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

[Oofta]

I'm not sure what you mean by limits. The limit I have is that it makes sense in context, for example that the character has a relationship to Odin.

Players in your games do not call in an airstrike by the Nuka dragon is a limit. The only relationship the character had was that they were a cleric with "Odin" listed on their character sheet.

I was talking about the version of this that other posters ran with and made into a plausible option.

And I was talking about the real world scenario.

 

[Oofta]

Players declare actions for their PCs. And say what their PCs think, and remember, and expect.

Those various actions rest upon an assumption about fictional position - what is "true" in the shared fiction, and how the PC relates to that "true" stuff.

The players' assumptions about fictional position will often include setting elements or ideas that have not been expressly stated by me as GM. When they declare their actions, those assumptions therefore get incorporated into the shared fiction.

Various examples have been posted by me, from 4e D&D and AD&D play.

@TwoSix also posted some examples, like "I punch the nearest guy" being declared by a player whose PC is in a tavern.

When I GM a RPG, the players are not obliged to ask me for permission or clarification before making assumptions about fictional position. And generally I don't want them to, for the same sorts of reasons as @TwoSix set out way upthread: it makes for a bad play experience.

I wouldn't assume that there was anyone sitting next to me in the tavern and I don't want a player in my games to make that assumption either. It's not about permission, it's about who establishes the reality of the scenario outside of the character.

 

[TwoSix]

It's not about permission, it's about who establishes the reality of the scenario outside of the character.

That's literally a question about who has permission.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Far more than the concerns about immersion, I think there's a divide between how concerned people are about whether or not players would push the boundaries of their ability to narrate.

That's why issues get framed as "Well then, what stops them from just doing X?"

And I think @Lanefan spoke to that directly when he said several pages back that as a player, he of course will press the boundaries of any ability as far as possible.

The thing is, in all these games we have been talking about, there are actually some limits regarding what the player is allowed to declare, be it governed by actual rule, convention, or vague mutual understanding.

And if you're playing with people you know well, even the last one might suffice, but the fact of the matter is that more nebulous we get, more there is chance that someone's good faith suggestion might seem like a bad faith exploit to someone else.

And I think it is fair to the players that they actually know what the limits are. That hey, here are the tools, go to town with them! What @Lanefan is saying that the players shouldn't need to second guess whether they're "allowed" ro use something for their advantage. Either they have the tool, and they can utilise it fully and don't need to hold back, or they don't have the tool.

 

[Oofta]

That's literally a question about who has permission.

Which ... I thought I answered. Hopefully we at least had a quick conversation about my heritage so I know where the parental units could have come from if I wasn't already familiar with the campaign world. If I haven't I won't make my father anyone important such as a king or diplomat. If I don't know where dear old dad could have come from I'll ask.

I don't make up lore, I don't decide there's an elven kingdom to the west, I don't make my father someone particularly important in the world. That or I have a story where I don't know who my father is and leave the details up to the DM if it ever matters.

 

[pemerton]

I prefer that we use the rules of the D&D game to set those limits when we're playing D&D.

Your way of playing D&D is not "the rules" of D&D.

For instance, suppose that, in a game of D&D, it is established that a PC is in a tavern. There is no rule of D&D that requires the player, before declaring "I punch the nearest guy", to ask the GM whether or not there is a nearest guy. Or to put the point more generally, there is no rule of D&D that specifies who is entitled to make what sorts of assumptions about fictional position, that flow from the expressly established fiction.

I've posted actual play examples from AD&D and 4e D&D play. These did not involve breaking any rules of D&D. And as I've already mentioned, the rules of AD&D include rules for divine intervention. So at least in the Odin case, you seem to be the person who is departing from the rules of D&D.

So their fictional positioning limits their actions. You're saying the same thing I just said with different words.

Huh?

By definition fictional position constrains action. I can't declare "I drink a cup of mead" if I have no cup and no mead.

What you have said, as best I understand, is that only the GM can contribute to establishing fictional position. And I have not said any such thing as that, in any form of words.

