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

[pemerton]

On what basis do they decide the actions of the PCs?

Based on what they want their PCs to do.

In the example of play in the AW rulebook, Marie's player wants (as Marie) to visit grief on Isle. So goes to look for her. That does not require a dice roll but rather simply prompts the GM to say something. The GM, following the principles, chooses to tell Marie's player that she finds Isle (and two other people) sitting on the roof of a car eating tinned peaches.

Marie's player declares that she (as Marie) walks past them and uses her mental powers to compel Isle to follow her. This requires a roll, and the result of the roll requires the GM to decide whether Isle does what she wants, or suffers (what D&D would call) psychic damage. The GM opts for the latter, and describes Isle's head lolling onto her boyfriend's shoulder.

Marie's player, like Marie, is disappointed by this outcome. And so goes back home. As this doesn't require a roll, the GM says what happens next, and describes noises at Marie's door after she's been home for a few hours - the noises are Isle's friends coming to get revenge against Marie. And then asks Marie what she does.

Etc.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, through the diagetic actions of your PC exclusively in my preference.

All the RPGs I play involve "diegetic" actions almost exclusively.

 

[pemerton]

I see no reason why the players, through their PCs, can't know enough about the circumstances around them to have a pretty good idea what the results of their actions will be, and I don't recall saying otherwise. They won't always know, but neither do people in real life.

In the post you responded to, I quoted a post from @Oofta which illustrates the players not knowing the stakes.

And my impression is that this is very common in "living world" play.

I don't quite see the relevance of people in real life not getting to make informed choices. Most of real life is not playing a game.

 

[Oofta]

In most cases, probably yes - the players have their PCs take the job because they know that it is the GM's planned adventure; not because they have any in-character sense that that is what they would do.

I thought that you said this was in the first encounter? How can these NPCs be the PCs' enemies in the first encounter?

I mean what if, upon discovering the thieves, a player - playing their PC - feels more sympathy for the thieves than for the PCs' employer? This is hardly an unusual trope. The fact that no "good" player ever has their PC do that is more meta-gaming.

I mean, there's the metagaming, right there!

Given that I enjoy immersive play, for me it's prima-facie the best reason a player can give for an action declaration.

Perhaps the player wanted a different adventure - one that might flow from meeting the king.

I don't expect as a player or DM 100% cooperation in the group, reasonable intra-party conflicts and different goals are part of the game. But a player that goes out of their way to be disruptive and purposely doing things they know will make the session less fun for the other players? They're being an ass and not someone I want to DM or play with.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In the example of play in the AW rulebook, Marie's player wants (as Marie) to visit grief on Isle

Who is grief, and which Isle? And why does Marie want to visit them? What is the purpose of this? This all sounds rather pointless, like a bad soap opera. What is the challenge? Where is the adventure?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why would I want my RPGing to resemble a MMO?

I don't know, but you probably do as you like 4e!



(Joke! Please don't start a flamewar! I don't actually think 4e resembles a MMO.)

 

[Oofta]

In the post you responded to, I quoted a post from @Oofta which illustrates the players not knowing the stakes.

And my impression is that this is very common in "living world" play.

I don't quite see the relevance of people in real life not getting to make informed choices. Most of real life is not playing a game.

Sometimes you know the likely consequences of your actions sometimes you don't. I never said you can never make in informed decision, just that my preference is that the person playing the character is not the one that decides the outcome of their actions.

 

[Scribe]

Those aren't the only two options. Or rather, the are ways to get a "fleshed out setting" other than by having the GM write it all up in advance and then parcel it out to the players.

Sure, I'm not interested in a player guided development.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure, I'm not interested in a player guided development.

More importantly, my players aren’t interested in player guided development. If they wanted to make the world they would be the DM and give me some time off.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's two problems with that.

1. "They" aren't making bad choices. A solitary one of them is making a bad choice and pulling everyone else along with the consequences, usually a character they were expected to work with primarily of PC Glow.

2. Even if they all are, its entirely possible that the campaign effectively ends right there, right now, which may not have been what they expected, nor what the GM wanted, unless he goes through a bunch of justification backflips to make it happen. GMs don't necessarily set up campaigns with the assumption the whole player group will abruptly lose their minds.

In a system where PCs can die, the campaign can end via TPK just due random circumstances. That's a baked in assumption. Sometimes (or even often) the situation that lead to that was due player choices. That is part of having agency and having choices to matter.

Also, I am not talking about "losing their minds." The player in my game certainly had what they saw as a valid reason for their actions, they were not just being a chaos gremlin.

Like if your point is that there is premise everyone agreed to (such as playing Starfleet officers) but the players start to randomly behave in ways not compatible with that premise (such as being chaotic murderhobos) then sure, that is a problem. But the problem here is that not everyone is playing the same game and establishing a common understanding regarding what the game is about has failed.