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

[Oofta]

Sure, if that works better for the situation and/or you and your players. These are principles of preference, not commandments that must always be strictly followed.

So you're saying that when the ghost of Gygax descended down from the celestial realms and handed me engraved tablets with the PHB engraved on them that it was all a dream?

That would have explained why I couldn't find the tablets this morning. I had assumed they went to the same place as my missing socks.

 

[grankless]

Can the discussion perhaps be moved away from immersion? Debating over a term that has no concrete universal definition is not going to benefit anyone, because different people mean different things by immersion due to it being a solely subjective experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If returning to the original story isn't possible, so what? You're on a different story now, one that (because the players took the campaign in that direction) you have to assume is engaging enough to the players that they'll keep playing it.

Because its a kind of story you (and potentially some of the players) didn't come here for. That'st the long and the short of it.

 

[Oofta]

Because its a kind of story you (and potentially some of the players) didn't come here for. That'st the long and the short of it.

Not to put words in @Lanefan's mouth, but the story is based on what the PCs decide to pursue. There will always be a next story arc, maybe just not the one they unsuccessfully pursued. I don't run a game assuming they going to slay the dragon, that's just one likely path they can take. If they decide to pursue something else there are always options, including ones I hadn't thought of.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because its a kind of story you (and potentially some of the players) didn't come here for. That'st the long and the short of it.

The thing to remember is D&D isn’t a two player game. Players need to respect what all the other players want to do. To take the game in a direction different to the one agreed in session zero needs everyone to agree (that includes the DM). If player 1 one wants to open a brothel, player 2 finds that morally repugnant, and player 3 wants to kill monsters, then player 1 either needs to go with the group or leave the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not to put words in @Lanefan's mouth, but the story is based on what the PCs decide to pursue. There will always be a next story arc, maybe just not the one they unsuccessfully pursued. I don't run a game assuming they going to slay the dragon, that's just one likely path they can take. If they decide to pursue something else there are always options, including ones I hadn't thought of.

Sure, but there can also be a premise and if everyone agreed to it, then everyone should probably try to stay within it or make a new character if their current one can't. Like if we agreed to play a Star Trek game set on a Federation starships about Strarfleet officers solving problems, then it might not be satisfactory turn of events if we end up playing game about sociopaths that got kicked out of Starfleet by being chaos gremlin hurderhobos.

Think about your "no evil" clause. It is part of your premise that the characters are not outright villains.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but there can also be a premise and if everyone agreed to it, then everyone should probably try to stay within it or make a new character if their current one can't. Like if we agreed to play a Star Trek game set on a Federation starships about Strarfleet officers solving problems, then it might not be satisfactory turn of events if we end up playing game about sociopaths that got kicked out of Starfleet by being chaos gremlin hurderhobos.

Think about your "no evil" clause. It is part of your premise that the characters are not outright villains.

Sure. All I'm saying is that just because the story arc I originally planned doesn't happen doesn't mean there aren't always plenty of other things to do. In theory any individual at the table, DM or player, can veto something someone else wants to pursue. It's never been an issue though, the players vote on options available and the game continues on.

 

[Scribe]

(I just wish the DM of the real world would instantiate a wider selection of porters and stouts when I ask, instead of just more IPAs).

This is a great example to me of where the line is.

Its one thing to say "I enter the castle to meet the king." when one knows that a castle and king exist.

Its another, for me to tell my wife "Hey, I'm going down to the comic shop." if no such place in town exists, thats a nonsensical statement and 'warping reality'.

In the former the DM says 'ok and this is what you encounter' in the second? The wife says 'that doesnt exist, so either you are having a mental breakdown, or you are lying'.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is a great example to me of where the line is.

Its one thing to say "I enter the castle to meet the king." when one knows that a castle and king exist.

Its another, for me to tell my wife "Hey, I'm going down to the comic shop." if no such place in town exists, thats a nonsensical statement and 'warping reality'.

In the former the DM says 'ok and this is what you encounter' in the second? The wife says 'that doesnt exist, so either you are having a mental breakdown, or you are lying'.

Indeed, but to be fair, in a game there can be a fuzzy area about what can or cannot assumed to exist. Like in a typical fantasy game people probably would assume that a town has a tavern and a blacksmith. But a library? Probably a temple or even several, but of which gods?

But it is not a big deal either. If the player accidentally makes a wrong assumption, then the GM can correct them.

 

[Scribe]

Indeed, but to be fair, in a game there can be a fuzzy area about what can or cannot assumed to exist. Like in a typical fantasy game people probably would assume that a town has a tavern and a blacksmith. But a library? Probably a temple or even several, but of which gods?

But it is not a big deal either. If the player accidentally makes a wrong assumption, then the GM can correct them.

Right, and thats why its where the line exists, to me.

"I punch the nearest person." I mean sure if you are in a crowded space, but it's not up to the player if they are in one.

"I go to the Temple of Bane to make an offering." - The player doesnt get to determine if either there is a Temple, or if Bane even exists.

I'm 100% fine with the narrative twist of "I do X" vs "May I do X" to empower the player, I'm not fine with "speaking it into reality" when that reality is the setting, which is the DM's definition.