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

[hawkeyefan]

It's also in the rules, right there in the play loop: the DM describes (or narrates) the scene. The player declares an action. The DM describes (or narrates) the results. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Which rather explicitly puts the describing of the scene (which includes all the elements of said scene) in the DM's purview and only in the DM's purview.

What part of “I punch the guy next to me” violates that playloop?

And what is the issue even if it did?

Hence, "DM-side only stuff". This also means that if, in the players' view, the DM describes the scene inadequately then before declaring any actions it's incumbent on the players to ask for further description and-or clarification.

Again, you are stating this as a requirement. I’ll tag @Oofta and @Micah Sweet so they can see what I’m arguing instead of imagining that I’m attacking their preferences.

I don’t require my players to ask me additional questions. If I describe a tavern and I don’t point out that it’s empty of patrons, then I really don’t mind if they mention patrons in some way when they declare actions.

Now… I get that what I’ve just described is not everyone’s preference. That’s very clear. But from a DM’s perspective, what is the actual issue?

Why, as DM, do you have that preference?

This isn't "mother may I", it's the play loop working as intended.

For some, it feels like the former rather than the latter.

Now obviously you can change this to allow players to also describe or add scene elements when declaring actions, but that's more than just a kitbash: it's a rather fundamental change to the root kernel around which the entire system revolves.

It really depends on a lot of factors, I think. The traditional split of authority between DM and players was arranged around a playstyle that’s not all that prevalent today. So, for me, it makes sense to examine what such a change in game structure means for the game.

What are we looking to get out of play? Does this paradigm actually serve that agenda?

yes, a shared imagination where we imagine a world.

when a player declares details they influencing the fictional world, it might not be a 'real' world but that doesn't mean the details aren't being changed.

Influencing, sure. I was arguing against the idea of “bending” which implies a change from one shape to another. No one is advocating for changing something that’s established.

i would not describe what happens in play as negotiation, that sounds far too flimsy a world if what is true about it can be 'negotiated', and the 'truth' of what exists in the setting is what the GM informs is so and what the players makes so through the actions of their characters.

The rules of play are how we negotiate what happens in the fiction. For instance, if I say my fighter swings his sword to hit the orc, that’s negotiated with a die roll and comparing some numbers.

How is it not? You just created an NPC out of thin air.

No, he introduced an NPC that was likely present based on the DM’s description of the scene. That’s not the same as “thin air”.

If a player says “I turn to the hill giant next to me and punch him” then that’s somethi g different. We have no reason to imagine that a hill giant would be at a tavern.

But a person?

Again… what would the issue be with this? What problem does it present to you as a DM?

You're not going to convince me any of those statements are anything more than your preference.

I didn’t state any preferences in that post. I mean… if you want to believe that the stuff you’ve written and olayed overthe years is a world… like, an actual world instead of just a product of imagination… more power to you. But I think such a stance has little to do with preference.

This is a really good analysis, as well as an invitation to explain what the issue is.

I’ve asked a few times now… and twice again in this post. Everyone seems to be dodging the question in favor of defending preferences that I’ve not criticized.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

My main issue with the brothel thing (assuming there is no human(oid) trafficking or other nasty stuff like that) would be that in a D&D game other participants probably wanted the game to be about adventuring rather than staying put and managing a business. But if it was just some side hustle and would not stop the character from doing other stuff, then it obviously would be fine. Hell, now that we have rules for it, maybe it could be the character's bastion? I wonder if they included rules for this type of a facility?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know how it can be much clearer. I quoted the play loop above, it's only 3 steps.

It could be clearer by not requiring interpretation.

@hawkeyefan's point, at least as I understand it, is that there is no objective, external, action-constraining entity that might, via human action, be "bent".

Rather, there is a shared fiction that is established and built upon during play.

And so when a player, speaking as their PC, says "I punch the nearest dude in the face" - and thus, if there action declaration goes uncontradicted, inter alia establishes that there is a nearby dude with a face to be punched - they are not "bending" anything. Rather, they are adding to the shared fiction: something that was previously implicit and merely background in the fiction, given that the PC was in a tavern - namely, the presence of that nearby dude - has now become explicit and highly salient in the play of the game.

Precisely. “Bend” implies to me taking something and changing it. But that’s not what’s happening in the example.

To me, the player is building upon what the DM said. They're not changing something… they’re adding to it.

Which in a game that requires collaboration, doesn’t really sound problematic to me.

No we are not reading your actual play and what @Lanefan said was reasonable inference based on your sentence. You have had several opportunities to confirm how it actually works but you have chosen not to.

