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

[Oofta]

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.

That's amazing! Because 57% also include pizza. Unless...no...not pineapple ON pizza! :

 

[hawkeyefan]

I of course knew who they would find to be the murderer. But I did not see the path they took to get there. Because even in such a simple and contained scenario there are so many possibilities. Like for example I did not foresee them talking to a spider to get an eyewitness account of certain events.

So, two things on this.

First, I said there was some leeway. And if another group played through this scenario, perhaps they’d have come up with a different way to get the info. Just like if two groups play through Keep on the Borderlands. They may get up to some different things… but overall, we’re gonna see some significant similarities in their play. And again… this isn’t bad.

Second, what if the DM said “sorry, there were no spiders who saw what happened”?

And when we move outside such a limited scenario, where the goal itself is something the payers can freely choose and alter, the possibilities become effectively limitless. I just don't get the argument that unless you get to constantly invent new setting elements, you cannot influence the things as a player. Mate, you're deciding what one of the main characters of the story does!

No one is saying that players have to constantly invent new setting elements to influence the setting. One is an aspect of the other.

Like there has been a big storyline regarding giants in my campaign, and it is still ongoing. And all because one player decided that their character starts to obsess over the ancient giant civilisation and wants to explore it after a chance encounter with one giant. But the player didn't need to invent that giants existed or what their ancient empire was like for this to happen.

Just like the player of the cleric didn’t need to invent Odin to have some ideas about how play could go.

Imagine your player said “after speaking with that giant, I want to find out more about their civilization” and then DM replied “you are not able to find out anything about the giant civilization”.

This is really all that’s being discussed. To take player initiated ideas and try to work with them instead of against them. You don’t have to grant a request in its entirety, you don’t have to say yes to everything all the time… it’s about being more collaborative. It’s about a willingness to relinquish control and be surprised.

 

[Oofta]

Imagine your player said “after speaking with that giant, I want to find out more about their civilization” and then DM replied “you are not able to find out anything about the giant civilization”.

This is really all that’s being discussed. To take player initiated ideas and try to work with them instead of against them. You don’t have to grant a request in its entirety, you don’t have to say yes to everything all the time… it’s about being more collaborative. It’s about a willingness to relinquish control and be surprised.

Not really, at least not from what others have said or what my actual play example was about. It's a player saying "I want to learn more about giants" and following up wit "I know there's a settlement of giants in the hills to the east."

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

GM: What do you do?

Player: I go...

GM: Your eyes are getting dry.

Player: What?

GM: You didn't blink.

Player: I didn't...what...ok, I blink. Now, I go...

GM: You're suffocating.

Player: What?

GM: You haven't inhaled any oxygen.

Player: GD it! I breathe in oxygen. Ok, now I go...

GM: Your eyes are...

---

This is also a good opportunity for something connected to our bar scene earlier in the thread!


GM: You’re in a tavern.

Player: I set it on fire!

GM: You didn’t ask if the structure was stone or wood-framed. It’s all stone.

Player: I set the table on fire!

GM: The tables are stone.

Player: I set my chair on fire!

GM: Again, you have to ask what it’s made out of. Your chair is stone!

Player: The bar?!

GM: Stone!

Player: The barkeep?!

GM: Stone. It’s a gargoyle barkeep . Ask first, dude.

< 3 minutes later >

Player: My hair?!

GM: Sto…alright, roll to self-immolate and save or die.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, two things on this.

First, I said there was some leeway. And if another group played through this scenario, perhaps they’d have come up with a different way to get the info. Just like if two groups play through Keep on the Borderlands. They may get up to some different things… but overall, we’re gonna see some significant similarities in their play. And again… this isn’t bad.

Second, what if the DM said “sorry, there were no spiders who saw what happened”?

That would be rather illogical. There are always spiders. But we did roll to see whether the characters find one and they rolled well.

No one is saying that players have to constantly invent new setting elements to influence the setting. One is an aspect of the other.

Yet, you seem obsessing over it like it was the only or at least massive avenue for player agency. But it isn't.

Just like the player of the cleric didn’t need to invent Odin to have some ideas about how play could go.

Imagine your player said “after speaking with that giant, I want to find out more about their civilization” and then DM replied “you are not able to find out anything about the giant civilization”.

