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

[Aldarc]

I as well. But I think this is actually an interesting topic, around which there is sometimes some genuine tension. I often play my characters "suboptimally," doing "stupid things" because "that's what my character would do." And if this leads to adverse consequences just for my character, then that's fine. But when it leads to significant trouble for other characters as well, there might be some tension.

I suspect part of that tension has to do with a certain degree of "play to win" mentality that is a portion of the play culture of D&D, many traditional games, or even video games.

I'm reminded of how @Campbell has in the past talked about how other non-traditional games sometimes let them roleplay their characters with (in his words) "greater integrity," because the other players will know and expects that "feces happens" as part of play, so they can focus on roleplaying their character without worrying as much about whether they are playing optimally or any sense that "suboptimal" play will have consequences for other player characters. That resonated with me and my experiences with these other games or even traditional games.

By no means am I casting aspersions at anyone's roleplaying when I say that sometimes I do think that there can very often be a certain degree of "characterization fudging" of PCs when it comes to a variety of out-of-character factors: optimal play to "win" the game, playing nice with the other PCs, keeping the group together, taking your bad day out on the game, etc.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Absolutely not. My ego is nearly boundless. There's nothing you can understand that I can't.


I'm assuming you're talking about something like diegetic consequence, where the campaign goes on a negative path?

I thought that the reference was to diegetic consequences, but it was much more terrifying.

In other words, if you're lucky, you (the player) might die.

But oh ... there are so many worse things that can be done to you.* You will be begging for the sweet, sweet release of death.


*True fact- 58% of those "worse things" involve pineapple.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I suspect part of that tension has to do with a certain degree of "play to win" mentality that is a portion of the play culture of D&D, many traditional games, or even video games.

I'm reminded of how @Campbell has in the past talked about how other non-traditional games sometimes let them roleplay their characters with (in his words) "greater integrity," because the other players will know and expects that "feces happens" as part of play, so they can focus on roleplaying their character without worrying as much about whether they are playing optimally or any sense that "suboptimal" play will have consequences for other player characters. That resonated with me and my experiences with these other games or even traditional games.

By no means am I casting aspersions at anyone's roleplaying when I say that sometimes I do think that there can very often be a certain degree of "characterization fudging" of PCs when it comes to a variety of out-of-character factors: optimal play to "win" the game, playing nice with the other PCs, keeping the group together, taking your bad day out on the game, etc.

I have to say this has not been experience, though I have not played "non-traditional" games that much. But what I said is very much a concern in Blades in the Dark game I'm playing in (I might be second guessing how much of a drug addict lacking social graces my character can be in situations it might get us into trouble) and there was (a mild and now resolved) conflict between some players due these sort of issues (my character was not involved in this.)

And I am not sure if Blades offering XP for some of this is good or bad. On one had it communicates that this is supposed to be part of the game, but on the other had getting others into trouble so that I can get more XP (especially as I already accidentally optimised my character on that front) seems even more selfish than just doing so for creative reasons.

Also, In D&D the characters are action-adventure heroes that are super hard to kill and there are not much other systematised fail conditions, so the amount of bad stuff that can befall on them seems more limited than in a game like Blades, where there is a ton of systematised adverse effects that can cripple you or your team rather severely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That one person, Is it you?

No. Not my style.

 

[TwoSix]

They tried to make me go to Rehab But I said

No.

No.

No.

 

[TiQuinn]

I was not going to post this, but I thought this when I first read this post: back in the day I had a DM that would have 100% taken it literally like that and made the PC roll to hit another character (whoever was sitting closest at the gaming table probably) without allowing any clarification or take-backs.

For that matter, I remember a DM who used to play infuriating games like “if you said you went into the tavern, but didn’t specify that you dismounted your horse you’d get knocked off going through the door” and similar nonsense.

 

[Aldarc]

I have to say this has not been experience, though I have not played "non-traditional" games that much. But what I said is very much a concern in Blades in the Dark game I'm playing in (I might be second guessing how much of a drug addict lacking social graces my character can be in situations it might get us into trouble) and there was (a mild and now resolved) conflict between some players due these sort of issues (my character was not involved in this.)

And I am not sure if Blades offering XP for some of this is good or bad. On one had it communicates that this is supposed to be part of the game, but on the other had getting others into trouble so that I can get more XP (especially as I already accidentally optimised my character on that front) seems even more selfish than just doing to for creative reasons.

Also, In D&D the characters are action-adventure heroes that are super hard to kill and there are not much other systematised fail conditions, so the amount of bad stuff that can befall on them seems more limited than in a game like Blades, where there is a ton of systematised adverse effects that can cripple you or your team rather severely.

This isn't really a situation that I have experience dealing with in BitD since I usually give players the same advice that John Harper gives (and I am paraphrasing here): "play your characters like stolen cars in GTA."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I make things difficult for myself all the time. As a player. In D&D. 5e, specifically.

As I posted earlier, you can't really LOSE in 5e.

Even if it's true, it doesn't mean that a lot of people IME don't want to WIN.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s just an opinion though. In a lot of ways, 3rd edition is the outlier, with a definitive shift of power from the DM, RAW as a meaningful interpretive tool, dozens of classes, thousands of feats.

1e didn’t even have skills!

Saying 4e is the outlier feels like a way to dismiss 4e as « not D&D ».

I stand by 4e being the outlier, sorry. That doesn't mean it's a bad game. I'm on record as saying I really respect for taking a stand with intended playstyle and innovation with 4e. But for me its the D&D game that reads and plays least like the others.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This isn't really a situation that I have experience dealing with in BitD since I usually give players the same advice that John Harper gives (and I am paraphrasing here): "play your characters like stolen cars in GTA."

That, however, is something that is super hard to do for some people.