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

[Oofta]

Yes, an idea that the player introduced. An angle to try and address a problem that didn’t come from the DM.

That’s pandora’s box?



Not bewilderment at the preference. I don’t know how you keep falling back to preferences.

My bewilderment is about the enormity of expectations for the DM to do all that work himself, to keep track of it all, to make sure it’s all consistent, to make sure it’s all clear.

To have the ability to onboard player declarations and integrate them into the setting, and to have things adjust accordingly.

But to think that if the player contributes an idea for play beyond what their character can do, the DM can’t deal with it.

That idea bewilders me.

Now, I get that folks don’t prefer to play that way… and that’s fine. What I’m objecting to is the idea that it cannot work. That it’s flawed in some way. That it’s a slippery slope that will lead to further problems.

It’s simply not the case. It it doesn’t work for a given DM, sure… than it’s a case of that DM not being skilled at or comfortable with that approach. The issue is not with the approach itself.

Do you see my point now?

Well, I've been adding to my world for decades so it's not like I came up with it overnight. Even when I started a new side campaign, I didn't create a whole new world from scratch. I came up with a basic outline and then fill in details as I need to. It's not like I populate every tavern, know who runs every butcher, baker or candle stick maker. A DM starts with a general outline, fills in what's needed. As you go along you adjust the outline if needed and fill in details while making notes. I didn't make a new world all at once.

But it's not work for me. It's fun and a creative outlet. It gives me something to think about outside of my day-to-day life when I'm driving, trying to get to sleep at night or in the shower. That may not be what some people want to do, some people want to have collaborative world building sessions. It's not bewildering at all, it's rewarding.

 

[TwoSix]

It will.

As a player, if I'm given the ability to do something in the game and don't then at least try to use it to the limit, I'm not doing my job.

Giving players an ability or permission and then asking them to self-restrain or self-police their use of that ability is stupid. It's black and white: they either have an ability or they don't, and if they have it they can use it to the full.

Which means, don't give out an ability until you're sure you're willing to live with it no matter what uses the players see fit to put it to.

Not every roleplaying game, not even every campaign of D&D, is about overcoming external deadly challenges.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I would like to clarity, is that when we are talking about players creating setting elements, I do not believe players inferring minor detail from the description, and the GM being able to correct them if they are wrong, is in practice giving the players any more such authority than asking the GM method does. They're simply two different approaches for doing the same thing, and I am sure in practice most groups use both, though there might be some difference in at what point one is expected to switch from inferring to asking.

Like I don't see much of a functional difference between:

Player: I go to see the blacksmith.
GM: Ok, you do. Her name is Hilda, you find her hammering an axe blade.

and

Player: Is the there a blacksmith in this town?
GM: There sure is, her name is Hilda.
Player: Ok, I go to see her.
GM: You do that. You find her hammering an axe blade.

Or:

Player: I go to see the blacksmith.
GM: Sorry mate, this is a tiny village, they don't have a blacksmith.

and

Player: Is the there a blacksmith in this village?
GM: No, this is a tiny village, they don't have a blacksmith.

 

[KYRON45]

Some of us do our best to stand in opposition to this trend.

The bolded commentary makes me sad.

What is it that you win when you do all of your winning?

 

[Oofta]

What is it that you win when you do all of your winning?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

@hawkeyefan already addressed this a bit, but I’m going to throw some thoughts at this from my perspective as someone that has nearly exclusively GM’d in my gaming lifetime.

Generally, the disparity of what builds out immersion priorities for various people has always informed my opinion that this stuff is very novel to the user, very autobiographical. So while individual testimonials are interesting, they’re not remotely decisive or helpful at the population level (so population level discussions around immersion feels useless).

