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

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

My initial interest in this wasn't anywhere near that deep. More just that Rule 0, has always been completely DM centric, whereas this new version is fully group focused. And that's certainly, well, new.
These two things are not all that different.

The ultimate role of the DM is to keep the internal consistency of the world. Brandon Sanderson once said in a writing class that the thing that makes your magic system great is not what it CAN do, it's what it CANNOT do. This comes from a literary concept called internal consistency.

Rule 0 is often thought of as conflicting with internal consistency, but it doesn't have to do so. Rule 0 has always been "Use what works at your table because the goal is to have fun" aka "add/change/remove rules as you see fit because the goal is to have fun". Older editions simply put the world building and internal consistency very squarely on the shoulders of the DM, to ensure monsters behaved as they should for their race/backstory/abilities, that heroes and villains acted according to their internal rule set, that water was wet, so on and so forth, was the DM's responsibility. Going with Rule 0 as an example, it is a "Rule" in dnd that spell casters need either a component pouch or arcane focus to cast spells without material components in 5e. Without it, they need to have on hand "pieces of eggshell from two different kinds of creatures" in order to cast rary's telepathic bond at all. Does the responsibility of keeping track of this fall to the DM or the players? Does it not create an additional form of interaction with the world? Is this beneficial or detrimental? Observe the following two hypothetical scenarios:

A) Meldorf the Lord of the Drowned Tower faces the party, Jorkin the ranger, Bardlin the Druid, and Yorzilla the fighter. Round one, Bardlin casts silence on top of the Meldorf using his Sprig of Mistletoe, followed by Yorzilla running up to Meldorf and attempting, but ultimately failing, to wrestle the staff out of the Mage's hands. Meldorf then runs out of the zone of effect of silence, taking a single slash across his back as he does so from Yorzilla, and casts Psychic Scream once out of the silence zone, causing significant damage to the trio and bringing Bardlin to zero hit points, causing him to fall down and drop his Sprig of Mistletow. Meldorf then uses a bonus action granted by his staff to cast fireball, causing Bardlin to take 2 failed death saves and burning the Sprig of Mistletoe to ash and reducing both Jorkin and Yorzilla to under 20 hit points each. Jorkin runs up to Bardlin and shoves a health potion down his throat, reviving him. Then, at the top of round 2, Bardlin casts Wind Walk, turning the trio into gaseous clouds which then escape through a crack in the wall as Meldorf swears to track the interlopers down.

B) Meldorf the Lord of the Drowned Tower faces the party, Jorkin the ranger, Bardlin the Druid, and Yorzilla the fighter. Round one, Bardlin casts silence on top of the Meldorf using his Sprig of Mistletoe, followed by Yorzilla running up to Meldorf and yanking the staff out of the Mage's hands. Meldorf then pulls out a dagger and runs out of the zone of effect of silence, taking a single slash across his back as he does so from Yorzilla, and casts Steel Wind Strike once out of the silence zone, hitting Yorzilla once and then one of his servants 30 feet above on a balcony overlooking the room. Meldorf then laughs maniacally, fleeing the party through the balcony and swearing revenge.


Do you know where the internal consistency is lost here? In the first scenario, Meldorf is a wizard using his staff as an arcane focus, and Bardlin is a druid using a sprig of mistletoe as a focus. Bardlin's focus was destroyed by the fireball, so he should not be able to freely cast Wind Walk. It has a material component of "fire and holy water". There was plenty of fire on the ground, but no holy water. This internal consistency provides a bit of danger to the game, as the rules state that when a creature is dropped to zero hit points, they fall unconscious and fall prone. Falling unconscious results in you dropping ALL held items, including weapons and casting focuses, and fireball sets any UNEQUIPPED items on fire. In the second scenario, though he lost his staff, Meldorf can cast Steel Wind Strike as long as he has a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. A dagger is worth 2 gp, so he keeps within the internal consistency of the magic system, but the DM at no point hints at there being a nameless servant 30 feet up on a balcony for the BBEG to use steel wind strike to jump to and escape.

Now here's the question; who has the responsibility in this scenario? Should the DM ignore spell components? Should Fireball not destroy arcane focuses like sprig of mistletoe? Does the player have the responsibility to ask about any minor spell components he should have? Or does the DM have the responsibility to stop and ask "Do you have the components"? SHOULD the DM bother with this at all or should it just be "Rule of cool"? Generally speaking, I would say that this falls to all players. Just as the DM should be keeping track of the world and the players, making sure no one is adding extra gold or items to their character sheets in between sessions, the players also have the responsibility of not being cheaters. Similarly, the DM shouldn't be asking the players things like "Do you want to counterspell that" he should be simply giving them enough time to react to actions he performs, and players should be speaking up when they want to do something. There is no distinction between it being "GM centric" or "group focused" because it has always been both.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

...
I've lost track of who said what but was the prayer-to-Odin example yours? If yes, my take is that a player is always welcome to have a character try something like that but the odds of success are very-to-extremely low; and I'd have a problem with it if those odds became significantly higher leading to an I-win-button situation.

It was my example, at least originally. We were looking for a hidden phylactery and it was hidden from divination spells and even commune (get yes/no/maybe/unclear) answers was a bust. So the cleric just declared that he talked to Odin and Odin told him where it was because "Odin sees all".

