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

[Lanefan]

It's not a matter of not being able to get an exact match. It's a matter of the choice--what the character is biologically and what skills they practice--being one that is not and cannot ever be diegetic. Nobody gets to be a disembodied spirit with an encyclopedic manual of possible persons they could elect to be. We are thrust into this life without our consent and forewarning.

There simply is not any mapping between character creation and real life. There can't be.

There can be to a small extent, as abstracted by making a lot of the physical side of the character creation process random: random species, random gender, random stats, random height and weight relative to species averages, random age (within a playable range), random family elements, etc. All of this reflects the idea that you can't choose what you're born as or what family you're born into.

Previous professions, current class, etc. are things the character has had much more control over during its life up to now and thus having those chooseable by the player makes sense.

The books (for 5.0) straight-up explicitly say that humans/elves/etc. are present in effectively all settings, meaning they are instructing DMs they aren't allowed to not use those tools. That's not something a "toolbox" should ever do--period.

By giving DMs the freedom to overrule what's in the books, isn't rule 0 supposed to take care of this?

 

[pemerton]

This is what made WoW, the original one, the best one, so great. The world was the main character.

Why would I want my RPGing to resemble a MMO?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Why would I want my RPGing to resemble a MMO?

I think one the components of the disconnect between posters is what they enjoy from an RPG. I mean we've all read the DMGs/rule books which try outline the various types of players, their play styles and their primary appreciation from the game and how a DM may try to seek balance by providing something for everyone.

I may be mistaken but I believe we are seeing some of that being played out here.

 

[pemerton]

I think one the components of the disconnect between posters is what they enjoy from an RPG. I mean we've all read the DMGs/rule books which try outline the various types of players, their play styles and their primary appreciation from the game and how a DM may try to seek balance by providing something for everyone.

I may be mistaken but I believe we are seeing some of that being played out here.

Well, quite. See my post 845 upthread: D&D General - A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

I personally think the idea of "something for everyone" is not that sensible, though, especially when it already assume that it is the GM providing an experience.

As I posted not too far upthread, my starting point is that participants in the game are creative equals.

 

[pemerton]

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.

So if the comparison of players to actors is at all literal, we're talking about a railroad.

"Bringing to life" of course is a metaphor. If by that, what is meant is "prompt the GM to tell the players stuff about the setting", then I want to know what principles is the GM using to decide what to tell the players? If the players' vision for what matters and what is at stake is not relevant to that, then again we seem to me to be talking about a railroad.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I personally think the idea of "something for everyone" is not that sensible, though, especially when it already assume that it is the GM providing an experience.

If I understand you correctly, you believe it is an impossibly high task for the DM to achieve that 'something for everyone' - i.e. they're bound to fall short.

Edit: So your belief is that making everyone equal participants makes them responsible for achieving that something/fun for themselves as opposed to relying on the DM. Have I got that right?

 

[Clint_L]

I think that D&D works well with players who don't want to do a ton of creative work. It's basically designed for that, really. But it can accommodate player creativity perfectly well, it's just that the official books kind of train DMs to assume the role of primary or sole author, aside from very narrow slices left available to players (typically strategic choices and maybe a bit of character backstory).

This is not a criticism of D&D, which is a game I very much enjoy. Just my observation of the type of game it is. In fact, I think this can be a strength, because it is easier for everyone to play except the DM. If I want to run, say Monster Hearts, I have to find some players who are willing to invest. But you can still run D&D in a way that is more inclusive of meaningful player contributions to the overall story and setting. Or not. If you have a big story to tell and fantastic world to explore, and your players are into it, then it's probably going to be an amazing campaign.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Presumably because it could lead to some interesting places where everyone can have an interesting time?

Trying to navigate the politics of the Royal Court to gain access to the monarch is also an interesting place where everyone can have an interesting time.

Adventures are made out of obstacles.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why would it be zombie fashion? There's no reason to create that narration.

You refused to specify how you are doing it, so the DM cannot adjudicate on success or otherwise of your attempt. There are lots of ways you might get into the castle: negotiation, stealth, trickery, getting a job as a servant, killing the guards, powerful magic, etc, but if you don't specify what you are doing then the DM cannot adjudicate.

The difference between "action" and "intent" isn't really relevant.

No, they are very different. "Intent" is what you want to achieve. "action" is what your character actually does. Frankly, the DM doesn't need to know your intent, although it probably doesn't hurt. The DM needs to know what your character actually does.

The point is "Don't ask for permission."

No, you don't need to ask permission, but players will often ask for advice. Sometimes the character is better placed than the player to judge the likelihood of success of a particular course of action. "Does my character think they will be admitted to the castle if I am disguised as an old washerwomen?" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say to the DM before declaring your action.

 

[pemerton]

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.

If the players aren't interested in taking the game seriously in the way the GM aspires to, does anyone think that rule zero is the solution?

Best to have a conversation with the group.

Right.

If they are, but it seems like they're just flailing about? Maybe the hooks etc. the DM thinks are obvious are just not. I had a game once where we (the players) spent several sessions looking for stuff to do, and not really finding it. Finally we confronted the DM, he asked (seemingly honestly) something like "Well why aren't you grabbing the hooks I'm throwing out?" We (the players) were all "what hooks?" the hooks he thought were blatantly obvious, can't miss adventure opportunities had all sailed right by us!

This seems to be less about the players engaging with the setting and more about the GM wanting to run a railroad (or something in that neighbourhood) while not being willing to be upfront about that.

And it's certainly a long, long way from the sort of approach to RPGing that I'm looking for. (As player or GM.)