This is really all that’s being discussed. To take player initiated ideas and try to work with them instead of against them. You don’t have to grant a request in its entirety, you don’t have to say yes to everything all the time… it’s about being more collaborative. It’s about a willingness to relinquish control and be surprised.

But the existence of the fallen giant civilisation was already established in this setting (though the players might not have known about it at this point) like how gods interact with mortals was established in @Oofta's world. In my game the player did not add setting elements or alter existing ones. In the Odin example the player did, in effectively demanding establishment of new channel of divine favour which was not only unmentioned, but specifically established to not exist in the setting's lore.

We are being collaborative, we are allowing players to influence the direction of the campaign in major ways. We just manage to run a game where that is possible via the actions of the characters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not really, at least not from what others have said or what my actual play example was about. It's a player saying "I want to learn more about giants" and following up wit "I know there's a settlement of giants in the hills to the east."

Yes, exactly this!

 

[TwoSix]

GM: What do you do?

Player: I go...

GM: Your eyes are getting dry.

Player: What?

GM: You didn't blink.

Player: I didn't...what...ok, I blink. Now, I go...

GM: You're suffocating.

Player: What?

GM: You haven't inhaled any oxygen.

Player: GD it! I breathe in oxygen. Ok, now I go...

GM: Your eyes are...

---

This is also a good opportunity for something connected to our bar scene earlier in the thread!


GM: You’re in a tavern.

Player: I set it on fire!

GM: You didn’t ask if the structure was stone or wood-framed. It’s all stone.

Player: I set the table on fire!

GM: The tables are stone.

Player: I set my chair on fire!

GM: Again, you have to ask what it’s made out of. Your chair is stone!

Player: The bar?!

GM: Stone!

Player: The barkeep?!

GM: Stone. It’s a gargoyle barkeep . Ask first, dude.

< 3 minutes later >

Player: My hair?!

GM: Sto…alright, roll to self-immolate and save or die.

Player: Wait, does that mean my ...

GM: No, actually that's entirely pliable and weak, really not intimidating at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not really, at least not from what others have said or what my actual play example was about. It's a player saying "I want to learn more about giants" and following up wit "I know there's a settlement of giants in the hills to the east."

Do you not see how the giants example required cooperation from the DM?

Do you not see how the DM could have “shut that down” if they wanted? And that could be for any reason.

 

[TwoSix]

Not really, at least not from what others have said or what my actual play example was about. It's a player saying "I want to learn more about giants" and following up wit "I know there's a settlement of giants in the hills to the east."

GM: "Yes, you have heard numerous rumours of a band of giants in the hills to the east. The last story you heard was 2 weeks ago, after they pillaged a farm on the outskirts of the hills. The hills are a day's ride from town, would you like to investigate?"

 

[hawkeyefan]

That would be rather illogical. There are always spiders. But we did roll to see whether the characters find one and they rolled well.

What spider presence table is this?!? Did you make a house rule?!?? Aaaaagh!

Yet, you seem obsessing over it like it was the only or at least massive avenue for player agency. But it isn't.

No, I don’t.

But the existence of the fallen giant civilisation was already established in this setting (though the players might not have known about it at this point) like how gods interact with mortals was established in @Oofta's world. In my game the player did not add setting elements or alter existing ones. In the Odin example the player did, in effectively demanding establishment of new channel of divine favour which was not only unmentioned, but specifically established to not exist in the setting's lore.

But how does a player know what exists in the setting’s lore? How do they know that there isn’t a note on page 426 of the DM’s note that says “Odin is different from the other gods…” or some similar thing? What the player knows is that he’s a cleric of Odin. He gets aid from Odin routinely. He’s supposed to just assume he can’t reach out for aid except in certain specific ways?

As for the giant example, maybe it’s not as similar as I thought. Your initial comment made it sound like the giant stuff was all happening spontaneously. But now you’re stating that this lore existed beforehand.

So what exactly did you mean when you saod that this “storyline” was only happening because of your player’s interest in giants? Did you mean that the DM took that as a prompt to go that way? Or so you mean that the giant was introduced to pique someone’s interest so the DM could then deploy his giant storyline?

We are being collaborative, we are allowing players to influence the direction of the campaign in major ways. We just manage to run a game where that is possible via the actions of the characters.

Then what are you arguing for?