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

[Thomas Shey]

When I spend a year designing a setting and determining (among many other things) the various cultures and creatures etc. that exist there, by the time it gets to the point of presenting it to prospective players and inviting them to join those things are locked in and nailed down. Here's the playable species (the seven from 1e, unless I decide I've seen enough Gnomes for a while and ban them), here's the basics of the setting, here's the culture of the starting area - let's roll 'em up and drop the puck!

And while you might call it a lack of respect that I don't offer you more choices, the flip side is that your request-demand-insistence that there be more choices shows a lack of respect for the work I've already put in...which doesn't exactly get us off to a promising start.

This does, however, require someone to assume doing predesign to the level there's no room in the setting for anything else is a good idea in the first place.

 

[Lanefan]

But in my experience people who insist playing an elf on Artra or a dragonborn on Middle-Earth just aren't a thing. Granted, I am sure they they actually are thing, but not in my circles.

I've had one - during the era when Twilight was a big deal, one player spent a lot of time and effort lobbying me to allow a Vampire PC.

And that was a hard no.

 

[Lanefan]

So what is the point of players, then? I mean, why does the GM just not write some more setting bible if they have such little interest in the players and their play of their PCs?

The setting - designed and created by someone else - is a dead thing until the players, through their PCs, bring it to life.

Just like an empty stage set - designed and built by someone else - is a dead thing until the actors, through playing their parts, bring it to life.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When I spend a year designing a setting and determining (among many other things) the various cultures and creatures etc. that exist there, by the time it gets to the point of presenting it to prospective players and inviting them to join those things are locked in and nailed down. Here's the playable species (the seven from 1e, unless I decide I've seen enough Gnomes for a while and ban them), here's the basics of the setting, here's the culture of the starting area - let's roll 'em up and drop the puck!

And while you might call it a lack of respect that I don't offer you more choices, the flip side is that your request-demand-insistence that there be more choices shows a lack of respect for the work I've already put in...which doesn't exactly get us off to a promising start.

If you spend a year making something and then pitch it to your players and none of them find it nearly as interesting as you had hoped, is it an issue of them being bad players for not instantly loving whatever you created? Or is the issue that you worked too hard on something without actually confirming that it would be interesting to the people interacting with it?

Because if you're spending an entire year working on a setting before anyone is even allowed to know anything about it, I don't really think players are what you're looking for. I think an audience is what you're looking for.

 

[AnotherGuy]

All very lovely, but as I've said before, there's no reason that has to be the guy running the game, nor a single person at all, and all defenses of it either add up to assumptions players can't make unselfish decisions, desire for speed over everything else, or simply appeals to tradition.

You're missing Setting Consistency.

But here is the thing....why should Crawford (a single person) trump the DM and somehow be more acceptable. In my experience Crawford messed up with his ruling on Shield Mastery. There was an entire thread about his bogus ruling.

 

[Lanefan]

And what happens if you're pitched the campaign, say yes, and start coming up with character concepts before Session Zero and its attendant information?

Because I can tell you right now, essentially zero experienced gamers I've played with (meaning, those who had had at least one reasonably ongoing campaign previously) went into Session Zero without some idea of what they would prefer to play. It of course starts out loose and tightens over time, but IMO Session Zero is already far, FAR too late for handing out ban after ban after ban.

If you're going to be slicing off large sections of the PHB, it's on you as DM to specify that in the pitch.

To me the pitch IS session 0.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I've seen lesser extremes of the above, as well, the DM SHOULD have a love for his world, but they should also have a love for the PCs interacting with and messing it up!

a GM should have a love for their players messing up their world but in the right circumstance, there's a difference between players messing it up because they're digging deep into it and getting involved, and them messing it up because of being apathetic of it's existence.

the sandcastle that gets destroyed acting out an intense seige VS the sandcastle that gets destroyed by someone stepping on it not looking at where they're walking.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You're missing Setting Consistency.

Not been an issue in what I've been talking about, because I've carefully steered clear of setting elements.

But here is the thing....why should Crawford (a single person) trump the DM and somehow be more acceptable. In my experience Crawford messed up with his ruling on Shield Mastery.

He shouldn't, automatically. But then, neither should the GM automatically trump him. If it was that bad, shouldn't be hard to get at least one player to want the change too, shouldn't it?

 

[Oofta]

...

I've seen lesser extremes of the above, as well, the DM SHOULD have a love for his world, but they should also have a love for the PCs interacting with and messing it up!

I regularly have players do the unexpected and change what I thought was the likely story arcs. It's what makes the game interesting! If I just wanted to write bad fantasy fanfic, there are plenty of places to do that. But I want to see what's going to happen when I let the players loose on my world. What direction will they take? How will their actions influence the world?

One of the biggest reasons I avoid published adventures is because they tend to be far more linear than what I want. I throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall for my players to react to and I see what sticks. Sometimes we have fairly linear arcs that go as I expected. Other times I've had NPCs that were supposed to be the ultimate BBEG (literally become the vessel for a reborn goddess) that became staunch allies. Occasionally 90% of the session is improvised. It's half the fun of DMing for me. I've set the stage, how do the players mess it up?

 

[Umbran]

All I ask is that you be a bit more careful in how you say things.

Mod Note:

This from Mr. "Survey says... BZZZT!"? If you think you are in any position to school others, you are sorely mistaken.

Let me up the ante from my previous moderation - some of you ought to disengage from each other, like, now, if you want to avoid being summarily tossed out of this discussion.