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

[Belen]

This thread has reached one of those points where people's written explanations and opinions on the subject have become most likely far more intractable and extreme than what actually would occur at the table. So people are arguing degrees that more often than not would never happen anyway.

It's no wonder why the thread has reached 97 pages with people going around the same exact circle again and again again... because people are butting heads against situations that never actually exist because at the table all of us are much less strident about what we "believe in" once we're facing other people, LOL.

Sure.

I just want to know if the folks who say that DMs should allow the options a player wants in a setting should accommodate if a player if not willing to do the work to assist in adding the option.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It only implies a need to communicate more carefully as a DM's creation is not known the world over. It is still, hopefully, a carefully crafted setting that has a look and feel. It is something, again hopefully, the DM has spent time developing and giving a lot of elements to create a feeling of realness. Verisimilitude if you will.

I prefer "groundedness" myself, for a variety of reasons. (The biggest being that "verisimilitude" + "anything not explicitly supernatural works exactly like it does IRL" is precisely what screws over non-spellcaster characters over and over again, literally just reproducing the problem of the term "realism" that "verisimilitude" was meant to escape from.)

My problem is that I find that a lot of DMs who do the ultra-high levels of worldbuilding expect a sort of blanket deference and trust from the players, when the actual effect should be quite the opposite. I know more or less what to expect if someone proposes Star Trek or Middle Earth or Athas. I've no idea what to expect if someone proposes Thraes or Artha. This intensifies the already pretty significant need for the DM to prove why I should care. Just because they did a lot of work doesn't mean I should feel anything at all about that work. I don't owe the DM anything just because they wrote a lot of setting material. That was their choice, and it doesn't create any sort of duty on my part as a player.

So yes, the DM should be very clear but no, it shouldn't get less respect being new. In fact as a player, it gets more. I want a new world. I don't want to play in Middle Earth or Greyhawk over and over. I want something new and I appreciate the DM that gives me something new and good.

As much as I'm a fan of innovative settings, I don't think they automatically deserve more respect simply because they're new. Novelty is a perk, but it's not proof of quality. I can certainly grant that it's nice when folks put in the time to do something new. But just because you worked on it, doesn't mean the finished product is great. As you say, it needs to be new and good. Newness neither guarantees nor averts goodneses.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What are these issues in your mind? What qualifies?

Because man, I'm here running a game kicking in doors, killing monsters, spending the loot, and moving on. "Earning trust" is a whole lot more adulting that I really couldnt be bothered with.

If you’re running a kick down the doors, fight the monsters, take their loot kind of game, it really shouldn’t matter that one player wants to be a tabaxi and another one an artificer.

The problem comes when you are running such a game and ban various races and classes because they don’t match your vision.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What are these issues in your mind? What qualifies?

Because man, I'm here running a game kicking in doors, killing monsters, spending the loot, and moving on. "Earning trust" is a whole lot more adulting that I really couldnt be bothered with.

« Earning trust » is a regular outgrowth of playing an RPG. One of my players ran a one-shot. I said sure: a one-shot is not a big tome commitment.

The game wasn’t great. Heavy railroading, canon characters acting inconsistently, DM being unprepared. Afterwards, when he proposed an actual campaign, I politely declined.

If the DM had run an excellent one-shot, they would have earned trust for a campaign.

 

[Oofta]

I hope you and @Crimson Longinus can see that "Join us to play a Star Trek game!" or "Join us to play a Middle Earth game!" are requests that carry more cultural and aesthetic weight than "Join us to play a Thraes game!" or "Join us to play an Artra game!"

Why? Being more famous does not make it inherently better. For some people, it's the same old same old boring stuff they've had their entire lives and they want something different. For others the setting doesn't really matter.

It's also not relevant in any way that I can imagine. It was an example of setting consistency and internal logic that we all know. You agree that those games are going to have a different feel, a different style, correct? So why shouldn't I run a game with a feel and style that I enjoy? It's not like I've ever been lacking for players, they enjoy the setting as well.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Mate. It is a game with friends who I want to have good time. I won't go mad with power because I get to have the final say about what goes in the setting or how the rules work.

Neither will your friends.

 

[Oofta]

Do they actually say that (I honestly do not know)? That would be pretty short-sighted of them (WotC) in my view.
How do you reconcile the above (should it exist) with what is stated in the DMG where it very matter of factly states the DM is the master of the setting and decides what is allowed and what isn't?

No they don't. They say specific races are more common, they say nothing about whether they exist in any specific campaign.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Some examples of what loses trust, thematic and mechanic:

1. Mocking preferences in general. Naturally, I have a stronger reaction when my own preferences are mocked (I suffer the human condition of feeling more upset when something hurts me than when it hurts someone else, but I'm still upset either way), but this is a great way to lose a lot of trust.
2. Breaking the rules, or treating the rules as an enemy to be eliminated when possible. I know, I know, this is a thread about Rule 0. But the rules exist in order for us to have a common ground to start from. If the rules keep shifting under my feet, it's hard to trust that the final result is going to work out.
3. Doing something that seems pretty hinky (say, taking away the party's stuff in the middle of the night, without letting us respond), and then following that up with some equivalent of "don't you trust me?" Because that's basically saying I'm never allowed to be concerned about anything ever, and I'm not okay with that. Trust is a two-way street, and someone dismissing any lack of trust with (effectively) "you should be trusting me and you aren't, so you're the problem" is not acceptable--ever.
4. Declaring you have absolute authority. Already covered why I have a problem with that.
5. Being capricious with consequences or results or processes. Some things have no rules, or go beyond what the rules talk about. This isn't so much "Rule 0", just that designers aren't omniscient. I have to believe that I can learn how to play better. Fudging is a good example here. Fudging ruins my ability to learn how to play--because the consequences aren't determined by my actions, they're determined by whether you like (or at least don't dislike) the consequences of my actions.
6. Concealing dodgy stuff, but especially railroading or mistakes. Both things tell me that I can't be sure you will be honest to me as a person (note: NPCs tell lies all the time, that's not you the DM being dishonest to me the player, that's B'Beg the Court Vizier lying to Joe McFighter or whatever.) I can't be sure that what you claim is the case really is.

7. The big one: failing to explain why you’re doing something.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No they don't. They say specific races are more common, they say nothing about whether they exist in any specific campaign.

And even if they did... most DMs are not beholden to what WotC says or puts in their books anyway. No one can stop a specific table from playing or using any bits of the game they want, regardless of what is written and published.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Do DMs always choose what's best for the long-term? No. We can and do all make mistakes; that's what trial and error is all about.

Do wise DMs always consider the long-term ahead of the short-term when making such choices? Ideally, yes.

Funnily enough, so do wise players.

It’s a bit of a tautology both ways: what makes a person wise? The fact that they consider the long term ahead of the short term.