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

[Scribe]

Some examples of what loses trust, thematic and mechanic:

Interesting, thanks for your perspective.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, they said they set the stage, not that they wrote the script. There is no script, the lines are for the players to invent.

My problem is that there's a lot more going on here than just setting the stage. It's also telling the players what costumes they can wear, and what accents they can have, and what backgrounds they can portray, and whether they're allowed to use facial prostheses, and how they're allowed to relate to one another, and where they're allowed to be from, and what education they're allowed to have, and...

This ceases to be mere staging. You aren't just putting props up and letting folks improv with them. You are taking an extremely strong authorial control over what they are allowed to say, do, and (fictionally) be. It might not be scripted lines, but it's a hell of a lot more than stepping back and letting people do whatever they like.

 

[Umbran]

Apologies, it was meant as a light hearted comment that obviously did not come off that way.

Mod Note:
1) Moderation posts are not an opportunity for comment.

2) Don't take it that the one post was the only problem. You, and others in this thread, have exhibited what I might call "obstinacy to the point of understandable aggravation." Several of you might as well be billy goats, for your general tendency, here and elsewhere, of choosing to butt heads until someone gives up, instead of understanding when you've said your piece.

3) I'm not the one you should apologize to, now am I?

 

[TwoSix]

But now it begs the question how much do you see as ok for the DM to change or introduce without having player necessarily sign off on it.

So what if I
Provide perks for odd numbered ability scores?
Increase Feats?
Improve Feats?
Provide additional uses for HD?

I think those kind of changes should generally be presented as a trial run. Obviously buffs are going to be a way easier sell than nerfs.

It doesn't have to be a formal vote or anything, just a "I'm planning on making up a quick document with some updated feats that replace feats don't work great. If you don't like one of the new versions, let me know."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Rule 0 overrides that default, doesn't it?

Only when you're told so, no?

 

[Lanefan]

Okay so, since folks have been so eager to ascribe wacko crazy positions to me:

Are you genuinely asserting that it is a fundamental and unforgivable violation of every single DM's setting ever, to ask "hey, can I play dragonborn?"

Like, for real. Are you really saying this? The 3rd or 4th most popular non-human race in 5e?

Flip side: you seem to be asserting that it is a fundamental and unforgivable violation of the players' rights for the DM to decline this request.

Well, so be it: there's no Dragonborn or Half-Dragons in my setting and, if all goes well, never will be.

 

[KYRON45]

I had a guy who wanted to play a living half vampire half dragon. With a scarf that waved in the nonexistent wind.

I wouldn't have let that guy finish his sentence before shutting him down.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think those kind of changes should generally be presented as a trial run. Obviously buffs are going to be a way easier sell than nerfs.

It doesn't have to be a formal vote or anything, just a "I'm planning on making up a quick document with some updated feats that replace feats don't work great. If you don't like one of the new versions, let me know."

Okay that's all a given. I'm trying to define where this line is...

Because the next lot of changes are not buffs

Changes in the Rest System
New Inititiave system that also removes Dex from it
Flanking adds +1/per opponent as opposed to Advantage
Sanity (new ability per DMG)
3.5e age table
Monsters have Feats
Specific spell limitation/change (i.e. only death domains and divination domains have Speak with Dead, or only death/life domains have Resurrection etc)
Incorporeal opponents bypass armour + shields easier (a kind of 3.x touch attack)
Etc

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

This is a question with a lot of questions you need to ask.

At what point do you prevent players from doing uncaring things because it'll wreck the setting/campaign? Is there any self-evident way to distinguish this from, essentially, micromanaging their play?

(To be clear, I'm kind of on the fence about this because I'm not a big fan of players sowing chaos just for the heck of it, but at some point along that line they're just running the characters by permission).

 

[TwoSix]

Okay that's all a given. I'm trying to define where this line is...

Because the next lot of changes are not buffs

Changes in the Rest System
New Inititiave system that also removes Dex from it
Flanking adds +1/per opponent as opposed to Advantage
Sanity (new ability per DMG)
3.5e age table
Monsters have Feats
Specific spell limitation/change (i.e. only death domains and divination domains have Speak with Dead, or only death/life domains have Resurrection etc)
Incorporeal opponents bypass armour + shields easier (a kind of 3.x touch attack)
Etc

Several of those would have moderate, even possibly major impacts on character creation. I would present them prior to character creation and give a brief example of why I thought they were good additions/changes. And I would be prepared for some pushback on a few of those.