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

[TwoSix]

Why do you assume that the only reason a person may make a character-based decision, or engage with the fiction in a way explicitly defined by the GM, as "removing obstacles"? I feel like almost every example in this thread has been about people wanting MORE obstacles to deal with...

I think there's an implicit (and sometimes explicit) divide here between those who assume that a player will most frequently use any power they're granted only to overcome obstacles, and those who assume the player will assist in telling a compelling narrative.

A lot of players (and DMs) are focused on "beating the scenario" play (which makes sense considering D&D's origins.) A game in that mindset makes trusting the players to make narratively compelling decisions (as opposed to "winning" decisions) difficult.

 

[TwoSix]

This is the way I was looking at it. If my character goes from level 1 to 20 and doesn't start racking up favors and friendships along the way (along with enemies and debts, too) I don't see how the world would seem real. Especially if the PCs are the heroic sort who help save the day.

Earning an ally, in D&D terms, is no different than gaining a magical item. It's a diegetic reward for good play.

 

[TwoSix]

No one in this thread has talked about suggesting that there is someone else in the bar. They have talked about declaring that their PC punches the nearest dude! That's neither a suggestion nor a question, which was @TwoSix's original point: a preference to declare actions rather than engage in meta-level haggling.

If the GM wants to respond there is no dude nearby to punch well, in some RPGs and some approaches to RPGing, that is the GM's prerogative. I tend to agree with @soviet that a GM whose first instinct is to respond in that way is going to discourage players from being imaginative about the shared fiction.

Exactly this. It's no different than my other example of "I walk into the castle to meet the king".

In the castle example, the DM narrates that the closed gates and the armed guards prevent my entrance.

In the bar example, the DM narrates that in my drunken haze, I failed to realize the bar was empty, except for the dead body behind the bar. (Callback!)

Whether the DM frames that unilaterally or based on resolution rolls is based on system. But the method of declaration works no matter the system.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think there's an implicit (and sometimes explicit) divide here between those who assume that a player will most frequently use any power they're granted only to overcome obstacles, and those who assume the player will assist in telling a compelling narrative.

A lot of players (and DMs) are focused on "beating the scenario" play (which makes sense considering D&D's origins.) A game in that mindset makes trusting the players to make narratively compelling decisions (as opposed to "winning" decisions) difficult.

So what I would say about this, is that as a player I don't like to be second guessing myself whether I am "supposed" to use some power I have been granted by the game to overcome an obstacle or not. So if the players have been granted unfettered power to add setting elements, then I think it should be fair gameplay strategy to use that power to overcome obstacles.* This of course is not to say that that is the only thing such power could and would be used for.

* And if that is not what is wanted, then the game needs to tell us so and set appropriate principles and procedures.

And I don't think that there even is a super clear distinction between "adding setting elements for theme/flavour/etc" and "adding setting elements to solve problems" as things initially set up as (or at least seeming as) the first can easily become the second at some later point.

 

[KYRON45]

I think there's an implicit (and sometimes explicit) divide here between those who assume that a player will most frequently use any power they're granted only to overcome obstacles, and those who assume the player will assist in telling a compelling narrative.

A lot of players (and DMs) are focused on "beating the scenario" play (which makes sense considering D&D's origins.) A game in that mindset makes trusting the players to make narratively compelling decisions (as opposed to "winning" decisions) difficult.

This depends on the players.
In all my years of gaming i've never experienced these players and DMs who prefer beating the game to telling great stories.
I have experienced players who made great sacrifices on behalf of their characters in order to tell a story that would be remembered with great glory and sadness for years to come.

I think as a DM we have to ask ourselves what kinds of games do we want to play and then set that standard for the players.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So what I would say about this, is that as a player I don't like to be second guessing myself whether I am "supposed" to use some power I have been granted by the game to overcome an obstacle or not. So if the players have been granted unfettered power to add setting elements, then I think it should be fair gameplay strategy to use that power to overcome obstacles.* This of course is not to say that that is the only thing such power could and would be used for.

