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

[TwoSix]

The rules of D&D are not the rules of D&D? Because it's quite clear. From the 2024 DMG

...The DM also plays all the people the characters meet ... the DM decides how to apply the rules. ... the DM decides (and describes) what the players’ characters encounter in the course of an adventure​

...players contribute through the words and deeds of their characters​

​

Same basic description throughout the PHB and DMG. DM is responsible for the world, the players are responsible for their PCs and interface with the world through what they say and do.

You can play any way you want of course. If it works for you and yours, great! But the standard play loop as described by the core books hasn't really changed much over the years, no matter how you've played it.

"Punching a dude in a tavern" seems like a deed to me. The DM decides that makes sense, and describes what happens.

 

[pemerton]

The rules of D&D are not the rules of D&D? Because it's quite clear. From the 2024 DMG

...The DM also plays all the people the characters meet ... the DM decides how to apply the rules. ... the DM decides (and describes) what the players’ characters encounter in the course of an adventure​

...players contribute through the words and deeds of their characters​

​

Same basic description throughout the PHB and DMG. DM is responsible for the world, the players are responsible for their PCs and interface with the world through what they say and do.

The GM tells the player "Your PC is in a tavern."

What does that entail, and permit by way of action declaration? Is the player allowed to assume that there are other patrons? Someone serving drinks? Tables? A fireplace?

The GM tells the players "You're travelling through a forest." What does that entail, and permit by way of action declaration? If the players recall that it is spring, and hence infer the presence of leaves, are they able to declare "I pick a leaf from a tree and tuck it behind my ear"? Are players able to to assume twigs on the ground? Earth, some bare and some grassed?

The rules you have quoted don't say.

 

[pemerton]

Well someone had to make it up. It doesn't really matter if it was the GM, it is still not solving a mystery.

Why not?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Informal, relaxed ones. The people I play with say stuff that they think is fun, or cool, or fits their assumptions about their PC and the fiction.

Here's an example, reposted:
One player - playing a Chaos Sorcerer - takes as a premise of declared actions that energy from a dead fire drake can be harnessed and channelled into a jewelled horn, to turn it into a magical Fire Horn. Another player - playing a wizard/invoker in the service of Erathis and the Raven Queen - takes as a premise of a declared action that his Sceptre of Law can control chaotic energy, and tame it into a usable portal.

I've also posted, not far upthread, an example of a third player having his PC speaking a prayer against the undead; and further upthread the example of the player of the wizard/invoker deciding which magical operations and effects count as "rituals" and which don't.

Well, I think AD&D is even less well-suited for simulationist RPGing - as is demonstrated by the fact that the classic simulationist FRPGs (RQ, C&S, RM) are all reactions to it. RQ and RM drop hp ablation combat, drop spell memorisation of the D&D sort, and incorporate skills in some fashion - thereby dropping/changing those aspects of classic D&D that are seen as the most jarring from a simulationist perspective. I'm not as familiar with C&S, but my understanding is that it makes similar sorts of changes, especially to magic.

But a lot of people who play AD&D claim to do so in a simulationist fashion. Likewise for 3E and 5e, which are just as unsuited.

AD&D is also ill-suited, in my view, to DL-ish epic/romantic FRPGing, yet is the prescribed system for that!

So I tend to take your "it makes sense" with a bit of a grain of salt!

Almost every RPG can be seen as a reaction to D&D, in every direction. Singling out simulationism doesn't do anything for your argument IMO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The GM tells the player "Your PC is in a tavern."

What does that entail, and permit by way of action declaration? Is the player allowed to assume that there are other patrons? Someone serving drinks? Tables? A fireplace?

The GM tells the players "You're travelling through a forest." What does that entail, and permit by way of action declaration? If the players recall that it is spring, and hence infer the presence of leaves, are they able to declare "I pick a leaf from a tree and tuck it behind my ear"? Are players able to to assume twigs on the ground? Earth, some bare and some grassed?

The rules you have quoted don't say.

So do people actually frame scenes like this? Do you? "You're in a tavern" and that's it? Because I sure don't. There would be quite a bit more information.

 

[TwoSix]

The GM tells the player "Your PC is in a tavern."

What does that entail, and permit by way of action declaration? Is the player allowed to assume that there are other patrons? Someone serving drinks? Tables? A fireplace?

The GM tells the players "You're travelling through a forest." What does that entail, and permit by way of action declaration? If the players recall that it is spring, and hence infer the presence of leaves, are they able to declare "I pick a leaf from a tree and tuck it behind my ear"? Are players able to to assume twigs on the ground? Earth, some bare and some grassed?

The rules you have quoted don't say.

There's always going to be a large liminal space between "what is described" and "what can we assume, based on that description." I'm just trying to clarify how far I can, as player, reach into the space and play based on my assumptions.

I don't want to continually be shot down for making basic assumptions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why not?

Because there was not reality for the players to uncover. It was made up after the fact.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Far more than the concerns about immersion, I think there's a divide between how concerned people are about whether or not players would push the boundaries of their ability to narrate.

That's why issues get framed as "Well then, what stops them from just doing X?"

And I think @Lanefan spoke to that directly when he said several pages back that as a player, he of course will press the boundaries of any ability as far as possible.

I have never been in a group that didn't include at least one person (often several) that would push the boundaries of what the DM would let them get away with as far as they could.

 

[TwoSix]

So do people actually frame scenes like this? Do you? "You're in a tavern" and that's it? Because I sure don't. There would be quite a bit more information.

Probably a few more details, like general ambience and how many people are there.

If I tell you there's 3 dozen patrons, and you ask me to describe them all, I'm not going to be super happy.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's always going to be a large liminal space between "what is described" and "what can we assume, based on that description." I'm just trying to clarify how far I can, as player, reach into the space and play based on my assumptions.

I don't want to continually be shot down for making basic assumptions.

Yes, sure, but I also don't think that this is actually a thing that is commonly a source of tension or confusion, because people actually aren't as crap in scene framing that these examples assume.