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

[Scribe]

This does not change that fact that other people are.

Sure, I'm not saying they cannot be, only that I don't care for it.

 

[Lanefan]

100% serious. And as soon as I mention something I've created, it's no longer my personal imagination, it's part of the shared fiction.

If I'm immersed in my character being drunk and angry in a bar, I don't want to ask the DM who the bar patrons are around me. I just want to narrate my character punching the nearest dude.

If the DM hasn't (for whatever reason) narrated anything about other bar patrons, at the very least it might be worth asking if there are any or whether you're drunk and angry in there by yourself.

 

[Oofta]

This does not change that fact that other people are.

Nobody has said otherwise.

 

[Lanefan]

And sometimes . . . that's exactly what I want. As a player, I've been in more than a few sessions where I was essentially on auto-pilot. "What? It's my turn? I attack the goblin with my sword. Oh, the barbarian took out the goblin? Uh, I attack . . . who's left?" It's not the best way to play D&D, but sometimes it's all I got!

Truth be told, sometimes after a long stressful week (and-or after six beers) that can be the very best way to play D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

There's nothing wrong with that sort of approach, but it functionally excludes whole classes of campaign because it potentially reduces every campaign to rogue operatives doing whatever they please until the GM, in the form of in-setting response, brings the hammer down. it assumes you can't really go into a campaign planning for it to be about anything, because the first time a player gets a bee in his bonnet and does something completely off-the-wall, you have to chase that result for the rest of the game.

Well, not quite. You chase that result until it gets resolved, then either move on to whatever else has caught people's attention in the meantime (and-)or return to your previously-planned story.

 

[Lanefan]

Wow, I don't think I have EVER had that happen.

IME when players want to meet the king, they want something from the king.

Last time I DMed a PC meeting a king (actually, two kings at once) it was so the PC could thoroughly dress down both in no uncertain terms for their lack of action in defense against a coming invasion from a third realm.

There might have been an "Off with 'is 'ead" moment had the two monarchs been able to pick their jaws up off the floor long enough.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the DM hasn't (for whatever reason) narrated anything about other bar patrons, at the very least it might be worth asking if there are any or whether you're drunk and angry in there by yourself.

If it was me as GM, I’d just go with it. Unless I’d specifically narrated the tavern as being empty because of such and such reason, I’d have no reason to not expect people to be there. So I’d let the player narrate away!

What’s harmed by going with it?

Nobody has said otherwise.

Actually, yes… people have!

That’s what I’m pushing back against. That’s what I see @pemerton pushing back against.

You keep saying things like “please don’t say there’s only one way to play” but no one has denied a more trad approach in this thread. What’s being argued is that the traditional approach is not the only way to play, which actually has been argued in this thread.

So if you seriously are not saying that a traditional distribution of authority is the only way to play, then no one is disagreeing with you.

 

[Lanefan]

Why is it the case, in your opinion, that only the DM can determine who is in a restaurant?

It's because the PC has no in-fiction control over who randomly happens to be there, just like I have no real-world control over who happens to be at the local Denny's when I wander in. The random populating of locations is DM-side stuff.

Well, I think there's a difference between allowing the players to lead the game and letting them wander around aimlessly with nothing meaningful happening. As you say, @pemerton can answer himself, but I'm reasonably certain that he would frame the characters into some kind of conflict before too long. Where as @Lanefan would happily watch them wander about town accomplishing nothing if that's what was happening.

Though I might facepalm when they missed or declined the fifth different obvious adventure hook...

 

[Micah Sweet]

This does not change that fact that other people are.

Everyone i think acknowledges that there are other schools of thought. What difference does that make at this point?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it was me as GM, I’d just go with it. Unless I’d specifically narrated the tavern as being empty because of such and such reason, I’d have no reason to not expect people to be there. So I’d let the player narrate away!

What’s harmed by going with it?



Actually, yes… people have!

That’s what I’m pushing back against. That’s what I see @pemerton pushing back against.

You keep saying things like “please don’t say there’s only one way to play” but no one has denied a more trad approach in this thread. What’s being argued is that the traditional approach is not the only way to play, which actually has been argued in this thread.

So if you seriously are not saying that a traditional distribution of authority is the only way to play, then no one is disagreeing with you.

Then who are you arguing with? Who thinks classic D&D play is the only way to play?