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

[Crimson Longinus]

This seems like a contradiction in terms: a GM that wants a game with a lot of setting elements but doesn’t want to create setting elements.

Why? They just expect the players to create the setting collaboratively.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Thank you for trying to help clarify. Your summary of what I was saying is exactly right.

And interesting you mention Spire. That’s a game that really drove it home for me that player contribution isn’t a problem. The Knight’s “Pubcrawler” ability is a great example. Obviously, the game has more examples of this, many of which are more significant by far. The setting is a very detailed setting, but it all holds up just fine.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Are you actually saying, "if my methods don't work for you, it's your fault"?

Not exactly, no. If they “don’t work for you” because you don’t like them? That’s a matter of preference.

If they “don’t work for you” because you can’t get them to work? Then, yes. Clearly.

If someone said to you that they’ve never been able to build an entire fictional world as many DMs do… it’s an issue with them, not with that approach to gaming, right?

So I agree with much of what you have been saying on player input etc.

But I think this is a bit much. What people are saying is not that they CANNOT make it work, but that they do not wish to make it work, because it is not their preference.

No, the description that people are using is that the method will create problems in play.

Not knowing all the details, there being unrevealed information that would influence the things they’re trying to create

So would you say that the DM’s ideas therefore take precedence over player ideas?

And to make it clear… do you prefer it that way? Do you think it must work that way?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not exactly, no. If they “don’t work for you” because you don’t like them? That’s a matter of preference.

If they “don’t work for you” because you can’t get them to work? Then, yes. Clearly.

If someone said to you that they’ve never been able to build an entire fictional world as many DMs do… it’s an issue with them, not with that approach to gaming, right?

If the person in question expressed interest in worldbuilding but was having trouble (which no one here has done for your style as far as as I know), I would provide them with sources that I feel would help with that. For worldbuilding, my top choices are AD&D 2e's Worldbuilder's Guidebook, ACKS II's Judge's Journal, and the corebook for literally any ...Without Number RPG.

 

[Oofta]

Not exactly, no. If they “don’t work for you” because you don’t like them? That’s a matter of preference.

If they “don’t work for you” because you can’t get them to work? Then, yes. Clearly.

If someone said to you that they’ve never been able to build an entire fictional world as many DMs do… it’s an issue with them, not with that approach to gaming, right?



No, the description that people are using is that the method will create problems in play.



So would you say that the DM’s ideas therefore take precedence over player ideas?

And to make it clear… do you prefer it that way? Do you think it must work that way?

So ... it's okay if I tell you that if you are bewildered or unable to build a campaign world on your own that it's your fault? Really?

Because if you don't feel up to the task there are several sources of advice. If it were true, I'd suggest you start a thread here and we can work through the steps. I will never, ever, tell you that because you don't do things my way that it's because you're lacking ability.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the person in question expressed interest in worldbuilding but was having trouble (which no one here has done for your style as far as as I know), I would provide them with sources that I feel would help with that. For worldbuilding, my top choices are AD&D 2e's Worldbuilder's Guidebook, ACKS II's Judge's Journal, and the corebook for literally any ...Without Number RPG.

What if they said "No, I'm not interested in that method because I don't think it'll work; committing to too much information up front will create problems later in play"?

So ... it's okay if I tell you that if you are bewildered or unable to build a campaign world on your own that it's your fault? Really?

Well, I wasn't using the word "fault". I'm not out to blame anyone so much as clarify that if someone doesn't know a skill, that's about them, not the skill. I'm not saying it's wrong or bad for them to not know how to do it. It simply is.

But, to use your terminology in an attempt to make it clearer.... if I don't know how to cook, it's not cooking's fault.

Because if you don't feel up to the task there are several sources of advice. If it were true, I'd suggest you start a thread here and we can work through the steps. I will never, ever, tell you that because you don't do things my way that it's because you're lacking ability.

It's not about it being "my way".

And yes, when I encounter someone who doesn't know how to do something that I do know, I usually offer to help if it's wanted.

And when people describe flaws with the thing that I don't think are accurate, I offer counterarguments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What if they said "No, I'm not interested in that method because I don't think it'll work; committing to too much information up front will create problems later in play"?



Well, I wasn't using the word "fault". I'm not out to blame anyone so much as clarify that if someone doesn't know a skill, that's about them, not the skill. I'm not saying it's wrong or bad for them to not know how to do it. It simply is.

But, to use your terminology in an attempt to make it clearer.... if I don't know how to cook, it's not cooking's fault.



It's not about it being "my way".

And yes, when I encounter someone who doesn't know how to do something that I do know, I usually offer to help if it's wanted.

And when people describe flaws with the thing that I don't think are accurate, I offer counterarguments.

I don't think the help is wanted here.

 

[Oofta]

What if they said "No, I'm not interested in that method because I don't think it'll work; committing to too much information up front will create problems later in play"?



Well, I wasn't using the word "fault". I'm not out to blame anyone so much as clarify that if someone doesn't know a skill, that's about them, not the skill. I'm not saying it's wrong or bad for them to not know how to do it. It simply is.

But, to use your terminology in an attempt to make it clearer.... if I don't know how to cook, it's not cooking's fault.



It's not about it being "my way".

And yes, when I encounter someone who doesn't know how to do something that I do know, I usually offer to help if it's wanted.

And when people describe flaws with the thing that I don't think are accurate, I offer counterarguments.

You aren't offering counterarguments. You've just repeatedly stated your way works for you. Cool. Good for you. Congratulations. Whatever you want to hear, we get it. It works for you. The issue we have are not flaws to you. We all understand the mechanisms and methods behind it.

I know how to run a game like you do, just like I know several methods to cook carrots. I still don't want to use your method and I still prefer my carrots raw. I have a style that results in a more enjoyable method of play for me and my players. It works better for us than your method would. You seem to be incapable of accepting that with your continued statements.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Error

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think the help is wanted here.

I know. I'm not trying to convince any of you to try any of this.

You didn't answer the question I asked you, though:
What if they said "No, I'm not interested in that method because I don't think it'll work; committing to too much information up front will create problems later in play"?

If someone said this about heavy DM worldbuilding, what would you have to say about it?

You aren't offering counterarguments.

Yes, I am. For instance, the idea that allowing a player to introduce the idea of divine aid would somehow become problematic later on... that didn't happen in my 5E campaign.

That players will seize any opportunity at some kind of advantage to easily bypass or obviate challenges... that doesn't happen with my players.

You've just repeatedly stated your way works for you. Cool. Good for you. Congratulations. Whatever you want to hear, we get it. It works for you. The issue we have are not flaws to you. We all understand the mechanisms and methods behind it.

I know how to run a game like you do, just like I know several methods to cook carrots. I still don't want to use your method and I still prefer my carrots raw. I have a style that results in a more enjoyable method of play for me and my players. It works better for us than your method would. You seem to be incapable of accepting that with your continued statements.

My repeated statements are mostly because you misread what I wrote. You keep bringing this back to preference, but that's not my issue at all.

Other than the part where all I've done is repeat myself, I don't have any issue with what you said in the quote immediately above. I don't disagree with you at all about people having methods that work for them or not, and that they should use those they prefer.