He provided examples. You don’t want to read them. Don’t blame him.

That’s utterly ridiculous.

 

[Oofta]

What part of “I punch the guy next to me” violates that playloop?

And what is the issue even if it did?



Again, you are stating this as a requirement. I’ll tag @Oofta and @Micah Sweet so they can see what I’m arguing instead of imagining that I’m attacking their preferences.

I don’t require my players to ask me additional questions. If I describe a tavern and I don’t point out that it’s empty of patrons, then I really don’t mind if they mention patrons in some way when they declare actions.

Now… I get that what I’ve just described is not everyone’s preference. That’s very clear. But from a DM’s perspective, what is the actual issue?

Why, as DM, do you have that preference?



For some, it feels like the former rather than the latter.



It really depends on a lot of factors, I think. The traditional split of authority between DM and players was arranged around a playstyle that’s not all that prevalent today. So, for me, it makes sense to examine what such a change in game structure means for the game.

What are we looking to get out of play? Does this paradigm actually serve that agenda?



Influencing, sure. I was arguing against the idea of “bending” which implies a change from one shape to another. No one is advocating for changing something that’s established.





The rules of play are how we negotiate what happens in the fiction. For instance, if I say my fighter swings his sword to hit the orc, that’s negotiated with a die roll and comparing some numbers.



No, he introduced an NPC that was likely present based on the DM’s description of the scene. That’s not the same as “thin air”.

If a player says “I turn to the hill giant next to me and punch him” then that’s somethi g different. We have no reason to imagine that a hill giant would be at a tavern.

But a person?

Again… what would the issue be with this? What problem does it present to you as a DM?



I didn’t state any preferences in that post. I mean… if you want to believe that the stuff you’ve written and olayed overthe years is a world… like, an actual world instead of just a product of imagination… more power to you. But I think such a stance has little to do with preference.



I’ve asked a few times now… and twice again in this post. Everyone seems to be dodging the question in favor of defending preferences that I’ve not criticized.

The "issue" is clear. Unless it's been previously established that there is a guy sitting next to your PC you cannot assume there is one. You can ask for a clarification of the scene, you cannot add to it as a player.

It's really that simple. It's not the only way to play but it is the default for D&D. The player only interacts with the world through the words and deeds of their character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, as per my post upthread about the trees and their leaves, there will always be information that is not narrated by the GM, but that (i) is implicit in what they have narrated, taken together with other established elements of the fiction, and (ii) that a player regards as salient although the GM has not thought of it.

Patrons in bars; leaves on trees; rubbish in alleyways; taxidermists in towns; whatever it might be.

The only way to avoid (ii) is to run such a tight railroad that only the GM gets to decide what is salient.

The only way to avoid (i) is to require the players to ignore the embodied, sensory, volitional nature of their characters, and instead ask the GM for permission to declare actions.

I have said many times I have no issue with the general concept of the players inferring obvious stuff that has not been directly mentioned. I just do not think that how crowded a bar is can be reasonably inferred from just there being a bar. A bar could be empty, it could be packed full, or anything in between. Thus a good description would include this information.

 

[Scribe]

I wonder if they included rules for this type of a facility?

You wonder if Wizards included sex work in the player facing content in the year of our lord 2024?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

He provided examples. You don’t want to read them. Don’t blame him.

That’s utterly ridiculous.

I think it is utterly ridiculous to bring a mechanic from another game into a D&D discussion and then refuse to explain how the mechanic actually works, and instead mock people for potentially getting it wrong. And this is far from the only time they've done this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You wonder if Wizards included sex work in the player facing content in the year of our lord 2024?

No, I don't actually, it was a joke. Though there might be some sort of generic business facility that could be used to represent various sorts of enterprises.

 

[Oofta]

I have said many times I have no issue with the general concept of the players inferring obvious stuff that has not been directly mentioned. I just do not think that how crowded a bar is can be reasonably inferred from just there being a bar. A bar could be empty, it could be packed full, or anything in between. Thus a good description would include this information.

Even if the bar is somewhat crowded, people could be avoiding the angry drunk at the bar. But it's also irrelevant, the player declaring that there is someone sitting next to them instead of asking for clarification of the scene is overstepping the established bounds of their role in the game.

This is a pretty silly example, but it become a question of scope, roles, and who is responsible for what. It's not much different than a player declaring there is a taxidermist in town instead of asking if there is one.

 

[Scribe]

No, I don't actually, it was a joke. Though there might be some sort of generic business facility that could be used to represent various sorts of enterprises.

My apologies then for missing the joke, you never can tell with some of the uh...takes, we see online these days.