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

[Crimson Longinus]

After what fact?

I mean, instead of conjecturing, you could ask how the play worked.

It might have been easier had you lead with the explanation, if you felt it would be illustrative.

 

[pemerton]

Exactly. The players should know whether they can petition a god for favors or not.

In many religions, I'll go so far as to say most, the participants in the religion petition the supernatural for intervention and assistance - whether by prayer, or offering, or dedication, etc.

To me it would be a bit counterintuitive for a D&D setting to be different in this respect.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In many religions, I'll go so far as to say most, the participants in the religion petition the supernatural for intervention and assistance - whether by prayer, or offering, or dedication, etc.

To me it would be a bit counterintuitive for a D&D setting to be different in this respect.

Yes. And the cleric already has class features that represent the god answering such prayers!

 

[pemerton]

I have never been in a group that didn't include at least one person (often several) that would push the boundaries of what the DM would let them get away with as far as they could.

Interesting.

The whole language of "pushing boundaries", and the notion of the GM as a controlling force who might "let them get away with" stuff reminds me of this:

The key assumption throughout all these games is that if a gaming experience is to be intelligent (and all Fantasy Heartbreakers make this claim), then the most players can be relied upon to provide is kind of the "Id" of play - strategizing, killing, and conniving throughout the session. They are the raw energy, the driving "go," and the GM's role is to say, "You just scrap, strive, and kill, and I'll show ya, with this book, how it's all a brilliant evocative fantasy.".

It's not Illusionism - there's no illusion at all, just movement across the landscape and the willingness to fight as the baseline player things to do. . . . The Explorative, imaginative pleasure experienced by a player - and most importantly, communicated among players - simply doesn't factor into play at all . . .​

It's that last sentence in particular that I'm reminded of: the notion is of a player who is approaching the game without any apparent care for the shared fiction as a fiction.

A bit like @soviet, this isn't really a thing I encounter with the people I play RPGs with.

 

[Oofta]

In many religions, I'll go so far as to say most, the participants in the religion petition the supernatural for intervention and assistance - whether by prayer, or offering, or dedication, etc.

To me it would be a bit counterintuitive for a D&D setting to be different in this respect.

Clerics are granted spells, it's not like they aren't granted powers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In many religions, I'll go so far as to say most, the participants in the religion petition the supernatural for intervention and assistance - whether by prayer, or offering, or dedication, etc.

To me it would be a bit counterintuitive for a D&D setting to be different in this respect.

This is formally represented in most D&D games by casting divine spells.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Interesting.

The whole language of "pushing boundaries", and the notion of the GM as a controlling force who might "let them get away with" stuff reminds me of this:

The key assumption throughout all these games is that if a gaming experience is to be intelligent (and all Fantasy Heartbreakers make this claim), then the most players can be relied upon to provide is kind of the "Id" of play - strategizing, killing, and conniving throughout the session. They are the raw energy, the driving "go," and the GM's role is to say, "You just scrap, strive, and kill, and I'll show ya, with this book, how it's all a brilliant evocative fantasy.".​

​

It's not Illusionism - there's no illusion at all, just movement across the landscape and the willingness to fight as the baseline player things to do. . . . The Explorative, imaginative pleasure experienced by a player - and most importantly, communicated among players - simply doesn't factor into play at all . . .​

It's that last sentence in particular that I'm reminded of: the notion is of a player who is approaching the game without any apparent care for the shared fiction as a fiction.

A bit like @soviet, this isn't really a thing I encounter with the people I play RPGs with.

Is that quote from one of your narrative-focused game designers? I think I've seen it from you before.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

I think there's some connection to the immersion concept there still, in that both are about trying to avoid some kind of dissonance. Setting aside whatever immersion means, to both try to accomplish a goal using limited resources and to simultaneously have abilities that you use in service of a different goal is a potentially awkward source of doublethink. If the goal was only to produce the most pleasing (or whatever end is preferred) fiction, then the whole design should probably be different.

This is endemic to D&D already (I would personally argue as a product of unconsidered design), in that much is deferred to the shared culture of play; players generally don't use consistent lockdown tactics, or combos that render them immune to damage or whatever, even if they can be fairly read from the rules. Even players who have accepted the current state of affairs may well balk at pushing that dissonance any further.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, it doesn't sound that far from a video game. Like there's a quest and you can engage with the quest in the predetermined manner, or you can like go off and kill pigs in the forest!

There are no rails laid down for your implied railroad.

A couple things here.

Do you view character creation as part of play?

Do you see how what you're saying here is basically "all this stuff requires DM approval"? You even tend to attribute this to the worldbuilding or setting or work the DM has already done.

Now, it's fine if you and your players are satisfied with that... but when we're talking about player contribution, let's acknowledge that it's limited in the method you're describing.

I work with the DM on the backstory to make sure that what I come up with is consistent with their campaign world. It's what I prefer both as player and DM.

Well, no... there's rule zero, right? I mean... the word rule is right there in the name.

This whole conversation is about finding ways to tweak what exists to make the participants happy. So in that sense, who cares if it deviates from the rules? That's the point!

You think there should be house rules. I don't. The opinion of the DM at the time and my opinion is that a house rule was not merited.

Maybe that's part of the problem?

I mean, if I had a player who entered "Verbobonc" as his home city, I'd expect there to be some connections there. That the decision mattered in some way.

Did the player pick Odin out of some interest in playing a cleric of Odin? Did he bring Odin to the setting? Or did he simply pick Odin from a list of available deities and their associated subclasses, and go with Odin? Or did he just cover his eyes and plop his finger down on the page and it happened to land next to Odin?

If you want to have this level of intervention from the gods, go for it. I don't and wouldn't want to play in such a game. Clerics are already granted multiple abilities and I see no reason to go beyond that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not a problem, but it is an obvious influence, maybe even bias, not shared by most of your fellow posters that needs to be called out IMO. None of us have been shy about where we're coming from, or even asking for ways to do things differently

So what if it's an obvious influence? We're in a thread that is specifically about finding ways for everyone to be happy, and this is in regard to a shift in the idea of rule zero being about all participants and not just the DM.

I haven't been trying to hide my influences. I happen to play multiple types of games... that somehow makes me less qualified to talk about D&D?

A game in which players have more control over the game than their PCs have in-setting is not satisfying to me, because it feels unrealistic to me. I have no interest in playing a D&D-style RPG that way. At all.

What about when you GM?

Many folks have cited the "realism" or immersive elements of the world being very important to them. How about when you DM? Do you feel immersed?