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

[Mort]

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.

I can see things getting excessive, but nations, factions, species etc. isn't excessive for me. It's just a baseline to work from and there still seems to be a large amount of wiggle room for choice and creativity.

 

[TwoSix]

We must have a very easy table compared to some here because our table is quite chilled and allows the DM to tinker. I've kinda stopped now, thankfully. But we have another player who is running something and tinkering at the same time. We kinda trust the process, mistakes could be made, but ok we learn, hopefully, what works and what doesn't.

Many of my changes I introduced were during our almost decade long campaign, so 100% not at the start. Many of the players have 2 characters or more, so their later characters have had the benefit of having these rules from the start.

Though everytime there was a major change that would affect character creation I would allow changes to be made retroactively to their characters. It is only fair obviously.

As a DM I'm a fan of their characters, their backstories and the personalised goals they pursue, allowing them to expand on/increase their TBIF's. I think playing with friends makes a HUGE difference and we play in person.
Many posters here just do not seem to have that luxury and perhaps that is why we have this ridiculous disconnect and you hear words about dictatorship, authority and the rest.

I introduced a bunch of house rules in my last game, the big one being that the game was classless. The feedback from players was "This seems like a lot, but we trust you to run it." That's generally the attitude I would want to see from any table I'm at.

 

[pemerton]

The point of the players is to interact with each other and the setting. A character isn't special until they do something special. When the DM sets up the premise for the campaign the players should buy into that premise and not go out of their way to circumvent the DM.

The first thing i do when i make a new PC is ask...what can this person contribute to both the party and the proposed campaign premise. I don't immediately find a way to tell the DM thanks for running the campaign but my idea is better.

This is not the only way to do FRPGing, is not an approach I've used since about 40 years ago, and is extremely GM-centred.

 

[Oofta]

The only time I have seen players disrupt things was when they went evil.

Never seen them just sow chaos.

I once had a guy in the very first encounter attempt to help the guys they were chasing escape. No reason at all, his PC had no connection to them, no reason to attempt to prevent the party from successfully stopping the bad guys. He just thought it would be fun.

He didn't last long.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are the players engaging with the setting in good faith? If they are not (they're just trying to be chaos agents or some such) then the DM has to decide if he wants to run with that, or to pass and end things. Best to have a conversation with the group.

Yup. But note that's an extreme case. How about the character who is temperamental, and may not be avowedly just trying to sow chaos, but by his nature still tends to do it? Do you talk to the player and the group again? Where does it stop?

That's the issue here; the borders on this are not clear-cut.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My character walks into the castle to meet the king

I would come back with "how are you going to walk into the castle?". You haven't given me enough info (you may have passwall or some such magic that would get you through the door); and as for seeing the king, that part is irrelevant until you actually inside the castle.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I did not see that in this thread.

It wasn't in this thread.

If a player helps out by adding stuff and taking time to flesh things out, then I want that person in my game.

I will go back and forth with that type of person to fit things into the game.

I'd think most people would. But I've seen people that were outright hostile to that. They're extreme outliers far as I can tell, but they exist.

Edit: I'm not even sure "extreme" is actually accurate; since doing that requires doing things outside of creating their character and their character's actions, some people seem to think it usurps the GMs job of some such.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Really? What post?

 

[TwoSix]

I would come back with "how are you going to walk into the castle?". You haven't given me enough info (you may have passwall or some such magic that would get you through the door); and as for seeing the king, that part is irrelevant until you actually inside the castle.

"By walking into it. It's a castle, it obviously has an entrance."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"By walking into it. It's a castle, it obviously has an entrance."

And obviously, being a castle, the entrance is closed and heavily defended.

"You walk into the castle. You take 1d6 bludgeoning damage from hitting your head on the stone wall".