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

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

What sort of fraught moments have you experienced? What were your conflicts and what were the resolutions?

 

[Xamnam]

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?

A lot of the questions have been "Why do you as DM not like giving authorial control of X degree to players," and I didn't want to speak for those that felt strongly there. However, as a player:

I look to different games for different things, and in some I'd be excited and expecting to contribute, and in some I'd be fine or neutral about it.

In the games where I actively do not want that power/responsibility, the ones where my primary goal is to explore and discover a 'world' (or shared fiction) that is generated primarily outside of contributions from me (aside from achievable in-character actions), even just knowing that I had that power/authorial control/ability would dramatically increase my perceived artificiality of the world, and actively rob enjoyment of that game from me.

 

[soviet]

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.

In a game that goes full on into the 'players help create the setting' - such as Other Worlds, written by yours truly - then maybe. Although in my experience as long as about half of the group is fully on board, one or two more reluctant or shy players doesn't cause any issues.

But I'm just talking about a game of regular ol' D&D where players are allowed to introduce minor setting elements if they want to. Punchable tavern customers, bands, and local blacksmiths.

What issue does it cause if one player wants to add that stuff and another player doesn't?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But I'm just talking about a game of regular ol' D&D where players are allowed to introduce minor setting elements if they want to. Punchable tavern customers, bands, and local blacksmiths.

What issue does it cause if one player wants to add that stuff and another player doesn't?

Possibly none. Though depending on how it is done, it might highlight the artificiality of the setting to some participants.

 

[TwoSix]

Possibly none. Though depending on how it is done, it might highlight the artificiality of the setting to some participants.

“Artificiality” is an interesting word choice here. I’m assuming your feeling is that a setting pre-created by a single person therefore feels less artificial?

 

[Oofta]

So do I.

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

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 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?

By "I don't see a big issue" in this case is that most people wouldn't abuse declarations of action and results for minor things. So to me it's primarily a preference in how we interact with the world when playing. Most of the time with most players it's not going to cause any thematic or continuity issues.

Unfortunately I have had players that have abused the good faith agreement on campaign theme and style. I'd be curious how other DMs handle it.

Hopefully that explains it better.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What sort of fraught moments have you experienced? What were your conflicts and what were the resolutions?

I can think of a couple, one recent and minor, another from years ago and much more significant.

The recent one was not in D&D, but in a game of Stonetop. It's a PbtA game about the champions of a quasi-iron age village. While there are certainly elements of challenge, the focus of play is more about discovering what happens to the characters and the village.

The issue came when I introduced a complication on a partial success to a player who can at times be very win-oriented. He's a huge video gamer, and that can bleed over into his RPGs at times. He was trying to get help from one group of people against another, and for the complication due to the partial success, I introduced a level of uncertainty about the new allies. That although they will help now, they may cause issues in the future.

What happened next was that he locked up and couldn't make a decision to accept the help or not. The other players were all watching, and kind of indirectly urging him to proceed. But he couldn't accept anything but a perfect resolution... unless he got assistance without any drawbacks, his brain couldn't proceed. The other players got frustrated, and then he got frustrated in response. We resolved it by calling it a night and agreeing to talk about it later on. A couple days later, he and I met for lunch, and we discussed it. We talked about the purpose of play and expectations and so on. And things have been fine since then.

The other time was far worse. It was about 12 years ago. My group was playing Pathfinder at the time. I was the primary GM and I was growing increasingly frustrated with the system and the process of running it. I had a player who was very much focused on character builds. He's spend hours in between sessions working on builds and trying to come up with really combat-effective characters. Then he'd bring them to play, see them in action for a session or two, and then his interest would totally die. And he'd ask to make a new character. After this happening several times, he came to the game with a character that was one of the most absurd things I'd ever seen. It was a version of the Summoner class from Pathfinder... except the Summoner would summon the Eidolon, and it would surround the summoner like power armor. Not bad in and of itself... but he could also somehow duplicate this thing so that he had another? Something like that.

Anyway, it was a really broken combo of things and his character was just like super effective. In a tough fight against some really tough enemies, the Eidolon actually was defeated (or banished? I forget, but it was out of play). The character then proceeded to break out his bow and was as effective an archer as our ranger character. So then after several rounds of like 6 shots per round or something, I eventually asked him how many arrows he had.

He totally flipped out. Got mad at me because "we never track ammo" and so on, and how I was just trying to find a way to "make him lose". He stormed out.

Now, I'm not going to say it was entirely his fault... I definitely bear some of the blame. I was not trying to make him lose so much as trying to find ANY weak spot to his character. Like some kind of drawback. The fact that I got to "how many arrows do you have" shows that I was scrambling for any kind of shortcoming. So, he was right in a way... I probably was focused on that stuff more than I should have been. On his side, I think he was approaching the game from a way that was totally over the top and extreme.

We smoothed things over and remain friends, and he still games with us upon occasion (he's since moved, so it's rare). I also have never run or played Pathfinder again. It was the last straw for that game for me, and probably a sign I should have punched out sooner. I don't like its focus on character build and the way that works and how the system allows for truly absurd combinations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

“Artificiality” is an interesting word choice here. I’m assuming your feeling is that a setting pre-created by a single person therefore feels less artificial?

Yes, definitely! I said this before, we all of course know it is made up in, but watching the process of it being made up real time, let alone participating in it really highlight the artificiality for me. It erodes the illusion that the setting is an objectively existing separate thing.

I think this quirk in thinking a lot of people have, but not everyone, and I think it has a big impact on preferred approaches and results people "not getting" where others are coming from.

And this is not deal breaker or anything for me, though I know it is for some people, who probably feel similarly than me, but just stronger. So I get it.

Though a way to circumvent or at least alleviate this (at least to me) is to have the player contributions to happen before and between the games, not during actual play. It is different to be in author mode then, than to switch from actor to author and then back mid game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

“Artificiality” is an interesting word choice here. I’m assuming your feeling is that a setting pre-created by a single person therefore feels less artificial?

Crimson may have their own response but in general i feel we’ve been fairly consistent in saying that being able to directly manipulate details about a setting as a player (or having other players do the same) is un-immersive for us, (with a lack of immersion hilighting the artificial nature of the setting) as ‘in the real world’ it’s not possible to influence things in that way.

 

[Xamnam]

What happened next was that he locked up and couldn't make a decision to accept the help or not. The other players were all watching, and kind of indirectly urging him to proceed. But he couldn't accept anything but a perfect resolution... unless he got assistance without any drawbacks, his brain couldn't proceed. The other players got frustrated, and then he got frustrated in response. We resolved it by calling it a night and agreeing to talk about it later on. A couple days later, he and I met for lunch, and we discussed it. We talked about the purpose of play and expectations and so on. And things have been fine since then.

I totally understand if you want to maintain their privacy, or just don't remember or feel like sharing, but I have to admit I'm fairly curious about the course of that conversation, both their perspective and how the instigating issue was resolved.