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

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I always am. The sooner you accept that, the better.

Actually, I'll take it. Buds?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Absolutely huh? Do you really think there are many people out there that feel that way? Like to that extreme? That seems like an odd takeaway. I bet if you spoke to someone you disagreed with on this topic in a more reasonable manner, you'd get a better result. Avoid the extremism. I'd bet money on it.

All you have to do is look at the posts in this thread.

Are they all extreme? No. Some express the concern in a reasonable manner. But they still seem concerned that players will abuse any narrative authority given to them.

Earlier in the thread, there were far more people expressing extreme ideas. Just the idea of the new take on rule zero seemed to not sit well at all.

@hawkeyefan @Aldarc @grankless @TwoSix ... how about looking for a discussion instead of a fight?

I don’t know how you could see my comments as looking for a fight. I’ve been reasonably going back and forth with folks. If I’m “looking for a fight” then so are the people I’m talking to.

I think you’re also wring about the other folks you listed here.

 

[Oofta]

All you have to do is look at the posts in this thread.

Are they all extreme? No. Some express the concern in a reasonable manner. But they still seem concerned that players will abuse any narrative authority given to them.

I have a concern because I had players that did in fact abuse the narrative authority by changing established world lore. It's different if we were starting in a new campaign world, if lore had not already been established. We weren't and it had been.

Earlier in the thread, there were far more people expressing extreme ideas. Just the idea of the new take on rule zero seemed to not sit well at all.

Not really that I saw. The thread quickly veered off topic. For me? It's just a restatement of the what we already have, just the core books state it in more detail. This is just a statement from a beginner module that very few people will ever see. If it was a change of direction I would have expected to see it in the 2024 PHB and DMG.

Seems like people took "Have fun. It’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as doing so means the game is more fun for everyone." and said "Aha! They're telling us D&D should be a narrative driven game!"

What I see is just a restatement and simplification of things we already have. The DM should be respectful of the players and do what they can to ensure everyone is enjoying the game. Players should be respectful of the DM and think of the enjoyment of others while playing the game. It doesn't go into detail because it's a simplified version of the game.

I don’t know how you could see my comments as looking for a fight. I’ve been reasonably going back and forth with folks. If I’m “looking for a fight” then so are the people I’m talking to.

You do, however keep making the same statements. That you're "just asking" when you repeat the same question. You keep suggesting the same solutions that you seem to think are better. You keep referring to a DM saying no as "shutting down creativity".

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can't read your mind.

How many examples do you need? Also, you said the player didn’t care about anything… so why would I offer more examples?

Why don’t you think of a way to make it work?

Also, again ... it was not a proposal by the player. It was a proclamation.

So what? Clearly what I’ve suggested involved the DM not granting the entirety of the request, right? It was a starting point.

Could I? Sure. I could imagine Odin zooming in on a Harley Davidson named Sleipnir and just handing us the phylactery. I've explained why I wouldn't do it, it gives that cleric a superpower nobody else has along with totally violating world lore. Players can ask, sometimes the DM is going to say no. If they always say no that's different. Unless of course the player is just repeatedly asking for the same thing.

What I meant was treat it as an exercise in creativity. Can you find a way to make it work?

You’ve tried to shoot down every idea. Can you do the opposite? Are you creative enough to incorporate someone else’s ideas into your own?

There's a massive difference between not giving a player everything and anything they want,

Which is not something anyone has suggested.

I’ll tag @Ulorian - Agent of Chaos here so they can ask you to argue what was said rather than some extreme take on it.

To be clear, (and you know this) the Pandora’s box I referred to was not granting any player request, it was granting this specific request of a mechanics bypass lane via a deity.

What I know is that when people talk about pandora’s box or a can of worms or a slippery slope, what they are expressing concern about is the future.

If you let A happen, then what about B and C.

The concern, as expressed, is about how things will work going forward. If you allow a player to have their character make a request of their deity, and it results in anything positive beyond what the rules allow, it will lead to further such instances, and this is problematic.

Earlier you talked about the structure that the rules and setting provide that allow you to perform as DM… and how you thought things like this would erode that structure.

So no… unless I’ve wildly misunderstood the things you’ve been saying, I don’t think your concern is limited to this one example.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

All you have to do is look at the posts in this thread.

