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

[TwoSix]

Well, randomness is always involved in a game with dice, but the player choices could and should be affecting whether the odds are in their favour or against them.

Seems like a syntax issue. If some situation has a 40% chance of occurrence, and your actions change that to a 75% chance of occurrence, is the occurrence still random?

 

[Micah Sweet]

And how does the DM fit into this? What about what they want?

They design the setting. Presumably it's full of things they want in it. Why would they fill it with things they don't want?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think you maybe missed the point being made. Game worlds don't work like the real world.

Yes, it is the same old tiresome point. Some people like to try to make them work as much like the real world within the limitations of the medium. (I don't fully subscribe to this idea, but it is not hard to get.)

Looking at the restaurant example that was mentioned not far upthread... the idea that a player could decide who was there was cited as odd. But if not the player, then it's the DM, right?

The real world doesn't have one person who's deciding everything about the world. There's a collection of phenomena and individual decisions and countless other factors that lead to any given situation.

It really is besides the point. Both the GM and the real world are external to you. You cannot decide how the world is, it is determined independently of you.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We don't know the specifics, but clearly Maria has beef with Isle.

Childish revenge?

All revenge is childish. If people are struggling to survive in a pots-apocalyptic world then having a beef with someone is the hight of stupidity and jerkism. There are more important things you should be worrying about.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM enjoys watching the players exploring and interacting with the world they have created. The DM wants the players to have fun.

So, then the DM is making decisions based on what would be satisfying? Some would say that's problematic.

Who knows? A person can’t see inside anyone else’s head and know they are real. I think therefore I am, but I can’t know that you are. There is hard science being done in investigating if the universe is a simulation. From the point of view of the player it makes no difference if the world is created by a single person or any anything else.

Right, and the earth might be flat. Barring such a cosmic revelation, we can safely assume that there isn't one guiding hand behind everything that we experience in the real world the way there may be in an RPG.

I don't think it has actually changed in the books. And don't recall saying it is vital, though I think it is beneficial to inform newer GMs that they can change and hack the game, as I feel that is more essential to RPGs than many other sorts of games. I also think it is good idea to outline the who is assumed to be in charge of what. People of course can figure out things by themselves, but for a beginner friendly mass market game in particular, spelling things out is a good idea.

But regarding the "common species" language in the old PHB, is it still present in the new one? I never liked it, but thankfully the DMG had better advice on the matter.

I didn't say that you claimed it was vital... just that it had been. Trust me, I've been all for ignoring advice or rules that I've thought were crap pretty much since the beginning of my time with RPGs.

It's just interesting to see the sentiment of ignoring the text come up as advice to people who used to cite the text.

 

[Oofta]

Both of us have a basis; our own experiences and what we've heard of from others. Whether that's sufficient can be argued, but I don't feel a need to not develop an opinion just because it can't be proven in a court.

As the saying goes, extreme claims require extreme evidence. Your statements are not extreme but they are close.

At one point WotC stated that roughly half of all campaigns were homebrew. They must think it's a pretty high percentage considering how many pages are dedicated to it in the new DMG. Even with published mods, in many cases what I've seen is the DM just mines them for ideas and scenarios but doesn't stick close to the default path. Others are designed to be played as sandboxes.

I think there's plenty of evidence for more open gameplay. You aren't just stating an opinion. This all started with you stating as a fact that open campaigns are "fringe". Now, some campaigns are going to be more true sandboxes than others but over decades of play DMs running prepared modules account for less than half the games I've played.

 

[TwoSix]

All revenge is childish. If people are struggling to survive in a pots-apocalyptic world then having a beef with someone is the hight of stupidity and jerkism. There are more important things you should be worrying about.

There are plenty of stories in the world about people who are stupid jerks, or just people who have weak moments of stupidity and jerkiness. Enabling that doesn't strike me as a flaw in the game system.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Seems like a syntax issue. If some situation has a 40% chance of occurrence, and your actions change that to a 75% chance of occurrence, is the occurrence still random?

I'm sure someone with better grasp of maths and statistics has proper language to describe this. But it is really not important.

 

[FrozenNorth]

For sure. I don't disagree that the majority of games are planned with some sort of arc. (I would generally argue that isn't great, but that's beyond the scope of the topic, and really just a personal anecdote.)

I would just note that @Lanefan and I have fairly disparate opinions on a lot of gaming topics, but that doesn't mean our games don't also share some important similarities. We can all learn from each other, even if there are topics we vociferously disagree on.

I do appreciate the irony that for all the classic players and the neo-trads tend to dunk on each other, their playstyles tend to resemble each other’s more than either resembles the 3e AP-heavy playstyle.

Both:

• tend to heavily look down on fudging dice rolls;
• agree that the adventure is whatever the characters are doing; and
• tend to put a lot of value on player agency.

 

[TwoSix]

I do appreciate the irony that for all the classic players and the neo-trads tend to dunk on each other, their playstyles tend to resemble each other’s more than either resembles the 3e AP-heavy playstyle.

Both:

• tend to heavily look down on fudging dice rolls;
• agree that the adventure is whatever the characters are doing; and
• tend to put a lot of value on player agency.

Horseshoe theory in action.