. Sometimes if there's another party arguing their case at the same time I'll make a contested roll to see who his more persuasive. The idea of rule zero is ultimately tangential to DMs forcing a particularly crafted story experience down players throats. Rule zero can absolutely be misused, but putting it as the cause for this "pick a path adventure" he dislikes in "DM as storyteller" seems like a major red herring
@@calebcoulter2268Encumbrance is done poorly in 5e, but I struggle to ignore it because I think is the only real balancing factor between "strenght fighters" and "dexterity fighters"... In my opinion it should be more streamlined and more integral in actual gameplay. For the rest, I agree with you 😉
As a 5e running, on-spot rule calling, dice fudging, 10 homebrew rule document for game writing, plot planning, world simulating, over-preparing, story building dm of about 5 years I feel very called out. Running 5e has always been so mentally exhausting for me. After every session I just felt like I used all of my brain power for a concentrated 3-5 hours (which I did, sometimes 3 times a week with the same group). I tried running a much simpler game based on the d20 system for 2-3 players but I still felt so exhausted. Now I'm running a 4e campaign for 3 players and trying my best to build situations not stories, trying my best to keep to rules as written and attempting to work with the system instead of against it. I cannot recommend it enough. Something just clicked for me. I'm only really exhausted after long combat sessions. Other times I feel fine. Don't really have a point with this comment. Just wanted to drop some thoughts, and continue hope to enjoy playing this amazing game for even longer.
My approach to DMing is to make a mostly linear story with an emphasis on challenging mechanical combat and resource management. If they do something wildly out of left field, I might end a session a bit early to prepare for the next steps. This is a skeletal strucutre that works for me, both in mechanical and story based campaigns. More Dragon Age: Origins and less Skyrim. Here's my secret to story driven campaigns though: Secret player objectives. I make a bunch of secret objectives and make a raffle, so only the player knows what their secret objective is. I can start to guess who got what objectives if they do something obvious, but it creates a tension between players that can be great for roleplaying and making players start taking initiative.
That interpretation of Rule 0 is not how I've been familiar with it. The Rule 0 I know is, "The DM has final say." That's it. Nothing about 'fair play' or 'fun'. Rule 0 is there to shut down arguments about rules. You hope the DM is fair about their use of Rule 0, but it's not a requirement.
@neiana most players like RAI. So breaking the rules to me = lazy DM that has infinite resources but can't seem to use game mechanics to accomplish their goals. Like Invisibility is a good example of how a spell gets house ruled into oblivion and becomes way more OP than the developers intended. RAI, you are supposed to hide within your Invisibility to become undetectable. I follow the rules when my characters use Improved Invisibility which means they are unseen but detectable unless they hide and beat PP. So many DMs just flat out ignore PP and just have their enemy mages with +0 stealth scores cast Invisibility and get the same benefits as an Arcane Trickster who is built to actually use Invisibility to it's max potential. When you casually break rules, it makes the world less believable and trains you to not trust the mechanics of the game world.
@@007ohboy Great. Again, D&D itself gives its entire existence over to the idea of someone house ruling another system. Without that, D&D does not exist.
@@007ohboy So by not putting effort in making a more complex and better system is being lazy, using what is written is putting in the effort. I can't how this is logical.
@AnarchySystem No, they just make it simplified, stupid and broken. Same example as before, why do some DMs believe it's balanced to use Invisibility as a free hide Action? Why do these same lazy brained DMs not think about the balance of their simple minded houserule? If the monsters can do it, so can the players. Now your players get to turn invisible, not be detected without buring up actions and making skill checks, and become undetectable fireball death machines. Good job noob DM, you started an arms race because you failed to acknowledge the wisdom of RAI when it comes to invisibility/stealth. Suggestion was another spell in its 2014 version that got completely misused by a ton of DMs. Making Suggestion as powerful as Dominate completely break spell balance and makes Dominate pretty much useless and a waste of time. Same thing with Charm. Despite what some smooth brain DMs says, Charm doesn't make you switch sides....because that's stupid for a 1st level spell. Big dumb. You have Dominate right there, use the appropriate spell for the intended outcome. Jesus.... 99% of the time if you just stick to RAI, you can do cool stuff and have a mechanically CONSISTENT world.
Disagree, My table has no problem with, “let’s do it this way this time. I’ll get back to you with RAW before next session.” Hell, half the time they say, “Oh, that’s the RAW? Wow that’s stupid and makes no sense.. the way you did it was better, let’s just keep that.” No one wants to watch you flip through a book of tables that barely simulate realism in the first place. No DM knows all the rules, no book can account for all situations and no two people agree on everything. the game needs a creative and flexible DM as much as concrete rules. I’ve seen the tables that are obsessed with RaW and they tend to be a yawn fest IMO. Pacing is king.