Take my case which doesn’t seem to apply to most of you guys when it comes to immersion priorities:

* I value immediacy in cognitive loop and emotional provocation more than anything. Back-and-forth around info-vetting (accumulated knowledge/experience, relationships, memories, intuition, etc) or a focus on content that isn’t conflict-charged and/or that doesn’t provoke “pulls me right out” of being present, piqued, cognitively and emotionally involved. It leaves me feeling alienated from the intensity of what is happening and how I should viscerally orient to it.

* I’m a lifelong martial artist, athlete, wilderness trekker, and climber of five years now. My formal study and work life is in the physical sciences. Because of this background, the folks I play with are often working from an information deficit on these things compared to me. As such, the last thing I want to do when either framing scenes/foregrounding consequences or performing the cognitive loop of a person involved in these sort of conflicts is to engage or be engaged at a technical level that (a) doesn’t comport with the realities of what these things entail. Further, (b) the shared language/interface/medium used to exchange information, parse decisions, and resolve actions has to be handled with care.

If (a) or (b) is wonky, that is a big “immersion hit” for myself and almost surely those I’m running games for/playing with. So if I’m a player, I don’t want a GM trying to frame these types of situations beyond their means (especially telling me “what is realistic” when they have little idea) and as a GM, I don’t want to frame decision-points in ways that are inaccessible to players.

* Finally, often in the traditional TTRPG space there is a “the province of my character’s emotional space is mine and mine alone. System/action resolution should never dictate if I’m frightened, smitten, flustered, or carried away on the wings of amygdala hijack.” I find this position just about the most unimmersive thing I could imagine in practice. While resolving a fight/flight/smitten or otherwise overwhelmed by stimulation via system procedure/resolution certainly isn’t the same thing as “The Real McCoy,” it does enough work to emulate the lack of control. Meanwhile, having full autonomy over such things is basically a kill-shot for immersion to me.

---

Hopefully, this does a little work in conveying the vastness of the divide between Trad-space priorities and myself (and those like me) around immersion/simulation of cognitive immediacy, relationships, emotions, memories, accumulated knowledge, intuition, physical disciplines I’m disproportionately acquainted with, and nervous system hijack.

 

[KYRON45]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

I do enjoy a good lamentation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not bewildering at all, it's rewarding.

That's not what @hawkeyefan is saying though.

Obviously some DMs like really in-depth worldbuilding - there's nothing surprising about that. What is "bewildering" here is the idea that a DM who can:

A) Do really in-depth worldbuilding.

and

B) Is flexible enough with his world to adjust for what the PCs do.

But cannot incorporate players suggesting stuff about the world that isn't something their PC did.

That is I think genuinely an odd concept, and contrary to what you're saying, I have absolutely seen people - including on this board - suggest, repeatedly even, that allowing players to suggest or state stuff about the world is somehow dangerous or difficult or a "slippery slope". It's a less common idea than it once was but you still see it around. I don't think you're saying that, but you do seem to be misunderstanding what @hawkeyefan is saying.

My experience is that about 90% of DMs do absolutely incorporate player suggestions and assertions from time to time, and don't even consciously think about it. I think to be a good DM you kind of have to sometimes, because you're only one person, you won't of thought of everything, sometimes there will be holes in your worldbuilding that players are going to patch without even knowing they are. Or just suggestions/additions that make the game/setting better/cooler. Like, "There's got to be an inn in a town this big", unless there's a specific reason to contradict that, you probably just go with it, even if you hadn't planned one out.

I think there's a big difference between that and highly intentional "collaborative worldbuilding". I think "DM predetermines absolutely every aspect of the world" and "group engages in constant collaborative worldbuilding" are pretty much the extreme ends of a spectrum where most groups are somewhere in the middle - maybe closer to one end of the other, but not really at the extremes.

I've seen this as both a player and DM recently, running Spire and playing Mothership, where players have had good ideas about things/people that would be there in Spire, and I've just gone with those, and with Mothership, the DM has ended up incorporating stuff I and other players have suggested several times, and it's definitely helped the game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

What kind of problem do we have?

Kick-down the door dungeon crawls exist and are a valid way to play the game.

