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

[Lanefan]

I believe one key thing around rogue-likes is being procedurally generated, so each run through would be different, allowing for quite different expectations / possibilities of scoring. Whereas my memory of a lot of arcade games were that they weren't random, so could learn from each play through what need to do next time.

To a point this is true, but my experience with arcade games is that sooner or later either a) lack of perfection in skill or b) dumb bad luck is going to catch up with you.

And note I'm talking about early-era games here - Defender, Galaga, Centipede, Asteroids, etc. where one quarter meant one play and you started from scratch every time. @TwoSix referenced some later games I'd never heard of, that allowed one to continue from save points as long as one's quarters held out.

Rogue-likes are different every time through (which is to me one of their great appeals) but with enough root similarity that eventually some of it becomes a bit familiar - kind of like D&D: every campaign is different but to an experienced player there's enough root similarity to make it somewhat familiar. For example, in both types of game a Goblin is always a Goblin, a potion of healing is always a potion of healing, and so forth.

The big difference, of course, is that any computer game is by necessity limited by its programming. D&D has no such limit, in part due to the existence (and acceptance) of Rule 0.

 

[pemerton]

This of course also requires that there is a commensurate cost for failure, otherwise it is optimal gameplay to constantly suggest beneficial things as the dice might favour you and you might get it.

Yes, that's why I mentioned "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

The 4e DMG2 sets out a version of that principle on p 83, in the context of a discussion of skill challenge adjudication/resolution:

Each skill check in a challenge should accomplish one of the following goals:

*Introduce a new option that the PCs can puruse, a path to success that they didn't know existed.

*Change the situation, such as by sending the PCs to a new location, introducing a new NPC, or adding a complication.

*Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check's success or failure (as appropriate), one that influences their subsequent decisions.​

This is something that I and (of other participants in this thread) @Manbearcat posted about a lot 10+ years ago. The failure to apply this principle seems to be why some people weren't able to run satisfactory skill challenges.

The same sort of principle can be applied in games that don't use "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - Apocalypse World is a fairly well-known example. The basic principle in AW (and Dungeon World follows AW in this respect) is that if the result of a player's roll for a move is 6 or less, the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like, operating in combination with the fact that "nothing happens" is not a GM-side move in AW (or DW).

There have been discussions on these boards in which a parallel concern to that with unsatisfactory skill challenges has come up in the context of DW play: posters who are GMing DW have been failing to make moves other than "nothing happens" when players in their game fail rolls to Discern Realities or Spout Law; and they have been puzzled by the fact that this has been making their game suck a bit.

Even going back to Gygaxian D&D, you can see an application of the idea that players making moves has to have consequences: listening at doors, trying to open them, etc, takes time and/or creates noise, and these are both triggers for wandering monster checks.

it is good that we can at least recognise that there is a significant difference between postulating something that is mostly flavour and postulating something that is a clear advantage. Though I don't think the difference between these two is actually quite as clear than it might seem at a glance and there is also a third category where the postulated thing does not offer a direct advantage, but it still a bit of a big deal and changes the situation significantly.

We can then talk about what counts as an advantage?

In D&D, it's probably uncontroversial that gaining a level of experience is an advantage.

In D&D, I would say it's mostly uncontroversial that finding a big bag of gold is an advantage - though at mid-to-high level it sometimes may not be (hence why I say it's only mostly uncontroversial).

But to go back to the Odin example, why is learning the location of the McGuffin an advantage? How does this improve the player's position? The questions aren't rhetorical - I'm not disputing that it might be an advantage. But it would be interesting to have that explained.

Likewise changing the situation significantly. Why do we want to make that hard? Or set limits on it?

Like I said earlier, that is sort of thing that might work a group of people who happen to be on common wavelength. But one cannot rely on that and publisher of a product in particular cannot rely on that. And one way of handling possible discrepancies is that one player has the final authority on what goes. Another might be for the rules to clearly and specifically explain in detail the principles and guidelines relating to this.

I rely on it. And I don't really see why a game can't either. A Penny for My Thoughts is a RPG-adjacent storytelling game that has rules and guidelines to help handle this.

 

[pemerton]

It does to me. Obviously YMMV. To be sure, most of the collaboration comes in play, as the story of the campaign (as seen after the fact) emerges through PC and GM action.

I'm a bit confused. I said that something doesn't seem like collaboration. You said that it does, but then said that "to be sure" most of the collaboration occurs in some context/fashion that is different from the one I described.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm a bit confused. I said that something doesn't seem like collaboration. You said that it does, but then said that "to be sure" most of the collaboration occurs in some context/fashion that is different from the one I described.

"Most of" and "all of" are different things. The player expressing a deeper interest in one aspect of the setting, prompting the GM to elaborate on that aspect, is an example of collaboration as far as I'm concerned.

 

[pemerton]

"Most of" and "all of" are different things. The player expressing a deeper interest in one aspect of the setting, prompting the GM to elaborate on that aspect, is an example of collaboration as far as I'm concerned.

Suppose A and B are in love. And B is a poet. B then writes a poem about A, prompted by B's experiences with A.

I don't think it's typical to describe this as a collaboration between A and B. Like, I don't think we normally say that Dylan collaborated with Sara (or, if you prefer, Joan Baez) when he wrote Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.

Can you say a bit about how the RPG case - of the GM authoring something prompted by a player's interest - involves collaboration?

