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

[pemerton]

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.

GM: You're in the tavern.

Player: I punch the nearest dude in the face!


What detail has been changed?

 

[pemerton]

Do we need to bring up the strawman that @Micah Sweet or anyone else is saying that the only way to have immersion is to follow D&D standard play? It's getting kind of old, and raggedy isn't it?

What strawman? When I asked @Michah Sweet if he accepted that it is possible for some RPGers to achieve immersion while not using simulation-type rules, he did not accept that.

 

[pemerton]

How is it not? You just created an NPC out of thin air.

The GM told me I (that is, my PC) is in a tavern. Don't you think that a tavern implies patrons, at least some of whom might be nearby?

 

[Oofta]

The GM told me I (that is, my PC) is in a tavern. Don't you think that a tavern implies patrons, at least some of whom might be nearby?

Might be near? Sure. Are near? No.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What strawman? When I asked @Michah Sweet if he accepted that it is possible for some RPGers to achieve immersion while not using simulation-type rules, he did not accept that.

Sure I did. for you. Because that method of acquiring immersion works for you but not for me.

 

[pemerton]

if the player is adding or changing details about the setting outside their PCs in-fiction ability to do so, they are the ones with world-bending power, not the PC. And my preference is that they do not have that power.

Instead of the metaphor of "world-bending*, wouldn't it be clearer to describe it as a type of authorial power? And a very weak authorial power, in fact - it's simply the power to make explicit and salient what was previously implicit and background.

 

[pemerton]

Do you accept that the standard play loop of D&D is the following?

1. DM describes the scene​

2. The players describe what their characters do​

3. The DM narrates the results​

Because that's it. There's no "The players describe the world around them". It's not a railroad. I'm not talking about other games, I'm talking about what happens in a D&D game because this is a D&D thread on a D&D forum.

A player can't describe what their player does without describing the world around them: I attack the Orc, I go to the taxidermist's, etc.

But anyway, here's what I posted that you replied to: "There are rules for resolving this action declaration, just as there are rules for resolving other declared actions."

That does not contradict the D&D play-loop. Step 3 is The DM narrates the results. That step does not say that the DM does so unconstrained by any sense of rules, principles, procedure or established fiction.

 

[pemerton]

No, those things are your preference. They work for you. They do not work for me, and I have stated many times that your ways, while valid for you, are not my ways.

This doesn't answer the question I asked.

Here it is again:

So just to be clear, you deny that it is possible for me and @TwoSix to immerse in a game in which we don't have to ask the GM for permission to declare actions like "I punch the nearest dude in the face"?

Do you deny that we can immerse, or do you accept that we can immerse? I'm not asking you tell me what I prefer. I'm asking whether you accept my claim about what is possible for me, by way of immersion.

 

[pemerton]

Hope and memory? What are you talking about? Are those game terms?

I'm talking about what a PC hopes for, and what they remember. Just like real people, the imaginary people in the fictional worlds of my RPGing have these sorts of mental states.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The "issue" is clear. Unless it's been previously established that there is a guy sitting next to your PC you cannot assume there is one. You can ask for a clarification of the scene, you cannot add to it as a player.

The issue is not clear to me. I mean, I get what you’re protesting. I’m asking you “why”.

Why is it an issue?

It's really that simple. It's not the only way to play but it is the default for D&D. The player only interacts with the world through the words and deeds of their character.

And how does “I punch the guy nearby” create a problem for you as DM?

And I mean beyond describing the basic loop as you see it.

What’s the actual issue? If a player did that in your game, why would it be a problem?

I think it is utterly ridiculous to bring a mechanic from another game into a D&D discussion and then refuse to explain how the mechanic actually works, and instead mock people for potentially getting it wrong. And this is far from the only time they've done this.

@pemerton provided a link to a thread where it was explained. If @Lanefan or you don’t want to read that thread, that’s fine… it’s really not a big deal. But demanding a further explanation? Gimme a break.

Like, I have no idea how Runequest works. If someone mentions it, and I make assumptions about it, and I’m wrong, I’m not gonna blame the person that mentioned it.

But really this is a pretty unimportant tangent. I mean, I doubt @Lanefan even cares what Torchbearer is, let aline how it works.