If neither the DM or the player want to create a lot of setting elements, that is what you would get, and for DMs/players who don’t want to create a lot of setting elements, it seems that they would be happy.

 

[Oofta]

@hawkeyefan already addressed this a bit, but I’m going to throw some thoughts at this from my perspective as someone that has nearly exclusively GM’d in my gaming lifetime.

Generally, the disparity of what builds out immersion priorities for various people has always informed my opinion that this stuff is very novel to the user, very autobiographical. So while individual testimonials are interesting, they’re not remotely decisive or helpful at the population level (so population level discussions around immersion feels useless).

Take my case which doesn’t seem to apply to most of you guys when it comes to immersion priorities:

* I value immediacy in cognitive loop and emotional provocation more than anything. Back-and-forth around info-vetting (accumulated knowledge/experience, relationships, memories, intuition, etc) or a focus on content that isn’t conflict-charged and/or that doesn’t provoke “pulls me right out” of being present, piqued, cognitively and emotionally involved. It leaves me feeling alienated from the intensity of what is happening and how I should viscerally orient to it.

* I’m a lifelong martial artist, athlete, wilderness trekker, and climber of five years now. My formal study and work life is in the physical sciences. Because of this background, the folks I play with are often working from an information deficit on these things compared to me. As such, the last thing I want to do when either framing scenes/foregrounding consequences or performing the cognitive loop of a person involved in these sort of conflicts is to engage or be engaged at a technical level that (a) doesn’t comport with the realities of what these things entail. Further, (b) the shared language/interface/medium used to exchange information, parse decisions, and resolve actions has to be handled with care.

If (a) or (b) is wonky, that is a big “immersion hit” for myself and almost surely those I’m running games for/playing with. So if I’m a player, I don’t want a GM trying to frame these types of situations beyond their means (especially telling me “what is realistic” when they have little idea) and as a GM, I don’t want to frame decision-points in ways that are inaccessible to players.

* Finally, often in the traditional TTRPG space there is a “the province of my character’s emotional space is mine and mine alone. System/action resolution should never dictate if I’m frightened, smitten, flustered, or carried away on the wings of amygdala hijack.” I find this position just about the most unimmersive thing I could imagine in practice. While resolving a fight/flight/smitten or otherwise overwhelmed by stimulation via system procedure/resolution certainly isn’t the same thing as “The Real McCoy,” it does enough work to emulate the lack of control. Meanwhile, having full autonomy over such things is basically a kill-shot for immersion to me.

---

Hopefully, this does a little work in conveying the vastness of the divide between Trad-space priorities and myself (and those like me) around immersion/simulation of cognitive immediacy, relationships, emotions, memories, accumulated knowledge, intuition, physical disciplines I’m disproportionately acquainted with, and nervous system hijack.

I appreciate your perspective, although I don't think anyone is saying we don't understand why some people prefer a different approach than the D&D default play loop. I do understand some of your issues, I get mental dissonance every time a TV show has a hacker wearing glasses with letters projected onto it breaking into a system by madly clicking their keyboard.

But, for example, telling someone what the emotional state of their character is results in a massive red flag for some people. Bram the Brave is never frightened by anything! Just ask Joe, the player. Now, I think that fear and our reactions to certain situations is pretty much baked into us and is healthy. Unless Bram is abnormal, there are times when they should be frightened. Doesn't mean they won't still do what they need to. I'm reminded of the difference between bravery and courage, bravery is being too stupid to be afraid and courage is doing it anyway. But it's really not my place to tell Joe that their PC is frightened, it's his character and fantasy not mine. Maybe they've based their PC on a fictional character, maybe it's just his way dealing with some real life issues.

So I think we just need to find like minded groups and not worry too much about how other people play and why. Personally if I had someone that I knew was into mountain climbing and I knew I had such a scene coming up I'd ask for advice and have them add a bit of descriptive flavor to how their climbing. They just don't get to decide there is no mountain.