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

[Oofta]

So here’s the thing… again, let’s please set preference aside as we are all very clear on what you’d prefer.

What is the actual issue with the above? Like what is bad about it? How does it negatively impact play?



There was nothing about the post by @Lanefan in question that stated it was a preference. He said “that’s DM-side only stuff” not “in my game, that’s DM-side only stuff”.




There is no world.

What we’re talking about is content of play.



I would not be surprised!



Interfere with what?



How does this jibe with @Micah Sweet ’s comment above about player’s pursuits “interfering” with… something?

So here’s the way it seems to me… there are two ways to look at the tavern situation. A player has declared that his character is drunk and it hing for a fight, and that he punches the nearest person.

The first seems to be that this is an inconvenience to the DM in some way. Mostly because it’s a player over stepping their expected authority. Any further issues that people have here have yet to be explained. I have ideas, but I’m curious what others might say.

The second is to view this situation as an opportunity. I mean, the player is literally saying “I want to see this happen”… so why deny it due to some slavish adherence to power distribution? Instead, let the player have some say about how the game goes and what happens next. Use the altercation in the tavern as the thing that moves play forward.

For the umpteenth time it's not about "power". It's about the roles we use in the game. I don't allow players to add significant features on the fly because they interact with the world through their words and deeds. If they can alter the world around them by just making it happen, as a DM can I tell them what they think or feel? It might be the thing that moves play forward after all.

We all have different preferences, trying to make this yet again into an argument about how DMs are maintaining "power" over the players does you no favors. So I'll repeat: when I'm a player I do not want to add fiction to the world outside of what my player says and does. I don't want anyone other than the DM doing that.

You have a different preference? Awesome. I think there are better systems for collaborative play but D&D is pretty easy to modify to taste. There is no "slavish adherence to power distribution". We've chosen to play D&D and we haven't added a house rule to have players declare world fiction. That's all.

EDIT: note that we can't simply "set preferences aside" because your whole argument is just your justification for your preference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Really? Other than the one poster who has, shall we say unique, views on handling his players, I can't think of anyone HERE (someone, somewhere maybe) who would think doing that to their group was ok, let alone fun.

But then, maybe I'm being optimistic.

I’ve seen plenty of people praise Dragon Heist. And similar modules. And the Adventure Path is pretty much the dominant form of play.

yes there is, unless all your campaigns take place in a endless featureless white void.

No, all games take place in the shared imagination. There is no actual world. It’s fictional details that participants share.

When a player declares details, they are describing that fictional space. No world is “changing”.

All that’s being negotiated is make believe. There’s no “truth” except what is accepted by all participants.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If I-as-DM am that married to my story that I can't follow the players if-when they pivot to something different, I'm doing it wrong.

As I said, a much wider view of "I'll run any campaign that evolves" than I have any reason to believe any significant number of GMs are interested in.

And if some of the players want to stick to the original story they can always have their characters decline to go on the alternate mission, thus forcing an in-party debate (or even a split).

And most people aren't willing to run two campaigns if a split happens, either.

 

[Oofta]

As I said, a much wider view of "I'll run any campaign that evolves" than I have any reason to believe any significant number of GMs are interested in.

Over the course of the past ... close to 50 years now ... running the campaign that evolves has been close to half the games I've been involved with. I wouldn't mention it but you keep insisting that styles that are fairly common in my experience are incredibly rare.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Over the course of the past ... close to 50 years now ... running the campaign that evolves has been close to half the games I've been involved with. I wouldn't mention it but you keep insisting that styles that are fairly common in my experience are incredibly rare.

And are individual habits are pretty much irrelevant. Like I said, find anyone who's running a campaign with an initial sell and see how many of them are willing to fly off in an entirely different direction just because one or two players decided to go off an a tangent. Start paying attention to how many of them say "yes" as compared to "no". While you're at it, ask the players who bought in on those sells how they feel about it. Then come back and talk to me.

This isn't even about how many campaigns are sandboxes any more; its about how people respond in campaigns that aren't sandboxes.

 

[Lanefan]

So here’s the thing… again, let’s please set preference aside as we are all very clear on what you’d prefer.

What is the actual issue with the above? Like what is bad about it? How does it negatively impact play?

There was nothing about the post by @Lanefan in question that stated it was a preference. He said “that’s DM-side only stuff” not “in my game, that’s DM-side only stuff”.