* And if that is not what is wanted, then the game needs to tell us so and set appropriate principles and procedures.

And i don't think that there even is a super clear distinction between "adding setting elements for theme/flavour/etc" and "adding setting elements to solve problems" as things initially set up as (or at least seeming as) the first can easily become the second at some later point.

I've mentioned this before, but I got the idea from Enworld (I think @Hussar) to let the players create 5 NPCs that they had encountered in Waterdeep which their characters had built either good, bad or indifferent relationships with, since the PCs had spent a significant amount of time there.
It was interesting to see how the powergamer created 2 out of the 5 NPCs being beneficial in ways that could provide better/cheaper equipment/consumables while the rest of the players created only roleplaying opportunities.
There is nothing wrong with what he did and it made sense to the character but it is obviously something I and others at my table picked up (and expect).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But who here has suggested that allies can just swoop in and solve all problems? Not anyone advocating for the kind of approach I'm talking about. As a player, why would I want to render all the challenges obsolete? It would be boring play.

For all the talk of setting being important... wouldn't NPC allies fall into that category? They're part of the setting. They are one of the ways the PCs connect to the setting. They are, in my opinion, pretty vital. As play progresses, the characters are likely to accumulate allies. Why would these allies not assist them? Where is the setting logic in that?

I tend to look at allies... whether gods or underlings or nobles or whatever... as something earned in play. They're rewards for playing well. You help these people out, they owe you a favor. You save the Duchy, the Duke's your boy. And so on.

As such, I really don't see them as different than a spell. So I don't mind when they're used in a similar manner to the way a spell would be. Like locating an object. Or obtaining an asset. Providing safety. Vouching for you. And so on.

And yes, of course any and all NPCs should have their own commitments, concerns, and goals that should factor into this. No one is saying otherwise. And they can also be a burden, too. They can make demands. They can require help. They can get themselves or the PCs into trouble. I don't think anyone really wants a bunch of "I win buttons" they can deploy at will.

They want to feel like their character and their relationships are just as important to the setting as any other setting element.

So I actually agree with you about most of this. I absolutely want the characters to forge connections, to have friends allies acquaintances and enemies they care about. Sometimes even powerful ones. And in my game this happens. The characters have met all the leaders of great orc clans, some of which they have fought alongside with and who would now consider them as allies. They have consorted with the Chief Necromancer of Xaharranad, held council with the Warlord of Ar-Ulad, and dined with the Witch of Padjalin. (And our cheeky rogue even went further as she shared a bed with her.) The Witch of Padjalin is one of the few tier 4 NPCs in the setting and one of the most powerful people on Artra. And she did offer them aid and succour, but as there are reasons why she is very reluctant to leave Padjalin, she could not slay the dragon the PCs were after for them.

But all these connections were "earned" during the play, like you suggest, and all of these NPCs have limits on their power. What you were suggesting, was giving one PC the most powerful ally imaginable just due their class choice. To me that seems rather different.

Except in the example I gave, Odin was not the ultimate trump card. I suggested that Odin provide the location of an item warded against scrying. That's it. How is that a trump card? Now the PCs know where it is... they still have to get it.

And then what will it be the next time? You have now opened this Pandora's Box, and created expectation for the players that if they do not have the right spells, they can always just bypass the mechanics and bargain with the god. And as your logic here was for Odin to bypass normal limitations of the scry spell (which is a power they can grant to their clerics) by justification "they're a god, surely they can do anything" then there is no practical limit to what they can do.

And the specifics of the example aren't really what's important so much as the idea that DM's don't need to simply shut down player ideas which may at first seem problematic to them. They can be worked with. Not necessarily granted in their entirety, but they can serve as a prompt to something different and unexpected. Something more collaborative.

I am not really even disagreeing with you on that. I just do not think this means that the GM needs to allow any player suggestion and in this specific instance I see very good reasons for denying it.

