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

[Oofta]

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

So you assume no guards, no locked doors?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Real people cannot choose what species they are or what background they have, nor be told that some all-powerful author denies their application to be an X instead of a Y. There's simply no comparison here.


They asked me my thoughts. I gave them. I specified how I would prefer to see things. People can like whatever they like--but if you're serious about the books being a toolbox, the toolbox shouldn't be telling you that every job requires a wrench and a screwdriver, nor that it's weird to use metric sockets so just ignore the whole drawer containing them. The palette shouldn't prescribe that every work uses blue and red, but turquoise and yellow are weird.

Just because you can't perfectly simulate choice (or lack thereof) the way it works in the real world is not a good reason IMO to abandon the attempt. It's a spectrum, just like I've said many times before.

And I don't understand what you mean by the toolbox telling you that wrenches and screwdrivers are required. Can you un-metaphor that please?

 

[Oofta]

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.

Well obviously they have the noble background so they can automatically get an audience with whatever noble is local to where they are.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

I turn toward the entrance.

I move my left foot in front of my right.

I put my right foot in front of my left.

I continue this sequence until I am inside the entrance, rolling a DEX check at each step to ensure I do not fall over in the process.

Being a functional castle outside of wartime, the entrance will necessarily be open unless the king never wants any servants or goods.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Now who's passing normative prescriptions against particular preferences @Micah Sweet?

In the vast majority of cases it's bi-directional. Preferences shape options, and options shape preferences. Acting like the setting is the only thing that matters is just as prejudicial as acting like the setting never matters.

I disagree. The setting is where the character comes from, so it would be formative. Again, just like real life.

 

[Mort]

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.

Sure, but a conversation will at least help define the issue (usually).

With the player who just does it by nature? Functionally, that's no different than someone who's doing it for kicks! If the player "Can't help himself..." but is ruining the fun of the table?

I'm not a babysitter or caregiver, I'm there to have fun with a group of friends/acquaintances. It's one of the big fallacies that all groups have to welcome all players.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well obviously they have the noble background so they can automatically get an audience with whatever noble is local to where they are.

Being a noble gets you into the queue. Getting an audience with the monarch is likely to take months of greasing the right palms.

 

[TwoSix]

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".

So you tell me "When you arrive at the castle gate, the gates are locked and 4 guards stand in the way."

I've framed my action, and you told me what obstacles I encountered.

I'm not going to ask "Does the castle have a door? Can I find it?" It's the job of the DM to tell me what's blocking my declaration.

 

[Greg K]

Specific spell limitation/change (i.e. only death domains and divination domains have Speak with Dead, or only death/life domains have Resurrection etc)

I do exactly this.
The idea goes back to 1e. I don't recall if it was in the DMG or an article in either Strategic Review, or Dragon Magazine, but Gygax had suggested the DM tailoring a cleric's available spells to their deity. In 2e, we had something along those lines with the All, Minor and Major Spheres while the 3e DMG discussed tailored spell lists.

 

[Dire Bare]

So what? There are a ton of games based on established IPs where the setting is nailed down from the get go. Hell, people have written countless movies, books, and tv-shows set on this Earth of ours, even without any added imagined fantastic elements, and still managed to come up with compelling characters and stories even though the setting was fully known and defined. It is totally alien idea to me that you cannot come up with compelling characters with agency unless you get to redefine the setting before the game even begins.

Well actually . . .

Most long-running franchises that get RPGs based on them change up their "nailed down" settings all the time. Almost every time a TV series gets another season, a movie gets a sequel, or a franchise gets expanded into novels, comics, and games . . . the setting changes and expands.

The idea that the writers and creators behind these franchises stick to a "nailed down" setting is patently untrue.