@Numberi Ha, it wasn't about being a flexible GM. It was about GURPS likely having a suggestion / rule somewhere in it's vast library to have it covered. Also, some of them are written like history books, if you are into that. I learned more about the Old Wes from the GURPS book than I ever did in school!
@@slaapliedje i’d still like to imagine that after years of absorbing tables, it finally begins to become intuitive. Then you reach the point where your guess is usually within 1 of the actual target number give or take
@@Numberi in play, the only time I look at any tables is for speed/size/range modifier, and the critical hit/miss tables. On the rare occasion the Fright check one as well. The NPC reaction table is useful if you are into that sort of thing. If you want to see a game with a lot of tables... Powers & Perils (they literally released a Book of Tables) and Rolemaster based games. They have tons of tables... to the point we would call it Roll master, because you rolled on tables for everything. GURPS is really intuitive. Everything works of 3d6, roll under your skill +/- modifier to be successful.
If there is a rule that we can’t quickly look up I’ll make a call and let everyone know I’ll email the actual rule up once found. We don’t have PDFs of 5e (because they won’t sell them) so sometimes stopping a combat to know if you can pick up both your weapons as your interact action or just one can take time. It doesn’t change anything so I would make a quick call and note that as a temporary rule. Stopping the action to look up a rule (especially if it’s not to do something epic) really takes away from the excitement of the moment.
rule zero feels like a treacherous gift where it pretends to make life easier on the game master while actually forfeiting responsibility of the game developer. Classic "Bethesda games fixed by modders" situation. Yes it's nice to choose whatever mods you want (in a single player game, but different for multiplayer!!) but this is NEVER AN EXCUSE for the game developer to NOT DO THEIR JOB and release a functional and coherent and balanced and well maintained product.
Ive always looked at rule 0 less as "Dm is in charge and can ignore the rules for the story" and more "If a rule doesnt make sense in the games current situation, then ignore it."
I've experienced the opposite of this issue, where people will only obey the word of god (the company who made the rules) even it is detrimental to their experience.
Have a player like that now who is argumentative about any deviation from RAW. He’s the only player not having fun at the table in our CoS campaign and is slowly pissing me off.
We all play together at a table to have fun. Every group has a different definition of what's fun for them, sure. I don't like the gatekeeping going on here, telling people how to have fun. I love there is a "rule zero". You make it up on the go if you don't know the rule, tell everyone and check it after the game. Play it correctly next time. If a player knows the rule, we play by the rule. But we're not going to watch someone searching books.
The only rule zero i apply is limitations on races/classes if the setting requires so. (certain classes/races considered badguys for example) Or when i build my own encounters from statblocks. (no dice fudging but it will be a frankenstein like monster to fight usually balenced around the setting)
Woah- My players always rolled their own dice except for passive perception checks- But I always was rolling dice for creature/npc movements, just to mess with the players, and anxiety ….
I like the way my current DM put it: It's a game, it has rules. Games are meant to be fun, but rules are meant to bring structure... and players are more invested when they see there is a coherent structure, not a script.
The biggest example of a Rule 0 issue I've run across in 4E was a fighter wanting to use an ability, flavored in the game as a trip, on a jelly enemy that has neither legs nor an orientation that makes sense to be 'prone' The Game just specifies what the prone condition *is*. It's a collection of penalties. It also didn't specify that the target was Immune to being knocked 'prone'. The discussion at the table was weather the ability should work per RAW, or if it was more sensible to have an adjudicated effect that made more sense in game. One person argued that adjudicated power changes would excessively target martial abilities since they were the ones subject more to 'logic', and it might keep people from choosing those classes to keep from getting 'penalized' by having their abilities adjudicated where magical powers would always just work 'because magic'. It was Gamist philosophy vs. simulationist philosophy at the heart. The answer for the question ended up being a variable stamped on games up front before character creation in our games. (Generally based on GM)
in this case, though, I would personally prefer the solution to be modifying the jelly enemy statblock to be immune to the prone condition. I think that the player who was complaining would find this solution more palatable than telling them that they can't use a power unless the flavor description makes sense. After all, it isn't really a limitation of the PC that's the issue, its a feature of the monster. Magical effects that inflict prone on the jelly wouldn't be any more effective at making a jelly prone if the GM declares that the jelly is immune to prone. I actually think the rules are working pretty well, considering that we have the tools to have a gamist expression of your simulationist intent. Ultimately, I think the most elegant game systems give the table the tools do exactly this...take simulationist intent and translate it into gamist language.
In my experience this is not exactly a problem emerging from rule zero, but more a problem with mainstream TTRPG games. Mostly all problems that you describe for me solved games like titles from PbtA or FitD families.
