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

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't expect a player in a FR game (or any setting with existing lore) to have read all the setting material. But that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to the game we're all playing.

I'm not really sure how that responds to what was said. With a homebrew setting you've spent "hundreds" of hours building (word used not by you but by others in the thread), it's not possible for them to have read up. So now their play is going to be full of nearly unavoidable "well actually" moments because the players cannot possibly know the setting as well as the DM can. That very specific thing--the "you can't do X because that's incompatible with the setting as it exists in my head, which you cannot access"--is closely related to what @TwoSix is talking about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For an unfamiliar IP, I just have to go read a book or watch a movie. That's easy. Asking a DM a bunch of questions about the setting is a pain in the neck.

I wrote up a setting primer for my current campaign, and encouraged all my players to read it. Weirdly, I've not experienced any push back on this.

 

[TwoSix]

That's a narrative focus to play, one of many equally valid playstyles.

Seriously, almost all of this comes down to personal preference.

Have I ever said otherwise?

I made a suggestion for a particular play style based around the idea of not asking for permission. I made that suggestion as an open suggestion to @EzekielRaiden. I never said "Hey, other people, please push back and critique why that idea doesn't work for your play style."

It was strictly a suggestion for people who are interested in the play style I was discussing. If we're not here to exchange tips to better everyone's chosen styles, what are we doing?

 

[Belen]

It's funny - I remember a time when it was the opposite problem. Players would show up with two-plus pages of backstory that the DM was somehow supposed to incorporate into their campaign. Maybe it's still like that for some tables.

It depends on the player. I still see those folks although they will send it and then say "let me know if it fits and please feel free to add or discuss with me."

I have other players that will send a 1 liner and say "I am a fighter, my family were caravans traders, they died in an ambush, and I am looking for work." Those folks will then tell me to just tell them what else may be relevant for them to know.

 

[Oofta]

If you're unclear as to the meaning of a stated action, just ask.

The point is, as a player, don't play 20 questions with the DM to determine if what you want to do is feasible. Just go do it. If there's a problem, it's the DM's job to tell you why. And the DM should obviously be aware that the character is competent enough to not walk into walls or try to walk on water without clarification. This isn't a video game where you left the character on auto-run and walked away.

What we won't do is play 20 questions. I'll give players the info I think their PC would know. If they're stuck I'll likely give apparent options and remind them they can of course try something completely different. But if marching up to the door and demanding an audience is going to fail, I'll tell them that. At a certain point they have to state what they do, not just their intent.

 

[AnotherGuy]

No, I think my interpretation of the PHB is perfectly fine. The problem with the text cited there is that it makes airy-fairy statements about things and then gives absolutely no actual discussion, explanation, or tools.

It's the setting-contents equivalent of "You can do X. Or you can not do X! You're the DM, you decide." Which is also, as you say, "littered" throughout the 5.0 DMG.

My sincere hope is that the 5.5e DMG is better, but I'm not holding my breath.

Look I don't mean to kink shame, but it has become somewhat of fetish on Enworld to rundown the 5e DMG but what you just said is known in polite speech as poppycock.
But I will leave it there, clearly we are living in 2 different realities because I see a world of ideas, explanations, definitions and tools within the DMG for building one's setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not @TwoSix, but here's my answer:

(1) Having to rely on the GM to tell me about the setting is not very immersive;
(2) Depending how it's done, it actually risks being tedious;
(3) It shifts the locus of play away from the player to the GM.

To elaborate on (3): the first time a friend of mine played in a GH-set game, he did some reading up on GH online. At one stage, the PCs were marooned in the Bright Desert. Drawing on his reading, the player said "Everyone knows that Suel nomads are thick as thieves in the Bright Desert", and then proceeded to try and find some nomads to help him (using the particular mechanic that the RPG we were playing permitted - in D&D it would be something like a Streetwise check).

If the player doesn't have that knowledge they can't confidently declare actions, and back to asking the GM to tell them what is possible for their character.

Ninja'd!

How is learning about the world through the GM's description of your PC experience of it, based on your choices for that PC, not immersive? How else are you supposed to get that information? Is making it up and telling the table what you made up more immersive?

 

[Emerikol]

Okay. Please put yourself in my shoes: I have never, as a player, been in any group that lasted longer than a year after I joined. (My current 5e group will cross that threshold in a few months, and I am still very grateful for the invitation to join it.) Almost none of the groups I've been a player in have had any players in common. I have been striving to find a long-running group to play with for a very long time, and I've seen many bad apples I've stayed far away from while looking for such a thing. That is part of why almost all of the DMs I've actually had have been at least pretty decent, and the majority have been quite good.

I have never had the luxury of relying on years of reputation. I have never been so fortunate as to have extensive experience with a DM before working with them. And this is going to be similar to the experience for most players today, because most players of D&D 5e (whether 5.0 or 5.5e) are brand-new to TTRPGs, if WotC's numbers are to be believed. As in, something like four to eight new players for every single person who had played a previous edition first.

What is interesting about this post is perhaps it has given me an insight. A lot of players are seeking games online. Realize that in time all the bad DMs go online because they've alienated everyone locally. The good DMs go online sometimes but often they are happy because they have local groups. Even if those groups play online they are just playing within their circle. There are also long time players divided now by distance who play online but never seek players online. I would think that while there are great online games the proportion of bad DMs is higher for those games that just advertise for players.

I do not think though that new players are necessarily lacking a group though. Many players become players because a bunch of them get to talking. I have a couple right now that have asked to play but at this moment I don't have time but when I do have time I will likely run a game that includes them. Not all new players are in the same situation as you. And I'm not denying there are many that are in your situation.

See for me, I want what you oppose. I want a good well crafted setting and a DM that is fair but doesn't indulge players who want to argue. I don't have the time for that stuff.

 

[Belen]

I'm not really sure how that responds to what was said. With a homebrew setting you've spent "hundreds" of hours building (word used not by you but by others in the thread), it's not possible for them to have read up. So now their play is going to be full of nearly unavoidable "well actually" moments because the players cannot possibly know the setting as well as the DM can. That very specific thing--the "you can't do X because that's incompatible with the setting as it exists in my head, which you cannot access"--is closely related to what @TwoSix is talking about.

Great point.

This is why I keep a one pager for the players to read with the relevant facts. I then provide them with theme documents for the campaign, and a 1 page character gen instructions doc.

I do not expect them to know the campaign world and most people just do not read or care. This is why I make things short. When they do their backstories, etc, I then provide them with short "things your character would know" entries.

And a campaign never, ever, relies on them knowing a lot of information. They always start small and build over time.

 

[TwoSix]

I did. You responded with sarcasm.

Asking how I walk into a castle that's right there seemed sarcastic to me right out of the gate.

That would only make sense if the DM had already framed the castle as being heavily guarded and impossible to enter. If I'm meeting with the king in the capital, I'm assuming this is a palace with courtly functions, not a military stockade or a private residence.