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

[FrozenNorth]

I have yet to see anyone comment on the situation of a player wanting an option that does not exist in the setting provided by the DM yet is not willing to do so the work of adding that option to the setting.

I think the reason you aren’t seeing answers to that question is that the answer is « it depends ».
Game’s a bash-the-door dungeon crawler, if the PC wants to be a gnome in a world in which gnomes aren’t established, it’s tough to see how that impacts much of anything.

If the game is a Feywild rp-heavy political intrigue game and the player wants to play a warforged but doesn’t want to detail why the war forged is in a Fey court nor what their motivations are, then the problem isn’t that the player wants to play a warforged, it’s that there is a mismatch between the play styles of the participants.

And if that happens, the answer is also it depends. What do the other players think? If only one player doesn’t want an rp Feywild campaign, then they can sit out this campaign. But if multiple players aren’t enthused about a low-combat campaign, the DM shouldn’t push it.

 

[Emerikol]

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?

It works like the real world. The player experiences the world through his senses and makes choices based on those stimuli. He can modify the world in modest ways. He can turn left or turn right on the road. He can't imagine a third road though that doesn't exist.

When I enter a restaurant, I see people seated or sitting at the bar. I can interact with those people. I can't though just imagine into existence someone else sitting at the bar.

 

[Belen]

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.

I mean, you're right. On the other hand, sometimes the wrong lessons are learned.

In the case of an MMO, you have game that is already 100 times more restrictive than a TTRPG. You can only play what the designers have built although it makes combat super easy because you click buttons and move around versus dice and math.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

This is what session 0 is for IMO. That's where you get to hear about the setting.

 

[TwoSix]

No one said anything about "walking up to the gates". The just said the went into the castle, and there are many ways a PC might try to get into a castle, and when I asked for clarification, all I got was a snarky response. That's a bad faith player, refusing to engage properly with the game. Not only are they stabbed, they are out of the game. No one gets to be snarky, because that isn't fun for anyone other than the snarky player.

If, rather than saying "I go into the castle and see the king" (intent, not an action), they had said "I walk up to the castle gate and ask to see the king" (action), they might have been turned away, the might have been admitted, they might have been asked for a skill check, depending on the situation. Whatever the outcome, they are engaging properly with the game.

If you're unclear as to the meaning of a stated action, just ask.

The point is, as a player, don't play 20 questions with the DM to determine if what you want to do is feasible. Just go do it. If there's a problem, it's the DM's job to tell you why. And the DM should obviously be aware that the character is competent enough to not walk into walls or try to walk on water without clarification. This isn't a video game where you left the character on auto-run and walked away.

 

[FrozenNorth]

My 30 years of anecdotal experience support it. I don't think a campaign would last two weeks with my players if I just gave them whatever they wanted. Being gamists they want everything now. But DMing gamists requires you make them work for it and that is what good games are made out of. Your style preference may be different.

My 35 years of experience refute that DMs will outperform players by a large margin in ensuring what is best for the campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yea, that's the entire thing I'm trying to avoid. I am actively trying to not play in a style that minimizes risk and optimizes efficacy. I'm trying to generate conflict.

That's a narrative focus to play, one of many equally valid playstyles.

Seriously, almost all of this comes down to personal preference.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I don't see how. Your point was that any limitation that doesn't make the game unplayable necessarily promotes creativity. I provided examples of limitations that did not make the game unplayable, but also did not promote creativity. As for setting limitations? "Every player must play a character who speaks in French-accented English." That's a setting-specific limitation which, at least on its surface, has no relationship at all to promoting creativity--though I will note that you have now changed the requirements, adding that it must be a limitation rooted in the setting, not just limitations-in-general.

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

Have I said that all limitations are bad? If you got that impression from what I wrote, I heartily recommend you re-read what I said. I specifically said some limitations are good, and others are neutral, and some may even be detrimental. Your statement here only has any force against someone claiming that all limitations are always harmful guaranteed, which I never said and explicitly contradicted.

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.

"Could be" makes this an incredibly weak argument. Something that made it so a good game genuinely couldn't be had by ANYONE attempting to play it would be monstrous, something no person in their right mind could ever support. It isn't a feather in anyone's cap for something to simply avoid preventing a functional game.

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.

And I'm arguing that those limitations absolutely can be the thing that makes a game good or bad. It won't always be the thing that does it. There are simply too many things that can make a game good or bad to ever argue something so foolish! It won't even necessarily be a thing that contributes in either direction.

But when I see extensive limitations, especially those that are given either no explanation at all, or no explanation beyond "it's what I like" or "I just think it's stupid", that's a red flag, a pretty big one. Not the biggest possible, but a pretty big one nonetheless.

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.

And I'm saying that they are more than just flavors. They're ingredients. And some ingredients can be detrimental--can directly be what ruins a dish.

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.

Welcome to the club. I deal with this sort of thing all the time.

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.

Okay. Please put yourself in my shoes: I have never, as a player, been in any group that lasted longer than a year after I joined. (My current 5e group will cross that threshold in a few months, and I am still very grateful for the invitation to join it.) Almost none of the groups I've been a player in have had any players in common. I have been striving to find a long-running group to play with for a very long time, and I've seen many bad apples I've stayed far away from while looking for such a thing. That is part of why almost all of the DMs I've actually had have been at least pretty decent, and the majority have been quite good.

I have never had the luxury of relying on years of reputation. I have never been so fortunate as to have extensive experience with a DM before working with them. And this is going to be similar to the experience for most players today, because most players of D&D 5e (whether 5.0 or 5.5e) are brand-new to TTRPGs, if WotC's numbers are to be believed. As in, something like four to eight new players for every single person who had played a previous edition first.

 

[Emerikol]

I think the reason you aren’t seeing answers to that question is that the answer is « it depends ».
Game’s a bash-the-door dungeon crawler, if the PC wants to be a gnome in a world in which gnomes aren’t established, it’s tough to see how that impacts much of anything.

While my games do have adventures which are dungeon-like. There is also a lot of world around those adventures and a lot of interaction with that world. Adventures are fun and they provide income but often there are other things going on in the world that the PCs get involved with as they grow in power. So I mix it up. My PCs kind of set the agenda in terms of what they want to engage.

What isn't debatable though is what is in the world. That is my job as DM. While I may have reasons, I don't think it is appropriate for players to demand those reasons. The DM may just be tired of everyone playing an elf. It could be anything. It doesn't matter. The DM is providing a setting. Players should accept it or reject it. I find though that players who won't play in a game because they can't play X race with Y class/Z subclass aren't really who I'm looking for as players. I want players who will engage with the setting and pick their race/class/and background to evoke the setting.

And I design different settings. So one time is not the same as the next. I tend to have my own racial lore for example.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you're unclear as to the meaning of a stated action, just ask

I did. You responded with sarcasm.