The bowling team analogy was perfect and gave me a laugh. I do prefer rules as written, but there is a certain irony when playing something like 1e: rules as written in the old books are some contributors' house-rules over time, culminating in Gygax's magnum opus. Granted, these contributors deserve some reverence playing the primordial game, but really house-rules, and in some cases not very good ones. One could argue that slavish, blind adherence to every written rule is almost as problematic in its awkward execution as some DM making crap up on the fly. I do like wargame elements in my D&D, so maybe there is some merit to exploring 4e further, rather than parroting the common consensus on it. Was it a WOW replica or really a full-circle moment back to OD&D wargaming: if they hadn't been rushing to get it half-baked to print before anyone else could. Guess I'll find out. At least being hated so much keeps old 4e books relatively cheap to buy second-hand. heh. I would be curious what books you consider essential/recommended for 4e? The Rules Essentials Compendium seems perfect as I don't need the fluff and I couldn't care less about having art in my rulebook taking up space. Seems it covers everything.
I have to disagree, in that it has come up fairly often that gray areas crop up where it's not clear what should happen. This is especially true of cases where a module/dungeon/enemy has an unexpected interaction with another (very few games are simple enough this has never happened), or a player makes a suggestion or asks a question which is extremely logical in context, but strictly against the rules. Sometimes this gets in the way of the emergent storytelling of the game, where something very intriguing *almost* happened, but strictly following all rules exactly as they appear would either result in conflicts of rules, or would prevent something that far more interesting. Sometimes I encounter this when I run dungeon crawls in Pathfinder or AD&D 2E, where some complex interaction has a very satisfying and logical explanation, but some little snag in some rule prevents it. Perhaps that's part of the curse of extremely complex games, but any game that requires a neutral DM/referee tends to be that complex. Using rule zero can be the DM simply putting that last step into the emergent story to allow it to happen.
I wish I could give this vid more than one like. Lots of great points that helped clarify thoughts I had that you've put into words for me. Thank you 👍👍
I actually agree with you. Too much DnD Simms and not enough actually DnD is an issue. And yes, Im a big RAI guy. It means we all agree on how to run the game and interact, making it smoother. When DMs start power tripping and arbitrarily changing stuff up to fit a narritive, it does ruin immersion for me. Its especialy off putting when you know DMs have infinite resources and can obtain the desired narritve by using game mechanics. Its not hard. I mean, what cant you do using RAI and infinate resources? 😅😂 Its so silly.
Wow, you must have had some really bad DM's 🤣 like, most of the problems you're talking about are just.... i mean, how would they even happen in a game with grown-up people, who probably want to seriously enjoy a game of D&D, probably want both a fun AND fair challenge, etc etc. Also, "games should be about heroes" - how about not necessarily? :) I suppose even characters who start out as peasants in a really gritty world COULD eventually grow into heroes... but people shouldn't "form" a heroic character for their level 1 start of a big campaign, because that character SIMPLY ISN'T A HERO! Not yet! So i suppose, you have had a lot of bad experiences with bad DM's, and you have certain notions about what games should be like. Also, games should be very dry, without a narrative, and people should be making up the narrative as they go? Well why even play an RPG then, just play a videogame, or a tabletop game. D&D isn't about just playing a game, rolling dice and hitting monsters... it is SUPPOSED to have role-playing. Then again, i'm about your age, but i haven't even heard about D&D until 5E was already out. So who knows, maybe i'm wrong.
As a few others have said in the comments, I'd like to reiterate that "Rule Zero" is a tool. Like any tool, it's best used in the right context. Many here, including myself, are advocating for using your DM fiat to make a ruling in the moment intending to look up the correct rule later. This keeps the game going and also gives the group an opportunity to review after the session. In this sense Rule Zero gives the referee (in your case) the power to keep the game from stalling. The examples you gave about story-driven play seem to stem from something aside from Rule Zero. After watching a few of your videos I understand you have a very clear issue with story-driven play, but using Rule Zero to railroad PCs and take away their agency is a separate issue. It's a misuse of the tool.
I have never been a fan of session zero. It's hard enough to get together so when we do, let's just play the freaking game. As to the rules as written, I think deviating from rules is written as justified if you are playing in a game world that supports logical inconsistencies, and say a mythical underworld. For example, player says, "I have information I can see 60 ft in the dark according to the rules..". No none of the GM response and the minotaur's lair you can't see diddly squat, this is a whole new brand of dark. On the other side I would totally say you're 100% spot on when you say the game has to come out of player agency, not storytelling. And yeah, don't fudge the dice.No, not even then! 😊
My rule of fudging the dice; if it makes the game more fun or less fun, it's okay to fudge the dice occasionally. Example: If you're rolls are just exceptionally awesome in a session or two, that's fine... but if you're (as GM) consistently murdering your players... you're not going to have players for very long. Fudge them to let them live occasionally. If they're going to die, try to make it in a heroic fashion, instead of 'sorry bro, but that orc just got a crit on you, and now your head has been separated from the rest of your body.' Sure, that can happen occasionally, but I generally try and prevent it by a point or two... Session Zero, as far as I'm aware, is mostly useful to either introduce players/characters, or at the very least, let the players discuss what classes they want to play so there is some balance to the party (like everyone playing wizards would be entertaining, but I can't imagine them surviving for very long). This video is about Rule Zero, which understanding is... you can ignore any rule you want. Which in my mind... I do! I ignore D&D these days and play different games. :)
You do know"rule zero" has been around since waaay early on, right? It's not new to 5e. As well, your interpretation is either completely wrong or in bad faith. Rule Zero empowers the DM and the players to better collaborate in their game.
