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

[Belen]

The quickest way for players to get involved in a world is realizing things they do will have meaning within that world.

Conversely, the quickest way for players to be apathetic of a world's existence is if/when they catch on nothing they do will actually make any real difference because the DM is too overprotective of "his" world.

The purpose of the game is for the characters actions to affect and change the world.

My games are always epic with characters that alter the setting.

My previous campaign saw the characters save their world by resurrecting a dead prime world through a massive ritual.

I create the setting and story hooks and then the events and world are the playground of the characters.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

I was interviewing someone for a very entry-level position many years ago (think intern type), and I threw them a softball question.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Their answer? I'm going to be an astronaut. I'll be in space.

Yeah. I mean ... let's say that the person was barely qualified for the position they were looking at. The rest of the interview went as well as you might expect (they were insistent on bringing up a divisive political topic, for example).

One more thing? When I asked them what they really liked?

I like maps!

I would invoke Poe's Law, but unfortunately I knew that the person was serious.

 

[Mort]

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.

I think that's a pretty harsh take.

Seems to me @Lanefan is merely telling the players "here's what exists in my world, choose amongst it..."

No different really than saying "we're going PHB only this time around..." or "We're going PHB and Tasha's only this time around..."

 

[Belen]

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).

No evil characters. If they start doing evil, then they can find another DM. Evil PCs have destroyed games and caused out of game issues.

 

[Scribe]

I was interviewing someone for a very entry-level position many years ago (think intern type), and I threw them a softball question.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Their answer? I'm going to be an astronaut. I'll be in space.

Last time I was asked that in an interview was maaaaaaaaaaany years ago but I still remember.

"I couldnt tell you. I'm married, I have a young child, I've just finished school. 5 years? Thats a long ways away when I'm just looking to put food on the table."

 

[Thomas Shey]

No evil characters. If they start doing evil, then they can find another DM. Evil PCs have destroyed games and caused out of game issues.

I'm not talking about evil characters. I'm talking about (in D&D terms) chaotic characters. There are all kinds of ways that can be expressed, but it just ends up sowing chaos for no real reason but impulse (usually; sometimes sowing chaos is the point).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that's a pretty harsh take.

Seems to me @Lanefan is merely telling the players "here's what exists in my world, choose amongst it..."

No different really than saying "we're going PHB only this time around..." or "We're going PHB and Tasha's only this time around..."

Is it harsh? Because various people have spoken of rigidly nailing down things to the point of knowing all possible nations, factions, species, etc. without any uncertainty at all (for them, at least). That would seem to be precisely what I described.

 

[Belen]

Last time I was asked that in an interview was maaaaaaaaaaany years ago but I still remember.

"I couldnt tell you. I'm married, I have a young child, I've just finished school. 5 years? Thats a long ways away when I'm just looking to put food on the table."

Good response. I detest that question in interviews. I never use it. I do not find it helpful.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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).

Excellently put.

A lot of the things I see here read like "running the characters by permission(s)." Now, I recognize that I am...shall we say more sensitive on this topic than the average player would be. But there are some alarmingly specific, extensive things I see here on ENWorld and elsewhere on the internets that...I struggle to understand how anyone would play it and not feel at least some "running the characters by permission(s)."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is it harsh? Because various people have spoken of rigidly nailing down things to the point of knowing all possible nations, factions, species, etc. without any uncertainty at all (for them, at least). That would seem to be precisely what I described.

Yeah, I don't know if Lanefan was the person who I'm thinking of, but there was someone on here who was sufficiently proprietary about their setting they wouldn't let someone define things about the village their character came from. Even things that didn't seem inappropriate given defined setting elements.

At seems, at best, pretty excessive.