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

[Xamnam]

A not-very-religious rogue suddenly dropping down and praying for a miracle? I'd need a pretty compelling narration, but I'm not outright saying no.

I'm suddenly reminded of this thread, which ended up covering a lot of similar ground. I have to say, that one did a lot to sway me towards the idea of non-clerics/paladins/etc. pleading for divine intervention successfully, by virtue of the host of story options that result.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the interest of moving forward in some way... something I find interesting in some of these conversations is the expectations some have of the DM.

They're supposed to create an entire world. Continents, nations, governments, and so on. Groups of people with goals and hierarchies and rivals. Individuals with a place in society and a connection to others. And history for all of this stuff... how a nation came to be, why a city was founded where it was, who begat who begat who begat who, and so on. Social elements, too... migrations and movements not just for different cultures, but for entirely different beings. Elves and dwarves and orcs and so on. Each with their own narrative needs.

Add to this a cosmology... different divine beings and possible other planes of existence. A way for all these things to fit together and make some kind of coherent sense. To have each serve some kind of purpose and to provide a structure to it all. Gods and devils and so on to give the cosmology some kind of agency in the setting... representatives of ideas or concepts in the physical world. Entire religions devoted to these ideas, many often at direct conflict with one another... each with their own practices and goals and rivalries and holidays and so on.

In most cases, a magic system that flows from the cosmology in some way (or perhaps alongside or even counter to it). Ways for all the different facets of magic to work, and how they influence this world. Who can use magic and how? What can be accomplished with it? Different types of magic or different schools. Organizations related to the study of magic, or maybe the suppression of magic. And so on.

And, all of this stuff is meant to be compelling from a game perspective. A lot of it isn't relegated to mere color... if there is a prison plane such as Carceri, it serves a purpose not just for the setting, but for play as well. Perhaps the characters need to break into the prison plane. Perhaps they need to escape. Perhaps they send beings there, and those beings hold a grudge. Each of this myriad of things is not just there for flavor, but there for play.

All this is expected of the DM.

Yes.

But if they let the players introduce anything... it all comes crashing down?

No, though certainly an unified creative vision helps for things to be coherent and compelling. But what you seem to have hard time grasping, that a lot of players do not want introduce setting elements. That is not what they're there to do, they are to perform another, equally vital part, to play the main characters of the story that will unfold in this world. This story it is not prewritten, it is the thing we create together, not the setting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My personal interpretation is that D&D has moved away from having any sorts of "win conditions" or "loss conditions" that impact the player, and that's been the case for a very long time.

There are some diegetic "losses" that impact the path of the story. A TPK would generally be considered a group loss, but those are rare and often viewed to be as much a failure of the DM as of the players.

Player loss via "character death" is mitigated by the common condition of creating a new character at the same level as the current party and immediately integrating the new character into the party and story.

With "playing to win" mostly obviated as a player goal, the play goals then become maximizing the entertainment value and story quality within the game framework.

Yeah, this is absolutely true. It's something I've wrestled with about D&D for quite some time.

Each edition has shifted things away from the original game. That's not bad by any means... but when the focus of play shifts, design choices and processes of play need to be reexamined. That hasn't always happened. Some things have remained more out of inertia than out being applicable design. It has left some confused areas in what play is meant to be, and how to best go about that.

And I think players and GMs have similarly differing goals for play. Some may even have mutable goals for play that shift from moment to moment within the same game session.

I think a lot of times, participants in the same game are uncertain or unaware of the play goals of others. I've had this happen to me, for sure. Again, I think it's a problem mostly related to D&D given the number of editions and versions and varying and evolving ideas about what play is meant to be about. But it can lead to really fraught moments.

 

[pemerton]

I like games, both as a player and DM, that follow the standard D&D play loop.

So do I.

The player is responsible for their character and, outside of working with the DM on backstory (which hopefully includes some NPCs and connections), contribute to the world via their words and deeds.

Yes, agreed as per my post not too far upthread.

Then there's the other side of the fence where people allow players to introduce things and ideas into the game via declaration. That could be as simple as "There's a band in the bar so I go to ask for a specific style of song" when it was never established there was a band.

Let's consider a version of this that fits the standard D&D play loop.

GM: You're in a bar.
Player: I go up to the band and ask them to play <such-and-such piece of music>.
GM: <narrates what happens, following the relevant procedure for the game being played>​

Or consider this example:

GM: You've been tasked to find <this important artefact>.
Player: I pray to Odin - "Allfather, where can we find <the artefact>?"
GM" <narrates what happens, following the relevant procedure for the game being played>​

There is nothing about D&D, that I'm aware of, that obliges the GM to respond "There is no band" in the first case, or "The Allfather is deaf to your entreaties" in the second case.

I also don't see a big issue for most players.

I and others in this thread have already posted, in this thread, why it is a "big issue" for us. Are you dismissing us here? Or have I misread you?