5E is rubbish and is not D&D, neither is 4E, but if you want to play a MMORPG emulator (both of them are) 4E is the better one. But if you want to play D&D, they are not, as aren´t Featfinder, Tales of The Valiant and the rest of WOW emulators lite. At least you are playing the best tabletop game for WOW. But you are not playing &D for sure.
the important part is that people play a fun game. its like arguing whether we should call a hotdog a sandwich. that's a fine argument to have, but no one should act like the answer will affect how tasty the sandwich is...nor should it inform whether you should eat one or not.
@3:30 thirty years ago people were calling this "The Road to El Dorado" because in practice it basically never happens that players who aren't trying to fulfill their own narrative sense produce a story worth repeating accidentally while trying to win an analog videogame.
"The DM should run around behind everyone's backs to create the illusion of accidental storytelling" isn't better for me, but it rose to prominence in the first place because players abdicated their responsibilities to actually do something fun.
14:45 Players should not be asking to make specific checks, players should describe what they want to do. "I want to search for anything hidden around, particularly any hidden doors." The DM then will decide if a check is required, if a check is required they will generally tell the player to "Sure you can search, give me a Perception check." This not only works better because the DM can best decide what check to use here, or lack of a check if no check is required. Without a check the DM could say: "You look around and notice as you move the rug that there appears to be a hidden hatch."
I don't think you're wrong, I just think I disagree philosophically. It's not ME the player describing what I want to do. I'm declaring how I'll be activating my character's skill and I don't think that's up to the DM to decide. However, I'm generally advocating for a reduction in DM power and responsibility at the table, so YMMV
@@MegaBlizzardman Appreciate the response - I mean Player Character (PC), my bad on that ha. That's fair, if the DM as less power and is more of a referee then a PC using a specific skill for a certain situation would be more reasonable.
In practice, rule zero is an non-issue. The actual issue is disagreement in where the authority at the table should lie. Focus on that.
I think the fundamental issue here is that Rule Zero was never meant to be explicit keys to arbitrarily change the game and that's effectively how you're portraying it, with a heavy amount of biases on other bad habits those sorts of players have. It's an acknowledgment by the designers that they may not have gotten everything to your specific taste and are providing you clear permission to change the content if it increases the amount of enjoyment you get out of what they've designed. Rule Zero is just another tool and when used poorly causes damage to your game, much as I'm not going to be doing my toilet any favours if I try to tighten the bolts of the seat with my hammer. This is true of any ruling and even in how you interpret the language of the rules.
A common example of this in 5Es lifespan is flanking. 5E doesn't have flanking rules and so movement isn't highly encouraged once you're engaged. Players "fixed" this by implementing flanking rules by giving a flat +2 bonus or advantage on the rolls (these are the most common house rules I've seen). Both of these changes may make monsters easier to hit, but also encourage movement and provide more weight to what you choose to use your reaction for. This isn't objectively better design, but it's reasonable to suggest that a table of players may enjoy a fight that offers more dynamic movement versus a simpler combat solution that helps streamline fights to get back to the roleplaying.
I believe you have reached excellent conclusions through certain principals you're saying are important, but your thoughts around them feel very emotionally and prejudicially driven, particularly with "story" gamers to the point where I'd challenge it's hurting your play. You had mentioned that consistency is key, which I don't disagree with, but then use an example of a player asking to make a perception check to find secret doors. I think this is the other extreme and the problem of _shelving_ Rule Zero where PCs are encouraged to engage with a situation by pressing buttons on their character sheet. PCs should be explaining what their character is doing and engaging with the world. When you emphasize rules over rulings, you no longer have that assurance that the game won't screech to a halt every time you do something not explicitly stated as possible, and so you're telling your PCs to engage only with what's certain. At that point, it's less efficient to have a human in the DM's chair and you would all better be served playing a video game instead of a TTRPG where your inputs can be extrapolated upon, interpreted, and even discussed before an output is given. Playing purely by rules devolves the craft instead of leveraging its strengths of having a thinking, breathing human discussing how to judge the situation and coming up with fantastical outcomes that will create memorable moments.
