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

[Emerikol]

The problem with this aphorism is that it leaves out a word: good limitations breed creativity.

I'd say there is no such thing as a good or bad limitation unless the game becomes completely unplayable as a result. The limitations are just the boundaries of the setting. Whether those boundaries are good or bad would be subjective not objective and depend on the group.

Is spell creation an official, default rule in the system in question? If it is, I should think a player playing any class officially permitted to use those rules would be rightfully annoyed to suddenly find out that that official, default rule had been taken away. To the best of my knowledge, most systems that have "spell lists" (may don't) this is already the official, default rule. It would be a change away from the rules as written to receive the ability to acquire existing but off-list spells, e.g. a Wizard learning signature Cleric spells or a Psion learning signature Artificer spells. A player might really want that and might be very disappointed if they couldn't get it, but they would have no room to argue that it "should" be that way by default--the default rules explicitly don't support it.

I'm not nearly as tethered to the official rules as you are. I did though grow up using 1e so that might be part of it. I send out a packet 0 ahead of time detailing the world to some degree and all of the house rules. I also explain rule 0 and what is expected of the players. At that point some people will not want to play. Either because they don't like my DM style or because the setting proposal just isn't something they like. The latter will show up again next time to see what I am offering. The former probably won't. And that is okay. What is true though is I keep having happy groups one after another for a very long time. So I think the limitations I am putting forth are at least acceptable to a portion of the playerbase and as such are fine.

Do you think the only way for there to be a world to explore is if the DM has already nailed down all of it in advance? Because this is very much not true in many games, both in terms of "game systems" and in terms of "game tables."

For me, I only enjoy well developed worlds. And by developed I mean developed by the DM. Not necessarily completely in advance but at least in advance of my interaction with it. A faraway country may only have a Greyhawk level description on day one but it will be fleshed out more if I go there.

Dungeon World has a wonderful concept here: "Draw maps, leave blanks." What this means is, you absolutely should have a map of the Kingdom of Tabletopia and perhaps even for its neighbors like the Duchy of Axygg and the Freehold of Grognardia etc., but you shouldn't nail down every single village and town, every single river and forest, every single dungeon, etc. You do enough work that people can understand the setting and the concept, so the group has something to sink their teeth into, but not so much that there's nothing for you, the DM, to discover as play progresses. As part of this, it is valid (under particular circumstances, not just willy-nilly) for the players to sometimes be the agents of discovery, who tell the group that a particular location is somewhere. It isn't that they are "retconning" or "rewriting" the setting. They are filling in the blanks on the map--places that weren't important enough for the party to know about before, but which they have learned about because it now is important to know what's there, just as you would if you were making your own map of a real place as you travelled through it (though, of course, with the addition of being a creative contributor, not merely an observer.)

Dungeon World as a game is pretty much the antithesis of my play style and designed intentionally to be that way. I'm not saying this particular quote is the antithesis. Any world designed by a DM naturally can only go so deep. I can't recreate an entire real world. But I tend to think the more I can do that the better it will be. So I have more depth close to the sandbox and less depth as you go out from it.

A good example is Gygax's city of Greyhawk. That area over time became very well detailed in his campaign but places like the Great Kingdom only had some high level details.

It really isn't absurd at all. To assume so is to make the argument circular; you are presuming that the DM can do no wrong on this front, which is simply not true.

I don't think you do it on purpose but you do misunderstand me a lot.

Edit: It has nothing to do with the DM doing no wrong. Players have roles and DMs have roles. The point though is that even a world as restrictive as my Dwarven campaign has plenty of room for adventuring and exploration. A group of the right players could get a lot out of it. No setting can please everyone. Any setting though that can be played in by a group which has fun is by definition not too limited. It may be too limited for you but it is not too limited in the general sense

 

[CreamCloud0]

But the only "plot" that may be allowed is one that uses the pieces that exist in the world. The only "script" that may be allowed is one that uses those pieces. That's the problem here.

"hey guys, i'm using a star wars setting, you can be any species, from any planet, and go anywhere and do anything that's in star wars"
"what? i ONLY get to be ANYTHING from star wars? but that's so limiting!"

 

[Oofta]

What reason did the PCs have to chase these NPCs?

Why does it matter? The player went out of their way to prevent the success of the rest of the party when they had a clear goal.

 

[Emerikol]

I prefer "groundedness" myself, for a variety of reasons. (The biggest being that "verisimilitude" + "anything not explicitly supernatural works exactly like it does IRL" is precisely what screws over non-spellcaster characters over and over again, literally just reproducing the problem of the term "realism" that "verisimilitude" was meant to escape from.)

For me it is suspension of disbelief for the purposes of enjoyment. For example when Superman, who we agree has all sorts of pre-accepted powers, flies around the world and makes time reverse, that ruined it for me. Why? Because if our world spun in the opposite direction time would not reverse. That is verisimilitude. I agree though that what can be tolerated varies.