 

[Oofta]

In the interest of moving forward in some way... something I find interesting in some of these conversations is the expectations some have of the DM.

They're supposed to create an entire world. Continents, nations, governments, and so on. Groups of people with goals and hierarchies and rivals. Individuals with a place in society and a connection to others. And history for all of this stuff... how a nation came to be, why a city was founded where it was, who begat who begat who begat who, and so on. Social elements, too... migrations and movements not just for different cultures, but for entirely different beings. Elves and dwarves and orcs and so on. Each with their own narrative needs.

Add to this a cosmology... different divine beings and possible other planes of existence. A way for all these things to fit together and make some kind of coherent sense. To have each serve some kind of purpose and to provide a structure to it all. Gods and devils and so on to give the cosmology some kind of agency in the setting... representatives of ideas or concepts in the physical world. Entire religions devoted to these ideas, many often at direct conflict with one another... each with their own practices and goals and rivalries and holidays and so on.

In most cases, a magic system that flows from the cosmology in some way (or perhaps alongside or even counter to it). Ways for all the different facets of magic to work, and how they influence this world. Who can use magic and how? What can be accomplished with it? Different types of magic or different schools. Organizations related to the study of magic, or maybe the suppression of magic. And so on.

And, all of this stuff is meant to be compelling from a game perspective. A lot of it isn't relegated to mere color... if there is a prison plane such as Carceri, it serves a purpose not just for the setting, but for play as well. Perhaps the characters need to break into the prison plane. Perhaps they need to escape. Perhaps they send beings there, and those beings hold a grudge. Each of this myriad of things is not just there for flavor, but there for play.

All this is expected of the DM.

But if they let the players introduce anything... it all comes crashing down?

Different strokes for different folks. If you want to collaboratively build a world as a DM and player, go for it. Just stop telling people we're doing it wrong if we don't.

 

[TwoSix]

No, though certainly an unified creative vision helps for things to be coherent and compelling. But what you seem to have hard time grasping, that a lot of players do not want introduce setting elements. That is not what they're there to do, they are to perform another, equally vital part, to play the main characters of the story that will unfold in this world. This story it is not prewritten, it is the thing we create together, not the setting.

I think we're all generally aware that some players, even many players, are unwilling or unable to participate in such a capacity.

But when I present a simplistic scenario (I assume a NPC is present to be able to punch) from a player perspective and some of the feedback is "That goes against what I would allow as a DM", then it seems the objection is at a "DMing philosophy" level, not a player preference level.

 

[soviet]

No, though certainly an unified creative vision helps for things to be coherent and compelling. But what you seem to have hard time grasping, that a lot of players do not want introduce setting elements. That is not what they're there to do, they are to perform another, equally vital part, to play the main characters of the story that will unfold in this world. This story it is not prewritten, it is the thing we create together, not the setting.

If you're playing in a game where the GM lets you create minor setting elements, and you don't want to create minor setting elements, can't you just choose not to create minor setting elements?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think we're all generally aware that some players, even many players, are unwilling or unable to participate in such a capacity.

But when I present a simplistic scenario (I assume a NPC is present to be able to punch) from a player perspective and some of the feedback is "That goes against what I would allow as a DM", then it seems the objection is at a "DMing philosophy" level, not a player preference level.

Well, I really didn't have an issue with the bar patron punching, but yes, of course it is also about GM preferences. Basically everyone participating should be on the same page regarding what the role of each participant in this game is. If this doesn't happen, then there might be problems. In here we have mainly dealt with situations where the player might assume more setting authority than the GM is comfortable with, but it would similarly be a problem if a game expected the player to take certain level of setting authority and they refused to do that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes.


No, though certainly an unified creative vision helps for things to be coherent and compelling. But what you seem to have hard time grasping, that a lot of players do not want introduce setting elements. That is not what they're there to do, they are to perform another, equally vital part, to play the main characters of the story that will unfold in this world. This story it is not prewritten, it is the thing we create together, not the setting.

No, I don't have a hard time grasping that. If a player and DM have no conflict about this stuff, then there's no issue. So I'm not talking about that... what would be the point? I'm only talking about instances where there may be conflict.

Different strokes for different folks. If you want to collaboratively build a world as a DM and player, go for it. Just stop telling people we're doing it wrong if we don't.

If me stating my preference is telling you yours is wrong, then you stating your preference is telling me mine is wrong, too, Oofta.

Neither is true. You are right that these are preferences. No one is saying any is objectively better. No one is saying anyone is doing anything wrong. Please move past that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you're playing in a game where the GM lets you create minor setting elements, and you don't want to create minor setting elements, can't you just choose not to create minor setting elements?

That is not always possible. Some games might assume the player to take such a responsibility. Also, if the setting element is something that is needed, but the GM doesn't create it either as they expect the player to, then we have a problem.