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

[Paul Farquhar]

Providing opportunities within the setting for adventure that the players can pick and choose from (while always allowing for the possibility of the players doing sonething else) is a railroad to you? That's, like, the definition of a sandbox.

As much as you've written, sometimes I still have a hard time understanding your perspective.

Yeah, I can't understand how this kind of game works. Is it like interactively writing a novel, where each player takes it in turns to narrate what happens next?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. I know that you prefer GM-centred RPGing. The main role of the player, in your approach, seems to be to learn stuff from the GM about the setting. At least, that's how it seems to me.

The main role of the player is to explore and interact with the setting as they see fit through the choices they make for their PCs, yes. Those choices can potentially make for huge changes in the setting if the choices themselves and the circumstances in which they are made allow for such.

To me, that's what playing a TTRPG is.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Maybe we should just leave twisting words into the worst possible result for genie wishes or even better, never.

They expressed their intent, said nothing about breaking in, walking through walls, any of this other stuff. They said they 'went to the castle' or 'went into the castle', a thing people in the area will do every day and got met with a smartass response, not an ask for clarification.

People in the area do not just walk into a castle every day. Otherwise there is not much point in having a castle. The king might as well live in a tent, with a sign "assassins welcome" above the flap. Ever seen a fantasy movie or read a fantasy novel? Adventurers are as likely to scale the walls as go in through the gate if they want to get into a castle.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Absolutely. Here is the text:

Thanks.
But how do you marry your interpretation in the PHB with

This book, the Players Handbook and the Monsters Manual present the default assumptions for how the world's of D&D work. Among the established settings of D&D, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance and Mystara don't stray far from those assumptions. Settings such as Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer and Planescape venture further away from the baseline. As you create your own world it is up to you to decide where on the spectrum you want your world to fall.

This is just one paragraph...the DMG is littered with this perspective.
Do you not think that perhaps your interpretation of the PHB excerpt may be wrong and that the book is indeed a toolkit?

 

[TwoSix]

If my style doesn't work for you then I'm not the right DM for you. Just please don't accuse me of forcing people to read a novella about my campaign world before they start play because that doesn't happen.

I never said or implied that.

But I would rather read a novella than have to ask a bunch of questions during character creation. But even better than that would be just being able to make up something logical myself.

As an example, @Emerikol mentioned a campaign hook about underground dwarves in a cavern exploring game. Awesome concept. I've already got some character concepts in mind, and I don't need the DM to tell me a single thing. I don't even really need a system yet.

Likewise, I could start running that game right now. Already have a starting hook in mind.

 

[Belen]

I'm not sure what sort of work you have in mind. Are you meaning a backstory for the PC?

For example, I do not have goliaths in my campaign setting. They only became a PHB race 2 months ago.

If a player wants to play a goliath, then they would need to answers some questions:

1. Give me a short history of goliaths on Delos: Where do they live, what is their culture, how do other species see them, do they have a kingdom, what gods do they follow, if any.
2. Are they common or rare in this part of the setting? If rare, are you prepared for NPCs to see you as an outsider? If common, write up a description of any important locations that they exist.
3. Provide at least 5 Goliath NPCs that are not family

These are all the types of actions I would need to take to accommodate the player by adding a Goliath to the setting. The backstory can flesh a lot of it out but I would also need more detailed information than a typical 1 paragraph to 1 page backstory.

If a player is willing to work with me and is invested enough to write up some thoughts, then fine. For instance, one of the current PCs in my party is a werewolf, wood elf, circle of the moon druid. She wanted to play a cursed character that chose circle of the moon to try to learn to control her curse. I had her assist in writing up a short history of werewolves in the area.

For me, I am inclined to work with a player if they want to add the option to my setting; however, if they do not want to help, then I am not inclined to spend hours adding an option that I am not invested in or excited about.

I give players lots of options already but, for example, I dislike warforged. I am not going to okay warforged in my personal setting.

 

[Emerikol]

Doesn't have to be unplayable to be bad. Example: "You can only participate in combat if you are standing on one foot at all times while responding." That's a limitation. I don't see how it would in any way actually help creativity. It certainly doesn't make the game unplayable for a typical person (a friend with inner-ear issues would find this unplayable though), but I think you'd agree that it does nothing to encourage creativity. Or: "You only earn experience during a session if you brought snacks with you." That doesn't make the game unplayable in the least....but it also doesn't actually make play any better (and could easily make things worse).

