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

[soviet]

There's a difference between "automatically saying no" (implying 'no' is the answer every time) and "retaining the right to say no" (implying 'no' will be the answer only if there's a good reason and-or if that's what some dice decide).

The former is bad. The latter, however, is fine.

I agree, although it does depend on the frequency of the 'no' answers.

 

[grankless]

How do you define "subverting player choice"? A player can't always get their way. If there were never obstacles the game would be boring.

Obviously a DM can force a railroad for as long as the players will put up with it. But that has little or nothing to do with following the standard D&D assumptions.

Why do you assume that the only reason a person may make a character-based decision, or engage with the fiction in a way explicitly defined by the GM, as "removing obstacles"? I feel like almost every example in this thread has been about people wanting MORE obstacles to deal with...

 

[grankless]

There is very much a sense in the "the GM is the sole authority" camp in this thread that if you permit players to be proactive, they will somehow ruin the game and turn in to selfish monsters who just want to "win the game". First off, I would love for you to tell your friends that you believe this to be true about them. Second, that's how Bloodtide talks - do you want to share a dogmatic opinion with that guy?

 

[Mort]

How do you define "subverting player choice"? A player can't always get their way. If there were never obstacles the game would be boring.

Subverting player choice is when the players are presented with what looks like a choice, but the DM actually only has one specific way everything will play out.

One easy example. The DM presents the players with supposed different routes to get somewhere. He telegraphs that one is the easier route but longer route and the other is the shorter but much more dangerous route. The players, being cautious, pick the easier route. But unbeknownst to them, the DM only had one route and the encounters are exactly the same.

Obviously a DM can force a railroad for as long as the players will put up with it. But that has little or nothing to do with following the standard D&D assumptions.

Doesn't it? It is all too easy for a DM to overly influence the direction of play by only being open to very specific requests and strategies, either deliberately or because they don't know better.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Subverting player choice is when the players are presented with what looks like a choice, but the DM actually only has one specific way everything will play out.

One easy example. The DM presents the players with supposed different routes to get somewhere. He telegraphs that one is the easier route but longer route and the other is the shorter but much more dangerous route. The players, being cautious, pick the easier route. But unbeknownst to them, the DM only had one route and the encounters are exactly the same.

I don't disagree that this would be subversion of player choice, but I do think it's kind of extreme. When I think of subversion, I don't necessarily think of the quantum ogre as much as tomfoolery around the edges of the game. If a GM presents a choice where he has a (communicated or uncommunicated) preference and then, when the players make a different choice, puts his thumb on the scale by playing the game differently, that would be subversion to me. This could be anything from a sudden predilection for wandering monster tables or strictly enforcing encumbrance rules to actually rigging encounters or scenes through inflating bonuses, adding damage reduction, or playing NPCs and monsters as having knowledge they ought not to. I think I'm more concerned with a GM that punishes players for clever or unexpected play than I am with a GM who drops the quantum ogre into his game.

 

[Mort]

I don't disagree that this would be subversion of player choice, but I do think it's kind of extreme. When I think of subversion, I don't necessarily think of the quantum ogre as much as tomfoolery around the edges of the game. If a GM presents a choice where he has a (communicated or uncommunicated) preference and then, when the players make a different choice, puts his thumb on the scale by playing the game differently, that would be subversion to me. This could be anything from a sudden predilection for wandering monster tables or strictly enforcing encumbrance rules to actually rigging encounters or scenes through inflating bonuses, adding damage reduction, or playing NPCs and monsters as having knowledge they ought not to. I think I'm more concerned with a GM that punishes players for clever or unexpected play than I am with a GM who drops the quantum ogre into his game.

Yes, punishing for unexpected play is the worst.

That said, my example was a bit worse than the typical quantum ogre, Because the DM actually telegraphed a supposed difference. Usually with the quantum ogre, the PCs don't have the information. Say they see a left door and a right door and randomly pick a door. Since they have no information there is no actual choice, so the fact that there is always an ogre, just means linear.

But if the DM fakes a choice and the players, after thinking they've considered their options pick one according to actual information? If the outcome is the same, IMO, that's worse.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Second, that's how Bloodtide talks - do you want to share a dogmatic opinion with that guy?

Mod Note:

Let’s not make things personal, thank you.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

But if the DM fakes a choice and the players, after thinking they've considered their options pick one according to actual information? If the outcome is the same, IMO, that's worse.

Yeah, I think I can probably get down with that. It's not far from punishing players for unexpected play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Characters of course can have NPC allies. I however am a bit cautious about situations where they have some really powerful ally. It could lead to the situation where logically the NPC would just solve the PCs' problems for them, which would not necessarily produce an interesting game. Because whilst the characters probably would be trilled if Elminster showed up to beat the bad guys for them, it generally is something the players hate. So when putting powerful people in the world (which in mine are far rarer than in Forgotten Realms) I usually give them motivations and commitments that limit them. This of course doesn't mean that they could not offer any assistance.

