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

[hawkeyefan]

That thread is fourteen pages long. It is pretty unreasonable to expect people to comb through it searching for an answer for how a specific rule works.

Yeah… there’s all of @pemerton ’s Torchbearer play for all to see.

Yet I can’t even get people to elaborate on their preferences.

If someone uses a rule from another game than the one the discussion is about as an example, then I feel it is incumbent on them to explain how the rule actually works. If they are not willing to do that, then do not bring it up in the first place.

No one used a rule from another game. One was mentioned. Then someone commented on it with assumptions.

I generally ask questions when people bring up things with which I’m not familiar.

 

[Oofta]

Curiosity, Oofta.

Gee whiz.

I've explained. Repeatedly. When I play a character I don't want anything to do with world building or establishing the fiction outside of what I as my character can do as a person residing in that world. I can't decide there's a patron next to me in a bar. I can look next to me and see if there is one, that's it. For me that's more immersive and the style I prefer. It's also more immersive knowing that the other players are also under the same basic restraint; I want one source of truth, the DM.

 

[pemerton]

If someone uses a rule from another game than the one the discussion is about as an example, then I feel it is incumbent on them to explain how the rule actually works. If they are not willing to do that, then do not bring it up in the first place.

I explained how the rule works: players enter and leave the phase at the same time. Thus the game mandates party play.

If you want to know more detail than that - eg if you're curious about exactly how phases in Torchbearer work - then start a thread on that.

It was pretty obvious to me from the context that @Lanefan did not mean all individual actions, but specific individual actions, namely leaving the camp/town alone.

If @Lanefan wants to clarify or elaborate, I'm sure he will

Then don't bring it up in the first place.

Why do you get to police my conversation with @AnotherGuy about party play and party goals?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Calling it authorial power sounds accurate...but not more accurate than world-bending.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This doesn't answer the question I asked.

Here it is again:

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.

Ok, I can accept that you can immerse using this method.

 

[pemerton]

I generally ask questions when people bring up things with which I’m not familiar.

There is a slight irony generated by this statement . . .

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've explained. Repeatedly. When I play a character I don't want anything to do with world building or establishing the fiction outside of what I as my character can do as a person residing in that world. I can't decide there's a patron next to me in a bar. I can look next to me and see if there is one, that's it. For me that's more immersive and the style I prefer. It's also more immersive knowing that the other players are also under the same basic restraint; I want one source of truth, the DM.

That’s as a player. I asked why you feel that way as a DM.

Imagine you have a player who doesn’t share your preference. Why would you want to hold that player to the same process from your perspective as a DM?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really care whether it is a castle, a blacksmith's or a taxidermist's. Or a person to punch.

Some posters - including @Oofta and @Micah Sweet - have said that the player should ask the GM a question. @TwoSix posted that he prefers to just declare the action.

And the latter has been described as "world-bending" (by @Micah Sweet and by @Oofta) and as creating a NPC "out of thin air" (by @Oofta).

I can declare "I go through the back gate of the castle". If the GM's response to that is "You try it, but it's locked" well that's up to them. Depending on the rules, principles, procedures, etc of the RPG being played, they may be at liberty just to make that up, or their may be some resolution procedure that applies (eg in 4e D&D, this seems like the sort of thing that would be a skill challenge, and the player might declare an action to establish that the gate is unlocked, such as a Streetwise check to have picked up a relevant rumour or to have bribed a relevant official).

I can declare "I go to the blacksmith to buy some iron spikes", and again how the GM responds is then up to them and the rules, principles, etc of the game being played.


What's the problem?

There's no problem if that's your preference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There is a slight irony generated by this statement . . .

I suppose sometimes I also ask questions when I know the answer!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've explained. Repeatedly. When I play a character I don't want anything to do with world building or establishing the fiction outside of what I as my character can do as a person residing in that world. I can't decide there's a patron next to me in a bar. I can look next to me and see if there is one, that's it. For me that's more immersive and the style I prefer. It's also more immersive knowing that the other players are also under the same basic restraint; I want one source of truth, the DM.

All of that goes for me too, @hawkeyefan .