The fundamental issue here is DM power tripping and seeing the game as "theirs" instead of a collaboration between players and game master to tell a unique story of adversity/success.
Arbitrary house rulings on game mechanics that already addressed how to resolve an action is what actually halts the game.
If both players and DMs are on the same page, it makes interacting with the world easier and more efficient. When DMs break RAI, it can unbalance the game and make it completely unfun. I'm sorry but not all DMs are great game designers and matter of fact, most suck at it. Their strength is in storytelling, not game physics.
Example - DMs house ruling the spell, Suggestion to be way more powerful than the designers intended all because DMs love the "splitting party loyalties" drama.
Suggestion is not Dominate and was never designed to be like Dominate. Suggestion was not designed to be able to turn party member or loved ones against each other. It was intended to be used as a social spell where one could get the victim to do something they don't want but was "reasonable".
Some of you DMs get so liberal with interpretations that you made Suggestion more powerful and less limited than Dominate series of spells and thus making those spells pretty useless.
If I can just cast Mass Suggestion and get Monsters/enemies to fight for me and kill their former allies, all while not concentrating, why the F would I take Dominate Monster which is 8th level, is concentration and has saves every round? It's dumb. It's dumb to turn a 2nd level spell into a more powerful versions of much higher level of spells.
Now the DM has created a "dumb arms race" where PCs are like, "well, if you can do that with Suggestion, so can I!"
Great! Now we've turned this game into a contest of which side can cast Suggestion on the other successfully first and make the other team turn on each other. I wanted to play DnD but now I feel like I'm in a Benny Hill senario because of "free thinking" Dmery....
I literally lived through that example and it was excruciatingly painfully stupid. I was so glad when 2024 rules on Suggestion made it clear the spell was never intended to be used to get loved ones to kill each other. If you want a mother to kill her child, you need Dominate.
That's just one example of dumb house rulings gone wrong when we should have just stuck to "more reasonable" RAI. F RAW, its all about RAI.
More agreement on how the world works mechanically makes for a smoother game.
Fully agreed.
I don't bother with encumbrance, I find the headspace it requires not conducive to the types of games I want to run and my players generally agree.
I've let players harvest various interesting monster parts and come up with fitting interesting effects for them, a system that's essentially not supported by any books I have.
Sometimes I will just accept that a persuasion check succeeds without a roll. Sometimes I won't let it succeed no matter what they roll. Sometimes if there's another party arguing their case at the same time I'll make a contested roll to see who his more persuasive.
The idea of rule zero is ultimately tangential to DMs forcing a particularly crafted story experience down players throats. Rule zero can absolutely be misused, but putting it as the cause for this "pick a path adventure" he dislikes in "DM as storyteller" seems like a major red herring
@@calebcoulter2268Encumbrance is done poorly in 5e, but I struggle to ignore it because I think is the only real balancing factor between "strenght fighters" and "dexterity fighters"...
In my opinion it should be more streamlined and more integral in actual gameplay.
For the rest, I agree with you 😉
As a 5e running, on-spot rule calling, dice fudging, 10 homebrew rule document for game writing, plot planning, world simulating, over-preparing, story building dm of about 5 years I feel very called out.
Running 5e has always been so mentally exhausting for me. After every session I just felt like I used all of my brain power for a concentrated 3-5 hours (which I did, sometimes 3 times a week with the same group).
I tried running a much simpler game based on the d20 system for 2-3 players but I still felt so exhausted.
Now I'm running a 4e campaign for 3 players and trying my best to build situations not stories, trying my best to keep to rules as written and attempting to work with the system instead of against it. I cannot recommend it enough.
Something just clicked for me. I'm only really exhausted after long combat sessions. Other times I feel fine.
Don't really have a point with this comment. Just wanted to drop some thoughts, and continue hope to enjoy playing this amazing game for even longer.
My approach to DMing is to make a mostly linear story with an emphasis on challenging mechanical combat and resource management. If they do something wildly out of left field, I might end a session a bit early to prepare for the next steps.
This is a skeletal strucutre that works for me, both in mechanical and story based campaigns. More Dragon Age: Origins and less Skyrim.
Here's my secret to story driven campaigns though: Secret player objectives. I make a bunch of secret objectives and make a raffle, so only the player knows what their secret objective is. I can start to guess who got what objectives if they do something obvious, but it creates a tension between players that can be great for roleplaying and making players start taking initiative.
That interpretation of Rule 0 is not how I've been familiar with it. The Rule 0 I know is, "The DM has final say." That's it. Nothing about 'fair play' or 'fun'. Rule 0 is there to shut down arguments about rules. You hope the DM is fair about their use of Rule 0, but it's not a requirement.
I mean, house ruling has been around literally since before D&D.