I think for many people it absolutely is caring about the setting over the characters. And I don't mean to categorize that as something bad. It's simply a preference. But I think it tends to put the focus on the material the DM has prepared and the world that they've built as paramount. The characters are less important in those instances for sure.

Notice how here I have not touched upon in-setting reasons for why a god would not do this (those sure can exist, albeit they necessarily are not something that is knowable to mortals) rather than the effect on gameplay dynamics. So it was really not about the world this time.

And I think you do have a point that other games make this kind of thing easier. I mean, yes... many are designed with this approach in mind. And D&D does default to heavily relying on prepped material, which only causes people to hold their prep above other things, which makes player contribution less likely... like a feedback loop.

But it's definitely not impossible... I've done it, and the setting actually didn't suffer for it. There was no incoherence that resulted, no continuity conflicts, no players skimping their way to victory... all these concerns just aren't as valid as they are being portrayed.

I generally feel that you should play the sort of game that suits well to what you want to do. And to me implementing a separate channel for divine favour in a game where divine favour is already mechanically codified is a bit confused. I am not saying that this will surely lead to a massive disaster, but I think there are pretty clear reasons for not wanting to do this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Earning an ally, in D&D terms, is no different than gaining a magical item. It's a diegetic reward for good play.

Allies are usually somewhat less reliable in my view (or at least less mechanically reliable), but the principle is sound.

 

[Oofta]

So I actually agree with you about most of this. I absolutely want the characters to forge connections, to have friends allies acquaintances and enemies they care about. Sometimes even powerful ones. And in my game this happens. The characters have met all the leaders of great orc clans, some of which they have fought alongside with and who would now consider them as allies. They have consorted with the Chief Necromancer of Xaharranad, held council with the Warlord of Ar-Ulad, and dined with the Witch of Padjalin. (And our cheeky rogue even went further as she shared a bed with her.) The Witch of Padjalin is one of the few tier 4 NPCs in the setting and one of the most powerful people on Artra. And she did offer them aid and succour, but as there are reasons why she is very reluctant to leave Padjalin, she could not slay the dragon the PCs were after for them.

But all these connections were "earned" during the play, like you suggest, and all of these NPCs have limits on their power. What you were suggesting, was giving one PC the most powerful ally imaginable just due their class choice. To me that seems rather different.

Same here. I like when players add friends, families, enemies in their background. It makes the character more real. I've also had players make an enemy into an ally and potential allies into enemies. It's great.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But all these connections were "earned" during the play, like you suggest, and all of these NPCs have limits on their power. What you were suggesting, was giving one PC the most powerful ally imaginable just due their class choice. To me that seems rather different.

Why wouldn’t there be any limits on Odin’s power? Or what he’d be willing to do?

And then what will it be the next time? You have now opened this Pandora's Box, and created expectation for the players that if they do not have the right spells, they can always just bypass the mechanics and bargain with the god. And as your logic here was for Odin to bypass normal limitations of the scry spell (which is a power they can grant to their clerics) by justification "they're a god, surely they can do anything" then there is no practical limit to what they can do.

Except as I’ve said many times now, and which I consider an essential part of what I’m talking about, is that the favor only be granted at great cost.

I also connected the request directly to lore related about the god. Odin has lore about what he did to gain knowledge of secrets. The request was about knowledge of something secret.

Who’s to say the next request would be in any way related to Odin?

I am not really even disagreeing with you on that. I just do not think this means that the GM needs to allow any player suggestion and in this specific instance I see very good reasons for denying it.

Sure, I don’t think the example was about how you must always say yes. It was just “oh, here’s an example… here’s how I’d make this one work.”

I generally feel that you should play the sort of game that suits well to what you want to do. And to me implementing a separate channel for divine favour in a game where divine favour is already mechanically codified is a bit confused. I am not saying that this will surely lead to a massive disaster, but I think there are pretty clear reasons for not wanting to do this.

Sure. And although they may be things that should be kept in mind, I’m saying that even in D&D, these concerns haven’t really been an issue.