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

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

That's why D&D leans so heavily into tropes. They are a kind of shorthand that save the DM from having to describe every little detail.

 

[niklinna]

I would specify the definition with: ‘creative input on the world that is not enacted directly through the actions your character performs is world-bending power’

My character can pick up the person in front of them, my character cannot influence what species they are, you cannot ‘pick up the gnome in front of me’ if it has not been established they are a gnome.

All this talk of "power" gives me the impression there is a "versus" viewpoint assumed here. What if the GM asks the player who else is in the bar? What if a player says "what if there's a drunken sailor in the bar?" and the GM enthusiastically agrees? What if a player says that and nobody's excited about that, or somebody (anybody at the table) points out that they are not in a port city? What if the GM and players, I dunno, collaborated on bending the world rather than fighting over it?

(I don't need to ask "what if?" about this because I have a GM who regularly does and encourages all that.)

(It's totally fine to play the power dynamic, by the way, but assuming it is correct, or universally desirable for every table, is not cool.)

 

[soviet]

But I can see how an extreme 'only the GM can say what exists' playstyle can be immersion-breaking for some. It puts the player and their character in a position of supreme ignorance about the world around them. Even the best GM's description can only go so far. Is there anyone else in the bar? I don't know, better ask the GM. Does this bar serve any food? I don't know, better ask the GM. Is there any music playing? I don't know, better ask the GM. Is there an ashtray or abandoned tankard on my table? I don't know, better ask the GM.

It seems to me that allowing players a small amount of discretion to fill in these everyday details themselves, rather than having to ask for permission, can make play feel much more alive and immediate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Maybe they have to clear the brothel of monsters first?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Maybe they have to clear the brothel of monsters first?

Have the monsters work in the brothel.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Maybe they have to clear the brothel of monsters first?

Giant crabs.

That would suit two players, but not all of them. The "have fun" rule needs to include all the players. Which is sometimes squaring the circle, and the responsibility often falls to the DM to make it happen.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That would suit two players, but not all of them.

The group talks tot he guy who finds the brothel morally repugnant to find out what the issue is and see of a burlesque is acceptable?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Giant crabs.

That would suit two players, but not all of them. The "have fun" rule needs to include all the players. Which is sometimes squaring the circle, and the responsibility often falls to the DM to make it happen.

True, but when one player really wants something and one player really doesn't, and the DM doesn't care, what to do?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The group talks tot he guy who finds the brothel morally repugnant to find out what the issue is and see of a burlesque is acceptable?

Chances are, the answer is "no". Moral issues are pretty much always non-negotiable. It's quite likely player 2 is already offended by the suggestion. Which means the answer has to be "no" for the group, unless the possibility of sex work was included in session zero.

This is really what having a "no evil PCs" rule is all about. The players have to agree not to do something that does not sit well with the moral code or sensibilities of anyone else in the group. Because if someone is offended, they are not having fun. Rule Zero is broken.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Chances are, the answer is "no". Moral issues are pretty much always non-negotiable.

We don't even know what the objection is yet.

I don't feel like this imaginary person who exists to make a point is engaging the imaginary group here.