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

[Lanefan]

Does it? Is this claim based on your extensive reading of and play of Torchbearer?

If you're quoting or paraphrasing a rule from a game I shouldn't have to do any further research - assuming your quote or paraphrase is accurate - in order to discuss what you've quoted/paraphrased.

 

[Lanefan]

Let’s explain this a slightly different way. My barbarian has just found out that his detested cousin has taken advantage of his absence to usurp his position. He enters a bar looking to let off steam.
The DM briefly describes the bar. Large mirror, wood panelling, halfling barman on a stepstool.
I, as player, have an image in my mind’s eye as to what this bar looks like. The image is more detailed than the description: that’s how humans work, and without that RPGs probably wouldn’t be possible.
In game:
My barbarian is spoiling for a fight. He walks up to the big guy at a table with friends and rudely knocks off his hat.

The DM didn’t establish that there was a big guy at a table with friends. He didn’t establish that he was wearing a hat to knock off.

The alternative, which would break immersion for some posters, would be to interrupt their action declaration.
1. Ok, is there anyone in the bar?
2. What does he look like?
3. Um, does he have a hat or something I can knock off?

Asking those questions wouldn't be an interruption of an action declaration as one would think they're being asked before getting to that point. You're merely asking the DM to flesh out the provided narration of the scene with some specifics, which may or may not influence or even negate whatever action you were thinking of declaring next.

 

[soviet]

Asking those questions wouldn't be an interruption of an action declaration as one would think they're being asked before getting to that point. You're merely asking the DM to flesh out the provided narration of the scene with some specifics, which may or may not influence or even negate whatever action you were thinking of declaring next.

Sure, but all the mother-may-I stuff certainly would slow down play. Sometimes there's a momentum of previous narration and you want to be able to react to things right there and then.

'Aargh Robilar jumps up and punches the big guy at the bar so hard his hat falls off!' feels a lot more exciting than 'Excuse me GM, can I just check, who is at the bar, how tall are they, and what headgear do they have?'.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In itself I'm mostly fine with this, truth be told, largely because in the grand scheme of things it's pretty inconsequential. The one thing that would have to be mechanically resolved in this declaration is the "decks him" piece, using the game's combat mechanics (in this case, a surprise or alertness roll for the "biggest guy" to see if Brand catches him off guard followed by a to-hit roll for Brand perhaps modified by his being drunk; were I the DM I'd also be quickly rolling at this point to determine the "biggest guy"'s state of sobriety as well as that's almost certain to become immediately relevant).

For something this relatively-trivial, it isn't.

Had the declaration been something like "Brand is drunk and in a bad mood and looking for a fight. He sees the guy in here who stole his woman's heart and decks him” I'd have had a problem with it, in that (assuming we've already played out the preceding soap opera) I wouldn't approve of the player so conveniently writing the other guy into the crosshairs like that. - we'd need to determine whether he was in fact here or not, be it randomly or by checking previous notes on what he was last known to be doing and extrapolating from there.

So here’s the thing… again, let’s please set preference aside as we are all very clear on what you’d prefer.

What is the actual issue with the above? Like what is bad about it? How does it negatively impact play?

@Lanefan Is describing their preference (which also happens to be my preference, but that's immaterial). The only potential issue here is presenting that preference non-subjectively.

There was nothing about the post by @Lanefan in question that stated it was a preference. He said “that’s DM-side only stuff” not “in my game, that’s DM-side only stuff”.

Creative input on the world is world-bending power. Literally.

There is no world.

What we’re talking about is content of play.

I will be surprised if ANYONE here would think this is a good way to do it!

I would not be surprised!

And as I noted, if it makes sense to me, isn't a big deal, and doesn't interfere with anything,

Interfere with what?

Not to put words in @Lanefan's mouth, but the story is based on what the PCs decide to pursue.

How does this jibe with @Micah Sweet ’s comment above about player’s pursuits “interfering” with… something?

So here’s the way it seems to me… there are two ways to look at the tavern situation. A player has declared that his character is drunk and it hing for a fight, and that he punches the nearest person.

The first seems to be that this is an inconvenience to the DM in some way. Mostly because it’s a player over stepping their expected authority. Any further issues that people have here have yet to be explained. I have ideas, but I’m curious what others might say.

The second is to view this situation as an opportunity. I mean, the player is literally saying “I want to see this happen”… so why deny it due to some slavish adherence to power distribution? Instead, let the player have some say about how the game goes and what happens next. Use the altercation in the tavern as the thing that moves play forward.

 

[Lanefan]

Because its a kind of story you (and potentially some of the players) didn't come here for. That'st the long and the short of it.

If I-as-DM am that married to my story that I can't follow the players if-when they pivot to something different, I'm doing it wrong.

And if some of the players want to stick to the original story they can always have their characters decline to go on the alternate mission, thus forcing an in-party debate (or even a split).

 

[Lanefan]

The thing to remember is D&D isn’t a two player game. Players need to respect what all the other players want to do. To take the game in a direction different to the one agreed in session zero needs everyone to agree (that includes the DM). If player 1 one wants to open a brothel, player 2 finds that morally repugnant, and player 3 wants to kill monsters, then player 1 either needs to go with the group or leave the game.

Why is player 1 being put on the spot here? You've got three players wanting to go in three different directions (nothing I ain't seen before!) and each is (in theory) equally valid; even more so if the 4th player (the DM) was quietly expecting to set up and run a game of courtly intrigue.

And in that case one could even argue player 1 has the right of it: brothels are great sources of information, and in intrigue-based games information is gold.

 

[Mort]

I would not be surprised!

Really? Other than the one poster who has, shall we say unique, views on handling his players, I can't think of anyone HERE (someone, somewhere maybe) who would think doing that to their group was ok, let alone fun.

But then, maybe I'm being optimistic.

 

[Lanefan]

True, but when one player really wants something and one player really doesn't, and the DM doesn't care, what to do?

My answer: if it's in character, let 'em fight.

If it's out of character, one or both of the players might have a short career at the table.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There is no world.

yes there is, unless all your campaigns take place in a endless featureless empty white void.

 

[Lanefan]

Chances are, the answer is "no". Moral issues are pretty much always non-negotiable. It's quite likely player 2 is already offended by the suggestion. Which means the answer has to be "no" for the group, unless the possibility of sex work was included in session zero.

I'd like to think I'd have winnowed that player out of the prospects pool long before session zero.