My problem is that I find that a lot of DMs who do the ultra-high levels of worldbuilding expect a sort of blanket deference and trust from the players, when the actual effect should be quite the opposite. I know more or less what to expect if someone proposes Star Trek or Middle Earth or Athas. I've no idea what to expect if someone proposes Thraes or Artha. This intensifies the already pretty significant need for the DM to prove why I should care. Just because they did a lot of work doesn't mean I should feel anything at all about that work. I don't owe the DM anything just because they wrote a lot of setting material. That was their choice, and it doesn't create any sort of duty on my part as a player.

I think there should be initial trust. But even if a DM for no reason other than he just hates a particular race, spell, class, magic item etc..., I think the DM has the right to remove it. He is not going to be a good DM with something he hates irritating him at every turn. We need more DMs and even if you don't like what he or she is offering you can just choose another DM.

As much as I'm a fan of innovative settings, I don't think they automatically deserve more respect simply because they're new. Novelty is a perk, but it's not proof of quality. I can certainly grant that it's nice when folks put in the time to do something new. But just because you worked on it, doesn't mean the finished product is great. As you say, it needs to be new and good. Newness neither guarantees nor averts goodneses.

I give a DM the benefit of the doubt going into the game. I can usually tell fairly early if a DM is not the type I like.

 

[TwoSix]

Why? Being more famous does not make it inherently better. For some people, it's the same old same old boring stuff they've had their entire lives and they want something different. For others the setting doesn't really matter.

It's also not relevant in any way that I can imagine. It was an example of setting consistency and internal logic that we all know. You agree that those games are going to have a different feel, a different style, correct? So why shouldn't I run a game with a feel and style that I enjoy? It's not like I've ever been lacking for players, they enjoy the setting as well.

It has nothing to do with being better. It's that the shared knowledge between all the participants makes it easier to communicate and imagine concepts.

I know what Middle Earth and Star Trek look and sound like. I know how to make a character fit into the setting. In your setting, I'm depending on you, the DM, to tell me.

 

[Emerikol]

It has nothing to do with being better. It's that the shared knowledge between all the participants makes it easier to communicate and imagine concepts.

I know what Middle Earth and Star Trek look and sound like. I know how to make a character fit into the setting. In your setting, I'm depending on you, the DM, to tell me.

What I've found using established settings though is players often know the material better than the DM, and then you have problems. The players are constantly saying "that wouldn't happen in Star Trek" or whatever. That is a negative for me. It's why I don't even play Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. Too much stuff that I can't keep track of it all that players will take as canon.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It has nothing to do with being better. It's that the shared knowledge between all the participants makes it easier to communicate and imagine concepts.

I know what Middle Earth and Star Trek look and sound like. I know how to make a character fit into the setting. In your setting, I'm depending on you, the DM, to tell me.

and why is that really such an issue?

 

[Oofta]

I think that D&D works well with players who don't want to do a ton of creative work. It's basically designed for that, really. But it can accommodate player creativity perfectly well, it's just that the official books kind of train DMs to assume the role of primary or sole author, aside from very narrow slices left available to players (typically strategic choices and maybe a bit of character backstory).

This is not a criticism of D&D, which is a game I very much enjoy. Just my observation of the type of game it is. In fact, I think this can be a strength, because it is easier for everyone to play except the DM. If I want to run, say Monster Hearts, I have to find some players who are willing to invest. But you can still run D&D in a way that is more inclusive of meaningful player contributions to the overall story and setting. Or not. If you have a big story to tell and fantastic world to explore, and your players are into it, then it's probably going to be an amazing campaign.

I think that the idea that players can't be creative even if they are only responsible for their character is incorrect. If I have a character where I've put a lot of thought into them, come up with interesting personality and approach to life different from mine, how is that not creative? When I have my character interact with the world around them as we play, is that not creative? On the other hand if a DM is running a published module with few of their own modifications, how are they being more creative?

These kind of things, along with the assertions of who has authority is part of the issue. Assume for a moment standard D&D stance. The players are responsible for building their PC along with what the character says and does. The DM is responsible for the world and the NPCs. Both, to me, can be creative endeavors. Thinking about who my character is and then figuring out rules to implement that vision, thinking about potential accent, mannerisms, perhaps catch phrases are all creative. Deciding how they would respond in the moment, especially if it's different from what I would do, is creative. It's just a different type of creativity. Character centered creativity can be deeper than DM world building creativity which by necessity frequently needs to be very shallow and surface level creativity.

Just the same as having authority over what my player says and does is simply a different authority than what the DM has.

 

[TwoSix]

Here is one example I considered once. Everyone has to be a dwarf and the campaign starts deep underground and no one knows about the surface. The entire known world is tunnels and underground caverns turned into dwarven cities. Now that is not going to appeal to everyone but it might be fun for some people. Just be upfront about it with potential players and let them play or not play.

That sounds like a great campaign hook to me. Roll a character, let's get started.

 

[TwoSix]

and why is that really such an issue?

Because it puts me in a position of having to have my creativity verified as accurate.