EDIT: Here's an illustrative post:

I wouldn't assume that there was anyone sitting next to me in the tavern and I don't want a player in my games to make that assumption either. It's not about permission, it's about who establishes the reality of the scenario outside of the character.

This is you saying, as best I understand, that only the GM can establish fictional position.

I have not expressed the same view, in any words.

 

[Oofta]

The thing is, in all these games we have been talking about, there are actually some limits regarding what the player is allowed to declare, be it governed by actual rule, convention, or vague mutual understanding.

And if you're playing with people you know well, even the last one might suffice, but the fact of the matter is that more nebulous we get, more there is chance that someone's good faith suggestion might seem like bad faith exploit to someone else.

And I think it is fair to the players that they actually know what the limits are. That hey, here are the tools, go to town with them! What @Lanefan is saying that the players shouldn't need to second guess whether they're "allowed" ro use something for their advantage. Either they have the tool, and they can utilise it fully and don't need to hold back, or they don't have the tool.

Exactly. The players should know whether they can petition a god for favors or not. If it's been established that it has never worked for anyone they can always try but shouldn't be surprised when there is no answer or the answer is no. If you can petition a god in a campaign they should have at least a vague idea of how it works because you've added a house rule to the game. I think players should be aware of all house rules.

 

[Oofta]

Your way of playing D&D is not "the rules" of D&D.

For instance, suppose that, in a game of D&D, it is established that a PC is in a tavern. There is no rule of D&D that requires the player, before declaring "I punch the nearest guy", to ask the GM whether or not there is a nearest guy. Or to put the point more generally, there is no rule of D&D that specifies who is entitled to make what sorts of assumptions about fictional position, that flow from the expressly established fiction.

I've posted actual play examples from AD&D and 4e D&D play. These did not involve breaking any rules of D&D. And as I've already mentioned, the rules of AD&D include rules for divine intervention. So at least in the Odin case, you seem to be the person who is departing from the rules of D&D.

Huh?

By definition fictional position constrains action. I can't declare "I drink a cup of mead" if I have no cup and no mead.

What you have said, as best I understand, is that only the GM can contribute to establishing fictional position. And I have not said any such thing as that, in any form of words.

EDIT: Here's an illustrative post:
This is you saying, as best I understand, that only the GM can establish fictional position.

I have not expressed the same view, in any words.

The rules of D&D are not the rules of D&D? Because it's quite clear. From the 2024 DMG

...The DM also plays all the people the characters meet ... the DM decides how to apply the rules. ... the DM decides (and describes) what the players’ characters encounter in the course of an adventure​

...players contribute through the words and deeds of their characters​

​

Same basic description throughout the PHB and DMG. DM is responsible for the world, the players are responsible for their PCs and interface with the world through what they say and do.

You can play any way you want of course. If it works for you and yours, great! But the standard play loop as described by the core books hasn't really changed much over the years, no matter how you've played it.

 

[pemerton]

I think that the mystery angle of the conversation is very revealing and really not all that different from a lot of the concerns expressed prior to this.

The idea is that there’s this thing that’s already here, and it’s expected for the players to engage with that thing. The DM has prepared this adventure/encounter/mystery, and it will require a specific sequence of actions to solve the problem.

There does seem to be some variation in relation to the "specific sequence of actions": some posters have drawn an analogy to a crossword (which does require a specific set of actions) while others have allowed for more open-ended actions (though not as open-ended as asking Odin for help).

But I agree with your broader point.

I'm also struck by the response to my Traveller example. I posted that

At the start of the game, this was a mystery to which neither the players, nor the PCs, nor I the GM, knew the answer.​

And @Crimson Longinus and @Paul Farquhar then respond as if the only alternative to the GM knowing the answer at the start of the game is the players just made up a solution to the mystery, like Agatha Christie writing one of her novels.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And @Crimson Longinus and @Paul Farquhar then respond as if the only alternative to the GM knowing the answer at the start of the game is the players just made up a solution to the mystery, like Agatha Christie writing one of her novels.

Well someone had to make it up. It doesn't really matter if it was the GM, it is still not solving a mystery.