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

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair to Lanefan, I do run most of my games in a pretty similar "whatever the players do, that's where the game goes" way.

Just that Lanefan runs the equivalent of a 30-year continuous soap opera with a rotating cast, and my games are like an 8 episode reality show.

With no offense intended, not sure that changes my point. I still don't see much sign most GMs are interested in going off in random tangents that pull a campaign away from the thrust of it they planned out. My statement that its probably an outlier doesn't change just because there's two people in the thread that do it; it wouldn't change if half the thread was composed of people who do it.

 

[Dire Bare]

Assuming we're talking about a game where the fiction is meant to matter not just as a crucible for play (in the dungeon-crawling style), but as something carrying aesthetic weight in its own right, then I expect the participants to be creative equals.

They have different roles - different bits of the fiction that they are responsible for. The players are responsible for the play of their PCs. If the GM has so little interest that they think it is indifferent whether the player brings this or that to the table, I don't see that as adopting the perspective of creative equality.

I'm with @EzekielRaiden in not knowing what this is meant to mean, taken literally. I mean, actual people are not characters and the world we all live in is not a setting.

But in any event, you are not articulating here a vision of creative equality.

For my part, I expect the players, in creating their characters, to add to the setting. This might be as modest as a family or a home, or as big as a town sacked by Gnolls, from which the character is now a refugee, or an order of knights (or mages, or . . ) to which the PC belongs.

I'm with you on this.

If a pal asks our gaming circle . . . "Hey, I want to run a Star Trek game! Who's in?" We all have at least a rough idea of what to expect, even those of us who aren't super Trekkies. But if a friend say, "Hey gang, I'd like to run a sci-fantasy D&D game inspired by Star Trek and Babylon 5! Who's in?" That could be a lot of fun, but even when citing the inspirations, we have a lot less to go on, both when deciding if we want to play and as we get started. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a difference.

If a friend goes, "Hey, want to join my D&D game? I've been running this homebrew world for over 30 years, and my initial description isn't going to sound super different than the Realms or Middle-Earth, but for reasons, NO DRAGONBORN." Eh . . . I'm not that excited. It could be a fun game and well realized setting, but I'm initially put off, there are "red flags". Now, if I know this friend well, I might choose to join the game so that I can game with THEM, not so much their setting. But as an adult, I also might think, "Eh, my gaming time is limited, I'll pass on this one. Hope everyone has a good time."

I just started a Lord of the Rings 5E campaign with my friends. I was offering to take over for our DM who needed a break, these guys are all friends, but they don't have a lot of experience with me running games. I initially gave them 4 options: 1) LotR 5E, 2) Greek-themed campaign (Odyssey of the Dragonlords), 3) Star Trek/Star Wars inspired sci-fantasy D&D, and 4) homebrew D&D heavily inspired by the Mystara campaign. I was most excited to run the sci-fantasy game or my version of Mystara, but . . . overwhelmingly, everybody got excited by the setting we all shared as fans, Middle-Earth. Which is cool, we're having a lot of fun!

We're sticking pretty close to the LotR rules and setting, but it was a group decision, not DM fiat. If my players had said, "Let's play LotR 5E, but with tieflings and dragonborn!" I would've gone for it. I do have one player playing a druid from regular 5E, to model a Radagast-style Istari.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Yup. It's why its always easy to find players, but harder to find a DM. As a player, all you have to do is roll up your character and show up. Doesn't mean you can't get invested, creative, and contribute to the setting and story . . . but it isn't a requirement of the role.

And sometimes . . . that's exactly what I want. As a player, I've been in more than a few sessions where I was essentially on auto-pilot. "What? It's my turn? I attack the goblin with my sword. Oh, the barbarian took out the goblin? Uh, I attack . . . who's left?" It's not the best way to play D&D, but sometimes it's all I got!

