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

[Oofta]

For certain sort of gameplay it must work this way. I have used this example before, but it is still apt. If I play a detective in a murder mystery, then for me to have genuine agency to solve the murder, the GM's ideas about the murderer, clues and the course of events must take precedence. We can create a murder-mystery-like story by the player of the detective being able to invent these things (perhaps with successful rolls given this is a game) but it won't be solving a murder mystery.

This is why I feel this whole attitude of GM vs players where the GM is seen as maliciously denying the setting authority from the players seems utterly bizarre. That is not at all what is going on. This division of roles exists to make certain sort of gameplay possible.

For me it's also exploring the DM's world, even if it's not a mystery. I'm sure other systems with a foundation of cooperative games can also handle mysteries, but they have different tools.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Stating a question repeatedly when you've already gotten a response, even if dressed up as a hypothetical, is called sealioning.

I asked @Micah Sweet a question and he did not answer. His reply was actually aimed at something I said to you. So I repeated my question. He's now answered it. No issue. Stop making accusations of bad faith toward me. That's the third one.

I'm going to stop multi-quoting, though, so hopefully there'll be no more confusion about who a given question may be addressed to.

I would say if they want advice I would suggest they start a separate thread on the topic if they wanted advice then I would drop it.

I didn't ask about if they wanted advice.

Let's say there's a discussion about general GM practices, and someone there says "I prefer not to build an entire world when I DM. Worldbuilding at that scale doesn't work. By committing to too much upfront, all you're doing is creating the circumstances for contradiction and an incoherent setting."

You're telling me you'd defend that statement as a preference? I highly doubt that based on past conversations.

But that's the point. It is down to preference and you don't accept that.

No, I have no issue with anyone's preference. When they attribute that preference to some flaw in another preferred method, and I don't think that flaw is accurate, then I'll say something.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't prefer your approach to D&D, or that you can dislike the approach I'm talking about. You can do that, and you can do it for whatever reason you want. But if you say something that I don't think is accurate about that method... I mean, let's be honest, you don't play this way and except for perhaps very small examples, never have... I'm allowed to challenge that.

Just as you could challenge someone's description of worldbuilding as flawed if you didn't agree with it. If you argued that "having a consistent world available for play actually creates a solid and reliable setting that can serve to scaffold play and need not be inconsistent in any way" you would not be challenging the person's preference, but the logic behind their stated reason for the preference.

That's the distinction that I'm taking about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me, the biggest source of artificiality in RPGing is never knowing my fictional position, because I constantly have to stop and ask the GM.

It makes the spontaneous declaration of actions impossible. It pushes play towards puzzle solving, and makes the setting feel more like an engineering exam scenario.

Just talking about the game in terms of "scene-framing" and "fictional positioning" (terms I never see in any rulebook for any RPG I play) makes the game feel less real and immersive as a hobby.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me, the biggest source of artificiality in RPGing is never knowing my fictional position, because I constantly have to stop and ask the GM.

It makes the spontaneous declaration of actions impossible. It pushes play towards puzzle solving, and makes the setting feel more like an engineering exam scenario.

To do otherwise in my view makes the setting feel more like free-form improv, which I decidedly do not want.

 

[pemerton]

Just talking about the game in terms of "scene-framing" and "fictional positioning" (terms I never see in any rulebook for any RPG I play) makes the game feel less real and immersive as a hobby.

OK, to me this is just bizarre. I mean, Gygax's rulebook and Moldvay's rulebook talk about mapping a dungeon, writing up a key, are full of random tables to help with this, etc. I am not doing anything different from that: I'm talking about how the game is played.

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK, to me this is just bizarre. I mean, Gygax's rulebook and Moldvay's rulebook talk about mapping a dungeon, writing up a key, are full of random tables to help with this, etc. I am not doing anything different from that: I'm talking about how the game is played.