 

[soviet]

if a publisher instructs a writer to write a book about a particular subject, was that piece a collaboration between the publisher and the writer?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, that's why I mentioned "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

The 4e DMG2 sets out a version of that principle on p 83, in the context of a discussion of skill challenge adjudication/resolution:

Each skill check in a challenge should accomplish one of the following goals:​

​

*Introduce a new option that the PCs can puruse, a path to success that they didn't know existed.​

​

*Change the situation, such as by sending the PCs to a new location, introducing a new NPC, or adding a complication.​

​

*Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check's success or failure (as appropriate), one that influences their subsequent decisions.​

This is something that I and (of other participants in this thread) @Manbearcat posted about a lot 10+ years ago. The failure to apply this principle seems to be why some people weren't able to run satisfactory skill challenges.

The same sort of principle can be applied in games that don't use "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - Apocalypse World is a fairly well-known example. The basic principle in AW (and Dungeon World follows AW in this respect) is that if the result of a player's roll for a move is 6 or less, the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like, operating in combination with the fact that "nothing happens" is not a GM-side move in AW (or DW).

There have been discussions on these boards in which a parallel concern to that with unsatisfactory skill challenges has come up in the context of DW play: posters who are GMing DW have been failing to make moves other than "nothing happens" when players in their game fail rolls to Discern Realities or Spout Law; and they have been puzzled by the fact that this has been making their game suck a bit.

Even going back to Gygaxian D&D, you can see an application of the idea that players making moves has to have consequences: listening at doors, trying to open them, etc, takes time and/or creates noise, and these are both triggers for wandering monster checks.

Yes, sure. No disagreement worth mentioning here. (I also think skill challenges would have been way more popular if they had managed to explain them better from the get go. I still don't think DMG2 explanation is very good or clear enough, but it still miles better than what we originally got. Not that I would personally still much care for them.)

We can then talk about what counts as an advantage?

Yes! And I don't think it is clear cut at all. For example one might set up something that at the moment seems like flavour, but later becomes an advantage. (And does it matter if they intended to do it that way, or whether it was just a coincidence?)

In D&D, it's probably uncontroversial that gaining a level of experience is an advantage.

In D&D, I would say it's mostly uncontroversial that finding a big bag of gold is an advantage - though at mid-to-high level it sometimes may not be (hence why I say it's only mostly uncontroversial).

Yeah, sure.

But to go back to the Odin example, why is learning the location of the McGuffin an advantage? How does this improve the player's position? The questions aren't rhetorical - I'm not disputing that it might be an advantage. But it would be interesting to have that explained.

I think it was and advantage in two ways. First, I think from the context it was clear, that finding the item was something the characters desired, so help towards that was an obvious advantage. But second, and what I think would have been ever bigger advantage, was that it setup this new powerful tool, this new avenue for doing things. Now every time there is a problem, trying to convince Odin to sort it out is an option. This is something I as a GM am rather cautious about, as go-to-tactics are not generally good for gameplay in my opinion.

Likewise changing the situation significantly. Why do we want to make that hard? Or set limits on it?

I feel players main avenue for changing the situation should be via the actions of their characters, not by framing new elements. That's the GM's job.

I rely on it. And I don't really see why a game can't either. A Penny for My Thoughts is a RPG-adjacent storytelling game that has rules and guidelines to help handle this.

Isn't that pretty much what my last sentence said? That in absence of an overseer, the game needs to have rules and guidelines for this?

 

[Oofta]

Suppose A and B are in love. And B is a poet. B then writes a poem about A, prompted by B's experiences with A.

I don't think it's typical to describe this as a collaboration between A and B. Like, I don't think we normally say that Dylan collaborated with Sara (or, if you prefer, Joan Baez) when he wrote Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.

Can you say a bit about how the RPG case - of the GM authoring something prompted by a player's interest - involves collaboration?

If I'm writing a website, someone does the overall design and layout, someone codes the HTML and the front end, I work on the back end code that makes it all work. We're all collaborating on the same project even though we have different responsibilities.

In a D&D game players direct the campaign both through the words and deeds of their PC and either in character or outside of gameplay on direction of the campaign. The only collaboration that I see us missing is that they aren't adding minor cosmetic scenery or inconsequential NPCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Suppose A and B are in love. And B is a poet. B then writes a poem about A, prompted by B's experiences with A.

I don't think it's typical to describe this as a collaboration between A and B. Like, I don't think we normally say that Dylan collaborated with Sara (or, if you prefer, Joan Baez) when he wrote Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.

If the poem is based on something A said (either to B or to someone else) then A would IMO be an unintentional collaborator and thus B would be IMO morally bound* to note A as being the inspiration or even as writing the line that was quoted in the poem. This becomes even more relevant around royalties, should the poem somehow become a smash hit.

As an example, were I to use your first line above (starting with "Suppose A and B ...") in a poem then you'd be an unintentional collaborator and if-when any legalities arose around royalties etc. I'd be duty-bound to note you as such.

In an RPG, the players IME often become unintentional collaborators: the DM listens to what they say and any ideas they might have and quietly files it away for later reference, then maybe busts those ideas out at some future point when the players have long forgotten they suggested them in the first place. I've done this on occasion.

* - and I'll note there's IMO a further difference between this and between using an overheard snippet of conversation between strangers as the basis for a poem, which is something I do all the time.

 

[Lanefan]

if a publisher instructs a writer to write a book about a particular subject, was that piece a collaboration between the publisher and the writer?

Maybe. For me it would depend on how much further input the publisher had (or wants to have) over the content.

"Write a book about Hobgoblins" - no real collaboration there.
"Write a book sympathetic to Hobgoblins"
"Write a book sympathetic to Hobgoblins and use the world of Akrayna as the setting"
"Write a book sympathetic to Hobgoblins, set on the world of Akrayna, and name the heroine something close to Kara as that's my daughter's name" - by this point I think we've reached collaboration.