But who here has suggested that allies can just swoop in and solve all problems? Not anyone advocating for the kind of approach I'm talking about. As a player, why would I want to render all the challenges obsolete? It would be boring play.

For all the talk of setting being important... wouldn't NPC allies fall into that category? They're part of the setting. They are one of the ways the PCs connect to the setting. They are, in my opinion, pretty vital. As play progresses, the characters are likely to accumulate allies. Why would these allies not assist them? Where is the setting logic in that?

I tend to look at allies... whether gods or underlings or nobles or whatever... as something earned in play. They're rewards for playing well. You help these people out, they owe you a favor. You save the Duchy, the Duke's your boy. And so on.

As such, I really don't see them as different than a spell. So I don't mind when they're used in a similar manner to the way a spell would be. Like locating an object. Or obtaining an asset. Providing safety. Vouching for you. And so on.

And yes, of course any and all NPCs should have their own commitments, concerns, and goals that should factor into this. No one is saying otherwise. And they can also be a burden, too. They can make demands. They can require help. They can get themselves or the PCs into trouble. I don't think anyone really wants a bunch of "I win buttons" they can deploy at will.

They want to feel like their character and their relationships are just as important to the setting as any other setting element.

Gods, I feel, are the Elmister problem times hundred. If we accept that the gods directly intervene, and not just act trough the powers they give to their clerics, then that becomes the ultimate trump card. There is nothing they could not solve. So whilst the gods in my D&D worlds are undeniably real, and do commune with people in some limited ways, they also do not directly involve themselves into mortal affairs.

Except in the example I gave, Odin was not the ultimate trump card. I suggested that Odin provide the location of an item warded against scrying. That's it. How is that a trump card? Now the PCs know where it is... they still have to get it.

I also said he would demand a price. Because Odin's a dick.

You'd think I suggested the DM go along with the player saying "Hey Odin, can you go get this hidden phylactery for me? I'll be in the tavern... let me know when you have it!" It's ridiculous.

And the specifics of the example aren't really what's important so much as the idea that DM's don't need to simply shut down player ideas which may at first seem problematic to them. They can be worked with. Not necessarily granted in their entirety, but they can serve as a prompt to something different and unexpected. Something more collaborative.

Imagine if DMs took player ideas and treated them as relevant as their own prep.

I don't hate your approach, but I feel it is better suited for a game in which magic and divine favour are handled in more freeform way to begin with. And I don't think this is really about caring about the world over the characters, my concerns were mainly about the gameplay dynamic.

I think for many people it absolutely is caring about the setting over the characters. And I don't mean to categorize that as something bad. It's simply a preference. But I think it tends to put the focus on the material the DM has prepared and the world that they've built as paramount. The characters are less important in those instances for sure.

And I think you do have a point that other games make this kind of thing easier. I mean, yes... many are designed with this approach in mind. And D&D does default to heavily relying on prepped material, which only causes people to hold their prep above other things, which makes player contribution less likely... like a feedback loop.

But it's definitely not impossible... I've done it, and the setting actually didn't suffer for it. There was no incoherence that resulted, no continuity conflicts, no players skimping their way to victory... all these concerns just aren't as valid as they are being portrayed.

D&D does not have rules for this, no. But it is highly likely that as the party rises in level they will pile up both obligations and favors from small and powerful alike. By the time they get to TRULY high level a one time "get out of x free..." chit of some sort isn't all that unlikely.

This is the way I was looking at it. If my character goes from level 1 to 20 and doesn't start racking up favors and friendships along the way (along with enemies and debts, too) I don't see how the world would seem real. Especially if the PCs are the heroic sort who help save the day.

 

[pemerton]

Meanwhile I think that the character interacts with the world through their words and deeds just like the books tell us has worked fine for me and the people I've played with for decades.

So here's a thing: no one is disagreeing with you about this.

"I punch the nearest guy in the face!" is a declaration of the character's deeds. It is not an attempt by the player to have their PC interact with the setting in any other way than via words and deeds.

For that matter, praying to a god with the hope that they might answer is not anything more than a declaration of the character's words, and so is not an attempt by the player to have their PC interact with the setting in any way other than via words and deeds.

The discussion over the last several pages of this thread has not had anything to do with characters interacting with the world via their words and deeds. It's been about who at the table is entitled/empowered to have their assumptions/ideas about what is in the world be shared by the others at the table.

I don't know how to interpret the following other than the DM is doing it wrong and shutting down players being proactive if they don't say yes to the suggestion that there's someone else in the bar.

No one in this thread has talked about suggesting that there is someone else in the bar. They have talked about declaring that their PC punches the nearest dude! That's neither a suggestion nor a question, which was @TwoSix's original point: a preference to declare actions rather than engage in meta-level haggling.

If the GM wants to respond there is no dude nearby to punch well, in some RPGs and some approaches to RPGing, that is the GM's prerogative. I tend to agree with @soviet that a GM whose first instinct is to respond in that way is going to discourage players from being imaginative about the shared fiction.