It's also in the rules, right there in the play loop: the DM describes (or narrates) the scene. The player declares an action. The DM describes (or narrates) the results. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Which rather explicitly puts the describing of the scene (which includes all the elements of said scene) in the DM's purview and only in the DM's purview. Hence, "DM-side only stuff". This also means that if, in the players' view, the DM describes the scene inadequately then before declaring any actions it's incumbent on the players to ask for further description and-or clarification.

This isn't "mother may I", it's the play loop working as intended.

Now obviously you can change this to allow players to also describe or add scene elements when declaring actions, but that's more than just a kitbash: it's a rather fundamental change to the root kernel around which the entire system revolves.

 

[pemerton]

Well, does it? At the face value it certainly sounded like it, but you of course are free to elaborate on whether the rule has some exceptions.

The rule is about entering phases. And hence about there being a party. It has no exceptions.

@Lanefan posted this: It mandates much more than that: it mandates against individual PC actions.

I've played a reasonable amount of Torchbearer. I don't believe that Lanefan has played any, or even read the rulebook. He's just making stuff up.

If anyone wants to know how Torchbearer actually plays, they are welcome to read my actual play thread: Torchbearer 2e - actual play of this AWESOME system! (+)

 

[CreamCloud0]

No, all games take place in the shared imagination. There is no actual world. It’s fictional details that participants share.

When a player declares details, they are describing that fictional space. No world is “changing”.

All that’s being negotiated is make believe. There’s no “truth” except what is accepted by all participants.

yes, a shared imagination where we imagine a world.

when a player declares details they influencing the fictional world, it might not be a 'real' world but that doesn't mean the details aren't being changed.

i would not describe what happens in play as negotiation, that sounds far too flimsy a world if what is true about it can be 'negotiated', and the 'truth' of what exists in the setting is what the GM informs is so and what the players makes so through the actions of their characters.

 

[Oofta]

And are individual habits are pretty much irrelevant. Like I said, find anyone who's running a campaign with an initial sell and see how many of them are willing to fly off in an entirely different direction just because one or two players decided to go off an a tangent. Start paying attention to how many of them say "yes" as compared to "no". While you're at it, ask the players who bought in on those sells how they feel about it. Then come back and talk to me.

My sales pitch is "You start out [location/opening scenarios/general description of where and what's happening]. You get to decide where you go from there."

For an established group it's even more open. Do they want to play in the frozen north? Lots of monsters and wilderness! Be set in one of my major cities and start out with a more urban campaign? What about down here where ... well the list goes on. Even back in ye olden days we discussed what tombs we were going to raid or if we'd take that job from the king.

Not every DM does that of course, but even then there can be significant freedom to move about the playing field. It's rare that I play something as linear as Curse of Strahd, but even then we always chose where we were going even when we knew the final destination was Castle Ravenloft.

 

[pemerton]

I ask questions to clarify the details if they're important to me as a player. Then I have something to act upon. This is a pretty well-known game loop. Making up anything but the smallest of details as a player is extremely un-immersive to me, just as needing the GM to give you setting detail is apparently extremely un-immersive to you.

That's all this is.

So you agree that it is not true that because the player's action declaration establishes some setting element (let's say, the presence of a nearby dude in the bar) then (i) it must be un-immersive and (ii) it must involve thinking about things other than from the character's point of view?

Or maybe not:

Creative input on the world is world-bending power. Literally.

No, it is not literally world-bending power. Declaring I punch the nearest dude, in circumstances where no one has yet established anything about the details or presence of people in the tavern - where the player is extrapolating from what is implicit - is not "world-bending power" either literally or metaphorically.

Well, I am arguing with people who say (i) that only simulationist-type mechanics permit immersion, and (ii) that an action can't be declared from a character's perspective if the resolution of the action is sensitive to the player's intent in declaring it.

Those are both preferences, which may or may not be negotiable for a particular player (including the DM) or a particular table. For me, i agree with both i and ii personally, but you obviously don't. Both perspectives are valid.

They are not preferences. Both (i) and (ii) are propositions about what is possible in RPG play. Either they are true or they are false. For instance, if you agree that there are some people who become immersed without using simulationist-type mechanics, then you are denying (i). It's not relevant to that denial whether or not you are one of those people.