House ruling is why D&D exists lol
@neiana most players like RAI. So breaking the rules to me = lazy DM that has infinite resources but can't seem to use game mechanics to accomplish their goals.
Like Invisibility is a good example of how a spell gets house ruled into oblivion and becomes way more OP than the developers intended. RAI, you are supposed to hide within your Invisibility to become undetectable. I follow the rules when my characters use Improved Invisibility which means they are unseen but detectable unless they hide and beat PP.
So many DMs just flat out ignore PP and just have their enemy mages with +0 stealth scores cast Invisibility and get the same benefits as an Arcane Trickster who is built to actually use Invisibility to it's max potential.
When you casually break rules, it makes the world less believable and trains you to not trust the mechanics of the game world.
@@007ohboy Great. Again, D&D itself gives its entire existence over to the idea of someone house ruling another system.
Without that, D&D does not exist.
@@007ohboy So by not putting effort in making a more complex and better system is being lazy, using what is written is putting in the effort.
I can't how this is logical.
@AnarchySystem No, they just make it simplified, stupid and broken. Same example as before, why do some DMs believe it's balanced to use Invisibility as a free hide Action? Why do these same lazy brained DMs not think about the balance of their simple minded houserule? If the monsters can do it, so can the players. Now your players get to turn invisible, not be detected without buring up actions and making skill checks, and become undetectable fireball death machines. Good job noob DM, you started an arms race because you failed to acknowledge the wisdom of RAI when it comes to invisibility/stealth.
Suggestion was another spell in its 2014 version that got completely misused by a ton of DMs. Making Suggestion as powerful as Dominate completely break spell balance and makes Dominate pretty much useless and a waste of time.
Same thing with Charm. Despite what some smooth brain DMs says, Charm doesn't make you switch sides....because that's stupid for a 1st level spell. Big dumb. You have Dominate right there, use the appropriate spell for the intended outcome. Jesus....
99% of the time if you just stick to RAI, you can do cool stuff and have a mechanically CONSISTENT world.
Disagree, My table has no problem with, “let’s do it this way this time. I’ll get back to you with RAW before next session.” Hell, half the time they say, “Oh, that’s the RAW? Wow that’s stupid and makes no sense.. the way you did it was better, let’s just keep that.”
No one wants to watch you flip through a book of tables that barely simulate realism in the first place.
No DM knows all the rules, no book can account for all situations and no two people agree on everything. the game needs a creative and flexible DM as much as concrete rules. I’ve seen the tables that are obsessed with RaW and they tend to be a yawn fest IMO.
Pacing is king.
"no book can account for all situations" /me looks at my GURPS book...
@@slaapliedje reading GURPS to become a flexible GM is like reading the dictionary to improve IQ.
@Numberi Ha, it wasn't about being a flexible GM. It was about GURPS likely having a suggestion / rule somewhere in it's vast library to have it covered.
Also, some of them are written like history books, if you are into that. I learned more about the Old Wes from the GURPS book than I ever did in school!
@@slaapliedje i’d still like to imagine that after years of absorbing tables, it finally begins to become intuitive. Then you reach the point where your guess is usually within 1 of the actual target number give or take
@@Numberi in play, the only time I look at any tables is for speed/size/range modifier, and the critical hit/miss tables. On the rare occasion the Fright check one as well. The NPC reaction table is useful if you are into that sort of thing.
If you want to see a game with a lot of tables... Powers & Perils (they literally released a Book of Tables) and Rolemaster based games. They have tons of tables... to the point we would call it Roll master, because you rolled on tables for everything.
GURPS is really intuitive. Everything works of 3d6, roll under your skill +/- modifier to be successful.
If there is a rule that we can’t quickly look up I’ll make a call and let everyone know I’ll email the actual rule up once found. We don’t have PDFs of 5e (because they won’t sell them) so sometimes stopping a combat to know if you can pick up both your weapons as your interact action or just one can take time. It doesn’t change anything so I would make a quick call and note that as a temporary rule. Stopping the action to look up a rule (especially if it’s not to do something epic) really takes away from the excitement of the moment.
rule zero feels like a treacherous gift where it pretends to make life easier on the game master while actually forfeiting responsibility of the game developer. Classic "Bethesda games fixed by modders" situation. Yes it's nice to choose whatever mods you want (in a single player game, but different for multiplayer!!) but this is NEVER AN EXCUSE for the game developer to NOT DO THEIR JOB and release a functional and coherent and balanced and well maintained product.
Ive always looked at rule 0 less as "Dm is in charge and can ignore the rules for the story" and more "If a rule doesnt make sense in the games current situation, then ignore it."
I've experienced the opposite of this issue, where people will only obey the word of god (the company who made the rules) even it is detrimental to their experience.
Have a player like that now who is argumentative about any deviation from RAW. He’s the only player not having fun at the table in our CoS campaign and is slowly pissing me off.
