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

[hawkeyefan]

No one is saying you can't do what you're saying, but you don't have to, and doing so is not always better than saying no.

No one is saying it’s better. That’s a matter of opinion.

What we’re saying is that it involves the players more. It’s more collaborative.

I presumed that the giant culture was already built into the setting, but the player decided to have their PC pursue that part of the setting.

Sure, I don’t blame you for presuming that. When I read someone say “all because of one player” I presume that the player was the main impetus for this. But if it was already set in some way, I don’t really see it as “all because one player”.

 

[Pedantic]

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 think it's a little more complicated, precisely because TTRPGs don't have pre-specified victory/loss conditions. A lot of what you're pointing out here are a combination of players internalizing a set of loss conditions that aren't necessarily discussed (intra-party conflict is a failure state, dead characters are a failure state etc).

It always feels to me like we're really just arguing over what failure/success states should look like, and trying real hard to avoid acknowledging that if you change the goal of a game, it becomes a different game. All this discussion of "what moves should be legitimate" feels really secondary to "and what should players aim to achieve/avoid with the moves they play?"

I never said you had to.

But ignoring the slippery slope argument ("if you let the player do that, he'll suggest the whole map!"), the only reason I see to NOT do it is to actively assert the presence of your pre-generated map.

Which I guess makes sense, since it seems there is a major aesthetic to assert the primacy of a pre-generated setting over the fiction just generated at the table. The primacy of the pre-generated notes helps with this particular style of "immersion".

But, if the goal of play is still to achieve player specified ends, subject to the sadly underdiscussed constraints of genre and table norms, (save the world, find the killer, avenge my brother, stay alive, etc.) then it's not just an aesthetic change, it's a change to the available play loop.

It seems disingenuous, to me, to do one without the other. That slippery slope argument relies on slipping in another goal, something like "produce satisfying fiction" or "limit any player's contributions to a specific scope of impact" or similar.

I mostly think the immersion debate is eliding a gameplay argument; what elements of the board am I allowed to alter, and what am I trying to achieve through that alteration? If there's more than one goal, and actions are grouped into sets that are off-limits to serve one but not another, that is an awkward dissonance for a player to inhabit, like playing a card game two-handed against oneself.

 

[Oofta]

No one is saying it’s better. That’s a matter of opinion.

What we’re saying is that it involves the players more. It’s more collaborative.
...

The phrases "involves the players more" and "It's more collaborative" are effectively saying that it's better. It's also untrue.

It may involve the players more or be more collaborative for you. I involve the players, my game is very collaborative. It's just a different approach. It's done through what the characters say and do or in discussions outside of the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's called realism. There are on average about sixty spiders in a typical modern house. In the room you are sitting right now, there almost certainly are several spiders keeping you company, even if you might not see them. It is exceedingly unlikely that a large orcish stone hall would not have quite a few spiders in it.

But what if page 793 of the DMs notes indicates that in this game world, spiders are rare and are always spies for Lolth, and so are generally killed on sight? I mean, if we can't assume that patrons are in a tavern or that a town will have a blacksmith, why would we assume spiders are common?

Kidding aside... what if the DM shot the idea down? That's their right, as you've been saying. They could declare this action impossible.

Or they could work with the player's idea. They could collaborate and find something that works for everyone.

Whether they know of it or not doesn't affect whether it can be done (though I feel this is the sort of thing a cleric should have at least some sort of rudimentary understanding of.) Players of course can declare actions that are impossible. Then the GM tells them that they do not succeed.

So, does a DM have to disclose everything that's impossible to try ahead of play? Like, you expect that it was explicitly stated before play "Gods never do anything but give you spells"? Or was it more implied?

And either way, don't things change sometimes? Couldn't there be some kind of divine champion that's never been seen before who can work miracles greater than most clerics?

Why would players just assume that, when it comes to magic and the cosmic or divine, all is known and things can never change?

Giant was introduced because I needed a level five filler encounter. But the place of the giants in the setting and their lore (well some of it) existed before and how the giant behaved, what they were carrying etc reflected that. The player got interested in the giants due this, and decided to pursue investigating them. As a result, they had plenty of giant-related adventures. Did I "intend" this to happen, was it a "plot hook?" I did not intend nor not intend this to happen. It was just thing that exist in the setting, for players to engage with or leave alone. I try to make my settings feel alive and deep, so there are a lot of little throwaway details that hint at existence of hidden layers and stuff being going on, and most are just flavour, but the players are free to pick up any thread and foreground the stuff like they did here with the giants. And yes, as this is rather new setting, and was even more so when this first happened, some of the giants stuff I had was a bit sketchy, and the player desire to engage with made me to design it in more detail.