It was an example of a player declaration of player action (prayer) and just stating the result of knowing where the phylactery was. This was in a campaign world where the gods are distant and never, ever directly speak with clerics except maybe with signs and portents or via a go between like a Valkyrie for Odin.

I wasn't DM, but if I had been? If he had stated that he said a prayer asking and wanted to know the answer? Maybe there would have been a very small percentage chance he'd get some additional guidance, but in a campaign world where god's power on the mortal realm is extremely limited? Not sure how I would have handled it. The DM just stated "No it doesn't work that way."

Which to me? The DM's response was just fine. I try to avoid a straight no, but some of my players have been ... shall we say creative. So whenever possible it's "No, but you can try..." or "No, what are you trying to accomplish." In any case, it wasn't the ask that was the biggest issue it was the declaration of result.
 



I'm not familiar with either of those terms.
I believe that this is effectively an onomatope. Maybe an apt comparison would be how when comparing the logic of a mortal to say, a lovecraftian eldritch horror, we might compare this by saying "Humans logical axis is along good and bad, but Klorhtg'thuuga the ancient's logical axis is along bacon and necktie". It's intentionally obtuse to create the comparison of things that are just that different? Not sure I'm grasping at straws too.
 

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?



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.



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.



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.
Do you not see that constantly asking folks whose opinions differ from you, "would it really be that bad if you just did things my way? How bad could it be?" Sounds an awful lot like, "your way is wrong"?
 

Do you not see that constantly asking folks whose opinions differ from you, "would it really be that bad if you just did things my way? How bad could it be?" Sounds an awful lot like, "your way is wrong"?
Various posters - most recently @Oofta, in post 1902 just upthread, have stated or strongly implied that a GM accepting a player's action declaration, where that action declaration also has the result of establishing a setting element - be that a nearby person to punch, a tavern to stay in, a blacksmith to visit, etc - will cause a problem. Will lead to "exploits". Will become an "I win" button. Will permit the circumvention of obstacles/challenges. Etc.

@hawkeyefan is not questioning anyone's preference for play. He is questioning those claims about a causal relationship between certain techniques, and degenerate play.

In case it's not clear, I'm taking it for granted that whether or not certain causal relationships obtain is basically a matter of fact rather than a matter of preference.
 

Do you not see that constantly asking folks whose opinions differ from you, "would it really be that bad if you just did things my way? How bad could it be?" Sounds an awful lot like, "your way is wrong"?
To be fair, this would be the bandwagon fallacy and it is possible that everyone else is wrong, though in most of these I have to disagree with @hawkeyefan , I don't see these things as "taking agency away from the players", I see most of these decisions as "keeping internal consistency".

I had players who actively tried to have the winged kobold party member carry the other four members around in a bag of holding, with just their heads popping out, so they could zoom over to an enemy and then pop out of the bag right next to it or fly over hoards of combat encounters. Obviously, I denied them the ability to do this. Doing so doesn't take away agency, it's making a rules decision that if I didn't, would affect the game significantly, yet I'm pretty sure he'd say I was taking their agency away.
 

Various posters - most recently @Oofta, in post 1902 just upthread, have stated or strongly implied that a GM accepting a player's action declaration, where that action declaration also has the result of establishing a setting element - be that a nearby person to punch, a tavern to stay in, a blacksmith to visit, etc - will cause a problem. Will lead to "exploits". Will become an "I win" button. Will permit the circumvention of obstacles/challenges. Etc.

@hawkeyefan is not questioning anyone's preference for play. He is questioning those claims about a causal relationship between certain techniques, and degenerate play.

In case it's not clear, I'm taking it for granted that whether or not certain causal relationships obtain is basically a matter of fact rather than a matter of preference.

Depending on players it can cause issues with lore, setting and tone. For a lot of campaigns, such as campaigns with worlds designed specifically for that campaign it may not be as much of an issue. You may not care about that stuff.

Some players will use it as an "I win" button because I had a player like that. They may be rare but they do exist. You may not have had players like that, I have.
 

And are those "many" for whom it's not a concern the same "many" who then complain about how bad their players are when said players, intentionally or otherwise, abuse those advantages?

I don't know. Have you seen anyone do that in this thread? Or elsewhere?

I allow my players some level of narrative authority in pretty much every game I GM for them... the amount and methods will vary from game to game, of course, but it's something I think is important.

Have you ever seen me complain about my players?

Same here. The projected length of that future is also a consideration; if I knew it was only going to be a 6-month closed-ended campaign I'd be far less concerned about future impact than if potentially having to live with those ideas for 10+ years.

Maybe. I tend to think if something is a cool idea, I won't mind it sticking around longer.

I've lost track of who said what but was the prayer-to-Odin example yours? If yes, my take is that a player is always welcome to have a character try something like that but the odds of success are very-to-extremely low; and I'd have a problem with it if those odds became significantly higher leading to an I-win-button situation.

Well it was an example offered by @Oofta, but I made some suggestions about how the DM could have handled it rather than just shutting it down.

There's a difference between being able to make it work and being willing to make it work.

Yes, absolutely. I think some of the criticisms of that style that are about willingness are instead being attributed to ability.

It's not a question of not knowing the skill, it's a question of choosing whether or not to employ it.

Sure. As has been said many, many times in this thread... we all have different preferences.

But sometimes those preferences have been supported by statements that I don't think are accurate. Such as when you say that incorporating player ideas on the fly will have negative downstream consequences... I've not experienced that when actually playing the game in that way.
 

Remove ads

Top