Ask yourself how they have been socialized. Maybe 4e DOES matter!

Dude I have no idea what you're discussing most of the time Set. It's like you pop into various threads and shout "Cobalt Barium Einstein Koolaid!" And we're just supposed to figure out what the hell you're trying to say.

I have no trouble understanding what Sett is saying.

Quote from: HaffrungI have no trouble understanding what Sett is saying.

Then that makes one of us. I have no idea what he's saying, whom he is saying it to, or why. And I've read the thread several times. I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, but I can generally understand what most people are saying.

Lately his posts read like a Meth addicts ramblings.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Pseudo's predictions might come to pass. The next great movement in RPGs will be a movement rebelling against the tyranny of Fun and the tyranny of the Rules over GMs, and with any luck the 5th Edition of D&D will be a direct reaction to the excesses of 4e with regards to these tyrannies.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniAsk yourself how they have been socialized. Maybe 4e DOES matter!

I said, "No one is saying it doesn't effect the general RPG culture." Are you deaf?

Back on topic, "Rule 0" is not in the DMG (I was reading it on our laydowns for next week). It in fact has an anti ""Rule 0" stance presented on page 16.

QuoteWhat a Dungeon Master does is commonly called "running the game." That's a bit of a loaded phrase, since it suggests that the DM is in charge, an absolute authority, and responsible for the rest of the players. This chapter is not about he DM's job, but everyone's responsibility for keeping the game moving smoothly.

There, no "Rule 0," in fact an ANTI "rule 0."

Okay, I'm going to leave aside indirect or implied quotations like this one [Page 7, DMG]: "Different people have different ideas of what’s fun about D&D. Remember that the 'right way' to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy," and look for something more concrete.

Page 110: "Remember, you are the creator and final arbiter of the game, not a rule, someone else’s sense of realism, or any other outside factor." [This appears, somewhat ridiculously, at the end of a section about realism, and how you shouldn't get too hung up about it.]

Page 189: "If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights." [The book then goes on to explain how to create random dungeons, which is so alien to my programming that I must pause and reset.]

Are these explicit enough to say that, yes, the game contains Rule 0? I certainly would like to see something more explicit - how about an entry at the front of the book that says, "Rule 0: the GM is the final arbiter of all rules that follow." - but can we draw the conclusion that in 4e, by the rules, the GM ultimately decides how and when to apply those rules?

Quote from: KrakaJakThere, no rule zero, and in fact, an ANTI "rule 0".

An interesting interpretation. Where does it say that the GM isn't "in charge, an absolute authority, and responsible for the rest of the players?" Maybe I'm being too literal, but the quoted passage just says it's a loaded phrase, not that it isn't true; since it goes on to say that as a GM, you're in charge, have absolute authority, and are, indeed, responsible - though not solely responsible - for the rest of the players, I don't read this as an anti-Rule 0, or as having anything to do with Rule 0 at all.

Quote from: EngineAn interesting interpretation. Where does it say that the GM isn't "in charge, an absolute authority, and responsible for the rest of the players?" Maybe I'm being too literal, but the quoted passage just says it's a loaded phrase, not that it isn't true; since it goes on to say that as a GM, you're in charge, have absolute authority, and are, indeed, responsible - though not solely responsible - for the rest of the players, I don't read this as an anti-Rule 0, or as having anything to do with Rule 0 at all.

Calling it a "loaded phrase" implies that it's presumptions are false. I put the whole paragraph in there for context but the key part is this

QuoteThat's a bit of a loaded phrase, since it suggests that the DM is in charge, an absolute authority,

If you follow through with the rest of the chapter, it constantly states that the GM must defer to the rulebook. That when a player calls him out on a "bad call" he needs to defer to the rulebook. Or if he's bad "with the rules" to designate a player as the "official rules guy."

Quote from: KrakaJakCalling it a "loaded phrase" implies that it's presumptions are false.

Well, I don't think that's what "loaded phrase" implies, but our individual interpretations aside, the sentence is a part of a chapter about players and GM cooperating to produce the game. It seems to me that what they're trying to say is that the GM isn't the only person responsible for the smooth flow of the game, which is what they go on to say.

In any case, if your interpretation is correct, how does one reconcile that with further statements to the contrary which aren't in sections of the book detailing the other people responsible for enjoyment of the game?

Quote from: KrakaJakIf you follow through with the rest of the chapter, it constantly states that the GM must defer to the rulebook. That when a player calls him out on a "bad call" he needs to defer to the rulebook. Or if he's bad "with the rules" to designate a player as the "official rules guy."

I do see this, on page 19: "If you don't want to break your narrative stride by looking up a rule, designate another player to be the rulebook reference expert." But that isn't because you're bad "with the rules." [That phrase, by the way, appears nowhere in the chapter; your use of quotation marks was somewhat misleading.] And that quote, by the way, in context:

QuoteIf there are parts of the game you find burdensome, assign them to players who enjoy them. If you don't want to break your narrative stride by looking up a rule, designate another player to be the rulebook reference expert. If you don't like tracking initiative, have another player do it for you. Players can make the DM's life easier in a lot of little ways, from never making you pay for pizza to helping to flesh out the background of the campaign world. You have enough to do—delegate what you can.

When a group of players shares the responsibilities of running the game, everyone has more fun. Best of all, the players feel as though it's their game, not just yours.

So that can't be what you were referring to. Page number?

And the "Bad Rules Call" section, by the way, is under, "Fixing Your Mistakes." It's about when you make a mistake, and need to correct it, such as when you make a bad rules call. This isn't addressing cases in which the GM has modified rules, or made an adjudication, but in cases when ya just got it wrong.

Look, I think 4e deserves to be damned, but it deserves to be damned for what it is.

Quote from: SettembriniAsk yourself how they have been socialized. Maybe 4e DOES matter!

Sure it will. But let's not be fundamentalists here. The important thing is the culture that grows up around 4e, not the literal wording of the corebooks. Thus, our important role in publishing supplementary material, encouraging and training younger gamers, and more generally, encouraging an atmosphere where gaming develops in the directions we would like to see. If you hold the corebooks' influence to be all important in determining what D&D is, you've already ceded the most important point to the other side.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm cautiously optimistic that Pseudo's predictions might come to pass. The next great movement in RPGs will be a movement rebelling against the tyranny of Fun and the tyranny of the Rules over GMs, and with any luck the 5th Edition of D&D will be a direct reaction to the excesses of 4e with regards to these tyrannies.

RPGPundit

I would read 3.x as a reaction to 2e, especially in its emphasis on unifying core mechanics, integrating mechanically-oriented character customisation into character creation, and just generally trying to clean up the sprawling mess of incompatible sub-systems, incomprehensible exceptions and unclear wording of much of 2e.

Quote from: EngineIn any case, if your interpretation is correct, how does one reconcile that with further statements to the contrary which aren't in sections of the book detailing the other people responsible for enjoyment of the game?

Where are the statements to the contrary? I don't actually have a copy of the book, but I would love to read where they actually empower the DM somewhere. The closest I've read is where they say that a GM's interpretation of the rules are the ones that stand. They do however...still have to interpret the rules.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI would read 3.x as a reaction to 2e, especially in its emphasis on unifying core mechanics, integrating mechanically-oriented character customisation into character creation, and just generally trying to clean up the sprawling mess of incompatible sub-systems, incomprehensible exceptions and unclear wording of much of 2e.

There's no question that 3e was a reaction to 2e. It was fixing up the royal clusterfuck that 2e had become due to the story-based gaming movement.

That's part of what leads me to hope that an eventual 5e will end up being the same with regards to 4e.

Its like the opposite of star trek films.

RPGPundit