Gotcha. Yeah, I wouldn't say that was "all because of one player". But it's a cool example where a player certainly played a part in the way things go.

Again... imagine the DM just shot it down.

What you mean? I just told you...

Because you seem to think I'm arguing something I'm not. I'm talking about trying ways to collaborate with players, and you've been arguing for the DM's right to not do so... and then you share examples that show the DM trying to collaborate with players.

 

[pemerton]

In certain RPGs, if you succeed in an action, the rules state the player gets to narrate the success.

Which RPGs do you have in mind?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which RPGs do you have in mind?

Don’t the FATE system games work something like that? I’ve tried reading the rules a couple of times but I really need to join a game to see how it works.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No one is saying it’s better. That’s a matter of opinion.

What we’re saying is that it involves the players more. It’s more collaborative.



Sure, I don’t blame you for presuming that. When I read someone say “all because of one player” I presume that the player was the main impetus for this. But if it was already set in some way, I don’t really see it as “all because one player”.

It's basic existence was already set. That's how a sandbox works. The player, however, decided to pursue it, which led to the area being further developed. Had the player not been interested, the giant culture would not have vanished, but it would have remained undeveloped in all likelihood. This is one of the ways that players impact the setting under this paradigm.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But what if page 793 of the DMs notes indicates that in this game world, spiders are rare and are always spies for Lolth, and so are generally killed on sight? I mean, if we can't assume that patrons are in a tavern or that a town will have a blacksmith, why would we assume spiders are common?

Kidding aside... what if the DM shot the idea down? That's their right, as you've been saying. They could declare this action impossible.

Or they could work with the player's idea. They could collaborate and find something that works for everyone.



So, does a DM have to disclose everything that's impossible to try ahead of play? Like, you expect that it was explicitly stated before play "Gods never do anything but give you spells"? Or was it more implied?

And either way, don't things change sometimes? Couldn't there be some kind of divine champion that's never been seen before who can work miracles greater than most clerics?

Why would players just assume that, when it comes to magic and the cosmic or divine, all is known and things can never change?



Gotcha. Yeah, I wouldn't say that was "all because of one player". But it's a cool example where a player certainly played a part in the way things go.

Again... imagine the DM just shot it down.



Because you seem to think I'm arguing something I'm not. I'm talking about trying ways to collaborate with players, and you've been arguing for the DM's right to not do so... and then you share examples that show the DM trying to collaborate with players.

How could the GM legitimately shut it down? A giant has been encountered. That means giants exist. If the giant behaved in a way consistent with sentient life, that means giant culture exists. What possible reason at that point could the GM give to prevent the player from attempting to investigate that culture?

 

[Manbearcat]

I mostly think the immersion debate is eliding a gameplay argument; what elements of the board am I allowed to alter, and what am I trying to achieve through that alteration? If there's more than one goal, and actions are grouped into sets that are off-limits to serve one but not another, that is an awkward dissonance for a player to inhabit, like playing a card game two-handed against oneself.

This is a good post. I typically always like your posts even if I don't agree with them entirely or with certain aspects of them.

I like that you're switching the conversation to your typical inclinations toward challenge-based play. I'd like to talk about that a little bit. You and I have talked in the past about systems that index various goals simultaneously (in particular, we've discussed Blades in the Dark among a few others).

So here is my sense of your position on challenge-based designs:

* Like the bit above that I've bolded, it seems to me that you feel an awkward dissonance when micro goals in a game are sometimes at tension with one another or one micro goal is momentarily or perpetually at tension with a macro goal. A game like Torchbearer (the pinnacle of challenge-based TTRPG design imo) would seem to generate this sort of struggle for you. You have multiple clocks going simultaneously and they each demand you perform subtly different calculus to stay on top of them. You have multiple currencies that power various aspects of play and attaining these or spending these come at costs to other interests or assessments around sacrificing immediate needs to invest in longterm gains. Gaining and spending these currencies requires you to perform a lot of tactical and strategic calculus around various, sometimes competing, interests and loops/intervals of play. Finally, gaining certain key currencies and advancing requires thematic struggle and action resolution failure.