Really? Because a human being having to stand on one foot is not anything to do with the campaign setting. If this is all you have it kind of makes my point.

All limitations cut off possible behaviors. A good limitation must be either eliminating behaviors that would be detrimental (like the number-go-up math duel I mentioned), or making it an interesting challenge to succeed. It is simply not true that limitations-in-general are always good for creativity. Some limitations are productive. Others are neutral. And some are detrimental.

A game with rules is a limitation. It's better than no rules at all. Even an average game is better than no rules.

You keep wanting to go off the main discussion though. We are talking about the setting and various elements in the game like including certain elements. I'm saying a good game can be had no matter which races you allow. I'm saying a good game could be had no matter which classes you allow.

I'm also saying that a DM generated world may be good or bad but the limitations the DM chose for that world are not what is going to make it good or bad. And there is no need to come up with some out of this world example. We are assuming some minimal reasonable bounds. How about all campaign settings ever created seriously by a DM. Okay? Is that not broad enough? So given that arena, I'm arguing that what made a game good or bad was not the limitations. It may have been poorly designed in general but the lack of elves did not kill the setting.

I wasn't speaking of any specific limitations. I'm just saying that you can't claim that limitations are always good and thus a lack of limitations is always bad. That is simply not true. There are many things that contribute to creativity, yet many of those things can also detract from creativity if done unwisely.

I'm saying that all limitations are flavors and that flavors are a matter of taste. A matter of taste cannot be categorically declared good or bad objectively. That was my point forty pages ago.

I don't really see how that isn't compatible with what I said, so I'm kind of confused.

It's because you always seem to take what I say and run off in some weird tangent not at all related to my point. I think sometimes you are just constructing a straw man but other times I just think we aren't communicating. I say something and you respond to something completely unrelated in my eyes to what I said.

I never intentionally misunderstand anyone. Unfortunately, I don't really know what to do with this statement.

Of course not. I wasn't accusing so much as venting frustration.

And I reject the notion that the DM's role is one that deserves any special deference or trust from the word "go." Respect, trust, and enthusiasm are earned, the DM is not entitled to them simply by dint of having done pre-writing.

I get that but that again is a matter of taste. And for me, I do give the DM the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean I assume a DM is good. Many are not. But in my style, for a first timer, there is an implied benefit of the doubt.

I suppose at this point I tend to have a lot of trust from my players either by experience or by reputation. I don't tend to do completely new groups. We all are though devoted to players trying to get inside their characters and acting on the game setting through their characters.

 

[Belen]

People in the area do not just walk into a castle every day. Otherwise there is not much point in having a castle. The king might as well live in a tent, with a sign "assassins welcome" above the flap. Ever seen a fantasy movie or read a fantasy novel? Adventurers are as likely to scale the walls as go in through the gate if they want to get into a castle.

I agree, even a lot of walled cities will have guards that have to permit entry.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I guess my thought is that RPGs offer something different from what MMOs do. Why would I want to emulate a medium that already does its thing perfectly well?

Why would philosophy want something like set-theoretic notation? It does perfectly well within mathematics. But it's incredibly useful for (just to give an example of something I personally worked on) modal logics, especially if you're trying to do something like develop a modal logic structure for an existing system where you know the properties it needs to have. (In my case, I was trying to develop something that could capture the obligation/permission and, presumably with a separate pair of modal operators, the praiseworthy/reprehensible element of Islamic jurisprudence, that is, the five-tier system of mandatory/fard, recommended/mustahabb, neutral/mubah, disliked/makruh, and forbidden/haram. Never really got anywhere with it I'm afraid.)

Simple point is that lessons learned in a new space under different pressures may prove useful when ported back to the original ground from which that new space sprang.

 

[Emerikol]

For me? I think some DMs need to get over themselves and learn that ban-this, ban-that is actually a pretty destructive way to run games.

I certainly agree we need more DMs. I don't see how that has any intersection whatsoever with the topic at hand.

I'm not your slave. I am not running a game that is a lousy experience for me. I'm working up a campaign and proposing it to people and those people opt in or opt out.

I'm willing to hear what they have to say. I, too, believe I can suss some of this out relatively early (most of the time). One of the things that enables that is looking at whether they're open or closed to other ideas, whether they're ban-this ban-that or generally much more chill, and how sensitive they are to disruption of their preconceived notions.

See we both operate in the same way to suss out who we want to DM with which is the way it should be. I will likely be attracted to the DMs that you want to avoid. The world is a big place. You don't have to drive everyone to your style of game and neither do I.