We all play together at a table to have fun. Every group has a different definition of what's fun for them, sure. I don't like the gatekeeping going on here, telling people how to have fun.
I love there is a "rule zero". You make it up on the go if you don't know the rule, tell everyone and check it after the game. Play it correctly next time.
If a player knows the rule, we play by the rule. But we're not going to watch someone searching books.
The only rule zero i apply is limitations on races/classes if the setting requires so. (certain classes/races considered badguys for example)
Or when i build my own encounters from statblocks. (no dice fudging but it will be a frankenstein like monster to fight usually balenced around the setting)
Woah-
My players always rolled their own dice except for passive perception checks-
But I always was rolling dice for creature/npc movements, just to mess with the players, and anxiety ….
Rule Zero was misapplied before it was a rule, misapplied after.
Do what works for your main group.
I like the way my current DM put it:
It's a game, it has rules. Games are meant to be fun, but rules are meant to bring structure... and players are more invested when they see there is a coherent structure, not a script.
Spot on.
The biggest example of a Rule 0 issue I've run across in 4E was a fighter wanting to use an ability, flavored in the game as a trip, on a jelly enemy that has neither legs nor an orientation that makes sense to be 'prone'
The Game just specifies what the prone condition *is*. It's a collection of penalties. It also didn't specify that the target was Immune to being knocked 'prone'.
The discussion at the table was weather the ability should work per RAW, or if it was more sensible to have an adjudicated effect that made more sense in game.
One person argued that adjudicated power changes would excessively target martial abilities since they were the ones subject more to 'logic', and it might keep people from choosing those classes to keep from getting 'penalized' by having their abilities adjudicated where magical powers would always just work 'because magic'.
It was Gamist philosophy vs. simulationist philosophy at the heart. The answer for the question ended up being a variable stamped on games up front before character creation in our games. (Generally based on GM)
I encountered similar with a Rogue having a power that hamstrings a gas cloud. That doesn’t visually make sense.
in this case, though, I would personally prefer the solution to be modifying the jelly enemy statblock to be immune to the prone condition. I think that the player who was complaining would find this solution more palatable than telling them that they can't use a power unless the flavor description makes sense. After all, it isn't really a limitation of the PC that's the issue, its a feature of the monster. Magical effects that inflict prone on the jelly wouldn't be any more effective at making a jelly prone if the GM declares that the jelly is immune to prone. I actually think the rules are working pretty well, considering that we have the tools to have a gamist expression of your simulationist intent. Ultimately, I think the most elegant game systems give the table the tools do exactly this...take simulationist intent and translate it into gamist language.
I agree with the story emerging from informed choices that your players make but I think that 4e inhibits this largely past 1st level
Preach it 🙏
In my experience this is not exactly a problem emerging from rule zero, but more a problem with mainstream TTRPG games.
Mostly all problems that you describe for me solved games like titles from PbtA or FitD families.
The bowling team analogy was perfect and gave me a laugh. I do prefer rules as written, but there is a certain irony when playing something like 1e: rules as written in the old books are some contributors' house-rules over time, culminating in Gygax's magnum opus. Granted, these contributors deserve some reverence playing the primordial game, but really house-rules, and in some cases not very good ones. One could argue that slavish, blind adherence to every written rule is almost as problematic in its awkward execution as some DM making crap up on the fly.
I do like wargame elements in my D&D, so maybe there is some merit to exploring 4e further, rather than parroting the common consensus on it. Was it a WOW replica or really a full-circle moment back to OD&D wargaming: if they hadn't been rushing to get it half-baked to print before anyone else could. Guess I'll find out. At least being hated so much keeps old 4e books relatively cheap to buy second-hand. heh. I would be curious what books you consider essential/recommended for 4e? The Rules Essentials Compendium seems perfect as I don't need the fluff and I couldn't care less about having art in my rulebook taking up space. Seems it covers everything.
I hear you... Let me craft what the people want, maybe it won't be perfect but you are heard.
What the heck is going on with your mic? It's making my ears feel crazy lol.
I have to disagree, in that it has come up fairly often that gray areas crop up where it's not clear what should happen. This is especially true of cases where a module/dungeon/enemy has an unexpected interaction with another (very few games are simple enough this has never happened), or a player makes a suggestion or asks a question which is extremely logical in context, but strictly against the rules. Sometimes this gets in the way of the emergent storytelling of the game, where something very intriguing *almost* happened, but strictly following all rules exactly as they appear would either result in conflicts of rules, or would prevent something that far more interesting. Sometimes I encounter this when I run dungeon crawls in Pathfinder or AD&D 2E, where some complex interaction has a very satisfying and logical explanation, but some little snag in some rule prevents it.