The jargon really impersonalizes it and renders it clinical and cold for me personally. It bothers me. The only place I regularly hear terms like this is from the Forge and similar sources, all of which have a bias towards a form of gaming I dislike. This makes it hard for me to see this language without feeling it supports a certain playstyle just with its use.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's odd, considering I associate the whole 'apple pie stance', 'ham sandwich-as-combat' terminology with older school play, not modern story-based play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Unlike the god thing, that is not a setting detail I would have concerns about. But if what you're actually asking is if I would have concerns about player adding setting details, that would depend on the procedures and limitations that exist in the game regarding the setting detail adding, and your example does not elucidate on that.

Now personally I probably would handle player involvement in this style of setting details a bit differently. For example if the party was heading to the home town of one of the characters (and we would not have seen this town in the game before) I might, well before the game, ask the player if their character had particular acquaintances or other noteworthy connections to the town they would want to offer some input on. Then I would have time to craft those elements as part of the whole as I would plan the town.

I was assuming D&D 5e.

I'm not sure I see the major distinction between the god example and determining if there's a tavern/blacksmith/whatever that a player knows about... I'm guessing it's the scale?... but sure.

Let's say it's not a hometown of any PC. It's a city. The party arrives, the fighter says "I know of a tavern nearby..." but this city hasn't yet been brought up in anyone's backstory, or in any major way in relation to the players. How is it determined if the PC may have been here before? Different groups will handle it differently, of course.

But if the DM simply accepted the player's declaration and narrated accordingly... do you really think that it will create a problem going forward that every time you arrive in a city, someone will declare that they know of a tavern?

Related questions... if they did, is that really a problem?

If they did and in some way it was a problem, couldn't you simply deny them at that point? "Actually, no... none of you have ever been here before because X reason." Does every instance of this need to be shut down, or just ones that seem to actually be problematic in some way?

Yes I did, but I don't feel you quite grasp what was said.

So what you're not getting, is that it is not about "exploits," that sounds bad and negative, something you are not really supposed to do. But I fully agree with @Lanefan that if the players are given a tool, then using that tool becomes a legit gameplay strategy. And that is not a bad thing, but if you don't want the sort of game where that strategy is used, then don't give the players the tool!

And there absolutely are games where extensive player setting control is expected, and its use is a valid strategy. But those games usually have mechanics built to support that, and D&D really doesn't. So I don't think it is a particularly good fit for this game.

I'm getting what was said just fine. As I said, if it was a problem for @Lanefan's players, then it would make sense to not allow it. But this is because of the nature of his game and the players' expectations and dispositions.

For certain sort of gameplay it must work this way. I have used this example before, but it is still apt. If I play a detective in a murder mystery, then for me to have genuine agency to solve the murder, the GM's ideas about the murderer, clues and the course of events must take precedence. We can create a murder-mystery-like story by the player of the detective being able to invent these things (perhaps with successful rolls given this is a game) but it won't be solving a murder mystery.

Actually, it's not a case that mysteries MUST work this way. There are plenty of games that show otherwise.

These kind of all encompassing statements are what I'm pushing back against. You may prefer that mystery games work that way, but it doesn't mean they MUST.

This is why I feel this whole attitude of GM vs players where the GM is seen as maliciously denying the setting authority from the players seems utterly bizarre. That is not at all what is going on. This division of roles exists to make certain sort of gameplay possible.

I'm not assuming maliciousness. And in almost every example I've offered, I've talked about the GM denying some portion or all of a player's request.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's odd, considering I associate the whole 'apple pie stance', 'ham sandwich-as-combat' terminology with older school play, not modern story-based play.

What do either of those terms mean?

 

[Vaalingrade]

What do either of those terms mean?

Hell if I know. It's a play on the whole 'pawn/actor stance' , 'combat-as-war/sport/entertainment' terminology that gets tossed around here as if everyone knows and cares about it with a definite air as to which ones are the good ones.

Our lot thinks jargon makes us more important while we're playing pretend.