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

[pemerton]

So is D&D not a good system because it doesn't work like your preferred system?

Huh?

You asked about what happens if a GM and player, or two players, become confused or contradictory in respect of the fiction. And I replied that "A good RPG has formal or informal processes for resolving this."

I didn't say anything about whether or not D&D is a good system. I know that when I play D&D, there are processes for resolving confusion or contradiction - generally informal one. I don't know how you handle it when you play D&D.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The GM told me I (that is, my PC) is in a tavern. Don't you think that a tavern implies patrons, at least some of whom might be nearby?

Implies, but far from confirms, that’s the snag, you’re leaping from a possibly of the state of fiction to assuming it as fact.

Edit: Assuming the guy is there might be small potatoes, but the principle that it relies on getting used on more significant factors is a problem.

 

[Oofta]

The issue is not clear to me. I mean, I get what you’re protesting. I’m asking you “why”.

Why is it an issue?



And how does “I punch the guy nearby” create a problem for you as DM?

And I mean beyond describing the basic loop as you see it.

What’s the actual issue? If a player did that in your game, why would it be a problem?




@pemerton provided a link to a thread where it was explained. If @Lanefan or you don’t want to read that thread, that’s fine… it’s really not a big deal. But demanding a further explanation? Gimme a break.

Like, I have no idea how Runequest works. If someone mentions it, and I make assumptions about it, and I’m wrong, I’m not gonna blame the person that mentioned it.

But really this is a pretty unimportant tangent. I mean, I doubt @Lanefan even cares what Torchbearer is, let aline how it works.

Why do you care what my preference is? I don't care why you have different preferences.

 

[pemerton]

we are not characterising any of that as 'world bending power' (confirmation pending on hypothetical state of the campaign world and that you're declaring your attempts to do those actions rather than asserting them as facts/truths.)

you can go to the castle (assuming one exists and entry is not barred)

I don't really care whether it is a castle, a blacksmith's or a taxidermist's. Or a person to punch.

Some posters - including @Oofta and @Micah Sweet - have said that the player should ask the GM a question. @TwoSix posted that he prefers to just declare the action.

And the latter has been described as "world-bending" (by @Micah Sweet and by @Oofta) and as creating a NPC "out of thin air" (by @Oofta).

you cannot say 'the guards left the back gate unlocked'

<snip>

you cannot say what equipment the blacksmiths has in store to purchase

I can declare "I go through the back gate of the castle". If the GM's response to that is "You try it, but it's locked" well that's up to them. Depending on the rules, principles, procedures, etc of the RPG being played, they may be at liberty just to make that up, or their may be some resolution procedure that applies (eg in 4e D&D, this seems like the sort of thing that would be a skill challenge, and the player might declare an action to establish that the gate is unlocked, such as a Streetwise check to have picked up a relevant rumour or to have bribed a relevant official).

I can declare "I go to the blacksmith to buy some iron spikes", and again how the GM responds is then up to them and the rules, principles, etc of the game being played.

Implies, but far from confirms, that’s the snag, you’re leaping from a possibly of the state of fiction to assuming it as fact.

Edit: Assuming the guy is there might be small potatoes, but the principle that it relies on getting used on more significant factors is a problem.

What's the problem?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@pemerton provided a link to a thread where it was explained. If @Lanefan or you don’t want to read that thread, that’s fine… it’s really not a big deal. But demanding a further explanation? Gimme a break.

That thread is fourteen pages long. It is pretty unreasonable to expect people to comb through it searching for an answer for how a specific rule works.

Like, I have no idea how Runequest works. If someone mentions it, and I make assumptions about it, and I’m wrong, I’m not gonna blame the person that mentioned it.

If someone uses a rule from another game than the one the discussion is about as an example, then I feel it is incumbent on them to explain how the rule actually works. If they are not willing to do that, then do not bring it up in the first place.

 

[pemerton]

No we are not reading your actual play and what @Lanefan said was reasonable inference based on your sentence.

No it's not.

I said that all PCs have to be in the same phase.

@Lanefan asserted that there are, therefore, no individual actions. That's not a reasonable inference. It's pure conjecture.

You have had several opportunities to confirm how it actually works but you have chosen not to.

Because I'm not obliged to reply to random conjecture.

Everyone posting here knows that, in a game of classic D&D, if two PCs are both in a dungeon they can declare individual actions. Why is there any reason to suppose that Torchbearer is different?

I assume "camp phase" correspond to fictional positioning of the party being at a camp, "town phase" at them being at the town etc. Is this roughly correct? If it is, then what happens, if in one of those phases one player declares that their character leaves the town/camp alone?

In the context of this thread, the reason that I mentioned Torchbearer was because it mandates party play, but not party goals, and that was relevant to a reply to @AnotherGuy who was discussing party goals.

If you want to discuss Torchbearer further than that, start a thread. I'll reply. But it's not relevant to this thread.

 

[pemerton]

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.

What counts as "established"?

Express narration? Reasonable inference? If the latter, do you accept that different tables might have different thresholds for what is reasonable?

And can you see why some people would regard having to ask for clarification of implicit details before declaring an action is un-immersive and potentially tedious? As well as tending to drift towards the GM being the one playing the PC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why do you care what my preference is? I don't care why you have different preferences.

Curiosity, Oofta.

Gee whiz.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No it's not.

I said that all PCs have to be in the same phase.

@Lanefan asserted that there are, therefore, no individual actions. That's not a reasonable inference. It's pure conjecture.

Because I'm not obliged to reply to random conjecture.

Everyone posting here knows that, in a game of classic D&D, if two PCs are both in a dungeon they can declare individual actions. Why is there any reason to suppose that Torchbearer is different?

It was pretty obvious to me from the context that @Lanefan did not mean all individual actions, but specific individual actions, namely leaving the camp/town alone.

In the context of this thread, the reason that I mentioned Torchbearer was because it mandates party play, but not party goals, and that was relevant to a reply to @AnotherGuy who was discussing party goals.

If you want to discuss Torchbearer further than that, start a thread. I'll reply. But it's not relevant to this thread.

Then don't bring it up in the first place.

 

[pemerton]

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.

The bar is just an example. Likewise the leaves on the trees.

I mean, the GM tells us that we're in the castle, at the king's court. I imagine that the castle has a Master of Horses - a chief groom - and so declare, "I go to speak to the Master of Horses!" Is that reasonable, or do I have to ask the GM's permission.

The GM tells us that we're in the castle, at the king's court, and even mentions the Master of Horses. I assume that the Master of Horses lives in the castle, and so declare "I wait until the Master of Horses is at the stables, and then sneak into his quarters." Is that reasonable?

Even returning to the tavern: I declare "I grab a burning brand from the fireplace." Is that reasonable? Does the GM have to describe the fire and its fuel, for it to count as a good description?

Every description leaves stuff unstated or implicit. And every bit of setting that the GM assumed to be mere background, can be rendered salient by a player's action declaration (assuming the game is not a railroad).

If, at every point, the player has to go back to the GM for permission and clarification, that - in my view - undercuts immersion, by fostering a sense of alienation and disembodiment.