Are they all extreme? No. Some express the concern in a reasonable manner. But they still seem concerned that players will abuse any narrative authority given to them.

Earlier in the thread, there were far more people expressing extreme ideas. Just the idea of the new take on rule zero seemed to not sit well at all.

Okay. I don't think the vast majority think that players will auto-abuse anything. I understand your viewpoint though. If you want to keep discussing that, I'm down with it.

I don’t know how you could see my comments as looking for a fight. I’ve been reasonably going back and forth with folks. If I’m “looking for a fight” then so are the people I’m talking to.

Good. Glad to hear it.

I think you’re also wring about the other folks you listed here.

Fair enough. I was going off their most recent posts, which were pretty much off the deep end. Maybe earlier ones weren't.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I think you’re also wring about the other folks you listed here.

Well, no, I'm going to disagree with you here. @Aldarc and @TwoSix in particular where being kind of assy. I don't hate them or hold anything against them. Their recent posting strategy has been questionable though. As in, trying to go for digs instead of trying to communicate. Maybe they'll get it out of their system and start talking, maybe they won't. Either way, not something I need to expend energy on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, no, I'm going to disagree with you here. @Aldarc and @TwoSix in particular where being kind of assy. I don't hate them or hold anything against them. Their recent posting strategy has been questionable though. As in, trying to go for digs instead of trying to communicate. Maybe they'll get it out of their system and start talking, maybe they won't. Either way, not something I need to expend energy on.

I think perhaps they were responding in kind? Like, you kind of burst in and started pointing fingers, so they responded in a joking manner.

 

[Mort]

I have a concern because I had players that did in fact abuse the narrative authority by changing established world lore. It's different if we were starting in a new campaign world, if lore had not already been established. We weren't and it had been.



Not really that I saw. The thread quickly veered off topic. For me? It's just a restatement of the what we already have, just the core books state it in more detail. This is just a statement from a beginner module that very few people will ever see. If it was a change of direction I would have expected to see it in the 2024 PHB and DMG.

Seems like people took "Have fun. It’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as doing so means the game is more fun for everyone." and said "Aha! They're telling us D&D should be a narrative driven game!"

What I see is just a restatement and simplification of things we already have. The DM should be respectful of the players and do what they can to ensure everyone is enjoying the game. Players should be respectful of the DM and think of the enjoyment of others while playing the game. It doesn't go into detail because it's a simplified version of the game.



You do, however keep making the same statements. That you're "just asking" when you repeat the same question. You keep suggesting the same solutions that you seem to think are better. You keep referring to a DM saying no as "shutting down creativity".

So here's a question, that's related, but hopefully a new direction.

Your world is very well established.

And from what you've said, many of the players have had prior campaigns in the same world.

What's your stance on players using prior character knowledge?

As in, the player, being fully experienced in your world will know many things they otherwise might not. Can they carry that over to a new character? Is it a strict no? It would require a knowledge check? Something else?

And what's the view of using that knowledge in game? Since the facts are established, the player isn't narrating any new fiction, they are confirming established fiction. Say John the player, knows Tuesday is Jazz night at the local bar (it was established as such in a prior campaign). His new character takes the group to the bar expecting jazz night, without DM initial clearance (he declares it, without asking if he's right). Cool, not cool? Depends?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have a concern because I had players that did in fact abuse the narrative authority by changing established world lore. It's different if we were starting in a new campaign world, if lore had not already been established. We weren't and it had been.

Okay, this is the first time I think you’ve mentioned this. What happened?

You do, however keep making the same statements. That you're "just asking" when you repeat the same question. You keep suggesting the same solutions that you seem to think are better. You keep referring to a DM saying no as "shutting down creativity".

I repeat myself only to clarify. Like, when you say “it’s not bad for a DM to not just give the player everything they ask for” I repeat myself that no one has suggested doing that.

Do you perhaps see the problem here?

 

[Aldarc]

I think perhaps they were responding in kind? Like, you kind of burst in and started pointing fingers, so they responded in a joking manner.

This. As someone reading along the thread, the sudden finger-pointing at grackless - especially after a mod post warning grackless not to make it personal - felt a bit unnecessary, especially with the rhetorical postering of grackless being unobjective, emotional, etc. That's not the language of someone looking for a productive discussion.