 

[TwoSix]

Nothing stops your character from punching the nearest dude if the bar has other patrons. In games I enjoy I just won't be able to dictate who the dude is. Maybe it's no one special and I lay them out with one punch, maybe it's the Duke's favorite son and I just made a powerful enemy. Maybe it's a high level monk the DM was intending to introduce to the group and he deflects my inept punch back into my face. That to me is what makes the game immersive. I only know what my player knows and the world responds to my words and actions.

As a DM, my preference is to let it ride. If the player has a fun narration "I'm so angry I punt the gnome next to me across the room!" I run with it. If they just punch "whoever's closest", I'll narrate something interesting or appropriate. Possibly I'll roll, depending on the system.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sounds awesome to me. From my perspective that's the dream.

But my opinion is just as subjective as everyone else's.

There's nothing wrong with that sort of approach, but it functionally excludes whole classes of campaign because it potentially reduces every campaign to rogue operatives doing whatever they please until the GM, in the form of in-setting response, brings the hammer down. it assumes you can't really go into a campaign planning for it to be about anything, because the first time a player gets a bee in his bonnet and does something completely off-the-wall, you have to chase that result for the rest of the game.

 

[pemerton]

Has anyone posted that successful play depends on the GM having sole authority?

Yes, upthread @Emerikol did.

He has since clarified/corrected:

And I should caveat my assertions with "In my playstyle". Point noted.

I do assert that my style of game depends on DM authority.

 

[pemerton]

If a person has a campaign that works for them, that their players enjoy, that continues to work for them, they never have an issue attracting or retaining players, why change? Why change just because they could theoretically attract a different set of players? Changing fluff and cosmetics doesn't really change the core campaign design directions. People still haven't run out of ideas for stories based on the real world.

I see no value in change for the sole purpose of changing. You may not want to be part of my campaign but I have plenty of players and I don't need any more.

OK. I wasn't posting about what you should do. In response to a post by you, in which you said that your 1000s of hours of play in your campaign were a reason that a player should compromise their vision of their PC to fit into your setting, I stated that, to me, your 1000s of hours of play isn't the reason you presented it as.

 

[TwoSix]

With no offense intended, not sure that changes my point. I still don't see much sign most GMs are interested in going off in random tangents that pull a campaign away from the thrust of it they planned out. My statement that its probably an outlier doesn't change just because there's two people in the thread that do it; it wouldn't change if half the thread was composed of people who do it.

For sure. I don't disagree that the majority of games are planned with some sort of arc. (I would generally argue that isn't great, but that's beyond the scope of the topic, and really just a personal anecdote.)

I would just note that @Lanefan and I have fairly disparate opinions on a lot of gaming topics, but that doesn't mean our games don't also share some important similarities. We can all learn from each other, even if there are topics we vociferously disagree on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not sure that is a fair statement, the ones that play many of the indie games such as @pemerton, play from my perspective (and he can correct me if I'm wrong on this) ultra-sandboxes, the players drive the story and the direction of the story even more so than games that Lanefan and myself are running.

You'd discounting quite a number of posters if you think that is fringe.

Lord, man, my tastes are fringe in a lot of ways. I don't feel a need to assume otherwise for other posters here. I stick to my opinion that I have little sign ultra-sandbox approaches are at all typical. Most people assume that if they're running a campaign about X, and the players agreed to that, they'll make some effort to not suddenly make it about Y. Keep in mind I'm talking about really random disruptive character behavior here, not the sort of thing you'd expect to be within the normal range of most players' choices.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think even the most player-side posters are fine with DMs making a spot ruling in order to avoid slowing down the game, so long as the issue gets a fair hearing afterwards. To emphasize, I don’t even think this is controversial: it’s the same approach when a rule is forgotten.

My position is that its fine as long as the players are okay with it. I just don't think a GM should expect it to not be challenged in 100% of cases, especially if multiple players thing the call is a problem (though its helpful if people keep perspective and see if a bad decision in that spot is that important).