Perhaps that's part of the curse of extremely complex games, but any game that requires a neutral DM/referee tends to be that complex. Using rule zero can be the DM simply putting that last step into the emergent story to allow it to happen.
I wish I could give this vid more than one like. Lots of great points that helped clarify thoughts I had that you've put into words for me. Thank you 👍👍
I actually agree with you. Too much DnD Simms and not enough actually DnD is an issue. And yes, Im a big RAI guy. It means we all agree on how to run the game and interact, making it smoother. When DMs start power tripping and arbitrarily changing stuff up to fit a narritive, it does ruin immersion for me.
Its especialy off putting when you know DMs have infinite resources and can obtain the desired narritve by using game mechanics. Its not hard. I mean, what cant you do using RAI and infinate resources? 😅😂
Its so silly.
Hoho, Roll For Combat reference, nice
Wow, you must have had some really bad DM's 🤣 like, most of the problems you're talking about are just.... i mean, how would they even happen in a game with grown-up people, who probably want to seriously enjoy a game of D&D, probably want both a fun AND fair challenge, etc etc.
Also, "games should be about heroes" - how about not necessarily? :) I suppose even characters who start out as peasants in a really gritty world COULD eventually grow into heroes... but people shouldn't "form" a heroic character for their level 1 start of a big campaign, because that character SIMPLY ISN'T A HERO! Not yet!
So i suppose, you have had a lot of bad experiences with bad DM's, and you have certain notions about what games should be like. Also, games should be very dry, without a narrative, and people should be making up the narrative as they go? Well why even play an RPG then, just play a videogame, or a tabletop game. D&D isn't about just playing a game, rolling dice and hitting monsters... it is SUPPOSED to have role-playing.
Then again, i'm about your age, but i haven't even heard about D&D until 5E was already out. So who knows, maybe i'm wrong.
Yes yes yes a thousand times yes!
As a few others have said in the comments, I'd like to reiterate that "Rule Zero" is a tool. Like any tool, it's best used in the right context. Many here, including myself, are advocating for using your DM fiat to make a ruling in the moment intending to look up the correct rule later. This keeps the game going and also gives the group an opportunity to review after the session. In this sense Rule Zero gives the referee (in your case) the power to keep the game from stalling.
The examples you gave about story-driven play seem to stem from something aside from Rule Zero. After watching a few of your videos I understand you have a very clear issue with story-driven play, but using Rule Zero to railroad PCs and take away their agency is a separate issue. It's a misuse of the tool.
I totally agree; if DMs used it exclusively for making the occasional ruling to help game flow it would be great.
The law of unintended consequences usually wins.
I have never been a fan of session zero. It's hard enough to get together so when we do, let's just play the freaking game. As to the rules as written, I think deviating from rules is written as justified if you are playing in a game world that supports logical inconsistencies, and say a mythical underworld. For example, player says, "I have information I can see 60 ft in the dark according to the rules..". No none of the GM response and the minotaur's lair you can't see diddly squat, this is a whole new brand of dark.
On the other side I would totally say you're 100% spot on when you say the game has to come out of player agency, not storytelling. And yeah, don't fudge the dice.No, not even then! 😊
Session zero=/= rule zero
My rule of fudging the dice; if it makes the game more fun or less fun, it's okay to fudge the dice occasionally. Example: If you're rolls are just exceptionally awesome in a session or two, that's fine... but if you're (as GM) consistently murdering your players... you're not going to have players for very long. Fudge them to let them live occasionally. If they're going to die, try to make it in a heroic fashion, instead of 'sorry bro, but that orc just got a crit on you, and now your head has been separated from the rest of your body.' Sure, that can happen occasionally, but I generally try and prevent it by a point or two...
Session Zero, as far as I'm aware, is mostly useful to either introduce players/characters, or at the very least, let the players discuss what classes they want to play so there is some balance to the party (like everyone playing wizards would be entertaining, but I can't imagine them surviving for very long).
This video is about Rule Zero, which understanding is... you can ignore any rule you want. Which in my mind... I do! I ignore D&D these days and play different games. :)
You do know"rule zero" has been around since waaay early on, right? It's not new to 5e. As well, your interpretation is either completely wrong or in bad faith. Rule Zero empowers the DM and the players to better collaborate in their game.
It wasn't in bad faith, so probably completely wrong
5E is rubbish and is not D&D, neither is 4E, but if you want to play a MMORPG emulator (both of them are) 4E is the better one. But if you want to play D&D, they are not, as aren´t Featfinder, Tales of The Valiant and the rest of WOW emulators lite. At least you are playing the best tabletop game for WOW. But you are not playing &D for sure.
the important part is that people play a fun game. its like arguing whether we should call a hotdog a sandwich. that's a fine argument to have, but no one should act like the answer will affect how tasty the sandwich is...nor should it inform whether you should eat one or not.