There are a lot of spinning plates to stay on top of and they can compound if you don't maintain extreme skill at managing the tactical level, the strategic level, while pushing hard on the thematic elements of play all times (which intersect with the tactical layer, the strategic layer, and the advancement layer).

Torchbearer's "board state" is never something that lets up. You can "keep the headman's axe at bay" perpetually and you can even thrive within the scope of your character's premise/thematics, but you never get full reprieve from that looming execution. It, by design, always haunts play. And you better not let up or it will catch up to you.

My sense is you might call this approach "parasitic design" or a "decaying board state?" If so, my sense is that you would ascribe "dysfunctional" as a descriptor for this approach to systematizing challenge-based play and organizing play priorities?

* So, assuming the above is correct, I have a question for you regarding baseball; starting pitching specifically.

When you're a starting pitcher, the dynamics you're working under are actually rather similar to playing Torchbearer. You have multiple competing interests that you have to constantly weigh and juggle.

1) You have a pitch count clock that is ticking and constantly looming (modern era absolutely tries to keep starting pitchers below 100 pitch count...so finishing ball games as a starting pitcher is extremely difficult anymore). So you need to optimize for efficiency, but sometimes a singular moment or a particular at-bat or a particular situation demands that you abandon your efficiency optimization to potentially "get out of a spot."

2) Hitters' statistics increase dramatically vs a pitcher as the game deepens, as pitches accrue, and they get further at-bats against you. The third time through the order is a statically a huge increase in metrics vs a pitcher when compared to the first time through the order. Consequently, there are two different games of "cat & mouse" happening between pitchers and hitters here:

2a) Pitchers often decline showing their full repertoire of pitches to either all hitters the first time through the order or to select hitters specifically. This is a sacrifice of short-term gains for long term durability and the amelioration of that long-term trend of hitters getting better against you as at-bats accrue in a game.

2b) Beyond the dynamics of 2a above, pitchers often change their sequencing and location dynamics of pitches either to the whole lineup or to specific hitters. This might be working against a pitchers strength in a particular at-bat or in a particular inning or a particular time through the lineup. The intended payoff is that a particular dangerous hitter or the lineup-at-large might be off balance; again sacrificing optimization of tactics right now for (hopefully) strategic payoff.

3) The Home Plate Umpire is a huge part of a pitcher's calculus. As the adage goes, "the most important pitch in baseball is strike 1." That is because getting ahead of the hitter (achieving a 0 balls : 1 strike count) is absolutely essential for success at every interval (for this at-bat, for pitch count optimization, for staying out of trouble in this inning, and for reducing the total number of times through the order in the game). However, the second most important pitch in baseball is on the 1-1 count. The difference between hitter success on a 2-1 count (2 balls : 1 strike) vs a 1-2 count is profound.

So a pitcher has to "game the Umpire" and pitch to that Ump's subjective tendencies both generally and especially on the first pitch of an at-bat and when facing a 1-1 count.

4) Finally, it is absolutely essential that you "show up big" in big moments as a starting pitcher. Your team is deeply relying upon you. There is an intangible of grit and fortitude and courage that you have to show and that comes in many forms from (i) the way you carry yourself generally when its your day to (ii) your body language/disposition on the mound between pitches to (iii) whether you have proven that you can "clutch up" in order to "get out of a jam" or make a key pitch in a key situation. And whether anyone wants to admit it or not (iv) striking out a key hitter for the other team (especially overmatching them with a fastball or making them look stupid with a slider) juices up your team, no doubt.

This intangible component is kind of the thematic/premise piece.

I could go on, but hopefully I've demonstrated the dynamics of starting pitching in baseball and why I feel like (i) its analogous to being a player in a game of Torchbearer and (ii) why I wonder if you would look at these starting pitching dynamics as "parasitic design" or a "decaying board state" (particularly the dynamics of the pitch count inevitably leading you to get taken out of the game) and therefore "dysfunctional challenge-based design."

---

Hopefully this makes sense and gets some traction in your brain because I'm very curious about the contours of your positions on this stuff. I'm pretty sure we disagree about key elements, but I don't know.

 

[Lanefan]

And that's exactly the sort of "Oh, you weren't careful enough in your questions; you weren't specific enough in what you told me you were doing" terrible DMing I'm advocating against.

Is it terrible DMing to expect the players to ask questions or is it terrible playing to not ask those questions?