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

[Crimson Longinus]

And you can continue to do that now rather than choose to talk about them as if they were aberrations.

No, now I am addressing you, because you were talking to me. And commenting on posting styles did not lead to anything productive in the past, and ultimately it is not my job to police how other people express themselves. Now if some people feel that they are commonly misunderstood, then I can certainly offer my opinion on why I might have hard time understanding them.

 

[Aldarc]

Anyway, IMHO, there is often a difference between game designers writing for a product that they are designing and designers writing about blogs.

For example, let's stay with more traditional games. The Alexandrian often talks theory. He even applies "jargon" like "disassociated mechanics" to games that he happens to dislike, while special pleading for when "disassociated mechanics" are in games that he happens to like. He talks in a way that is different from the tone and style of those game books.

The same is often true, IME, when it comes to OSR blogs and writers. They talk about design theory, principles, and use all sorts of jargon to communicate their ideas. But this sort of language is often absent - though not always - in the actual game books themselves.

However, I will add that game books are notoriously poorly written when it comes to explaining how they should be played. Many people often come away with questions about the game. For example, I didn't understand or grok Fate until I read "The Book of Hanz," which were a series of Google+ blog posts that talked about the ideas behind the mechanics.

How we talk and write about game books as part of our hobby are not necessarily the same as how we write for them as technical game books with rules and instructions.

 

[TwoSix]

Thank you. I think I understand it now. No wonder we clash so much! That game sounds like the GM gets very little from it if they are interested in any aspect of play that doesn't rely on facilitating the enjoyment of other people.

Yes? Obviously?

The set of things that I like AND other players like is quite large. The set of things that I like AND other people dislike is fairly small, and I just don’t use that at a particular table.

What other “aspects of play” even are there?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes? Obviously?

The set of things that I like AND other players like is quite large. The set of things that I like AND other people dislike is fairly small, and I just don’t use that at a particular table.

What other “aspects of play” even are there?

My point is, the GM's fun in these games seems to be entirely derived from the fun of others. Of the three roles of the GM in Story Now games (facilitate, respond, and oppose), none of them start with what the GM wants to do, because these games are about doing what the players want (not the PCs, that's what the oppose part is for).

What I enjoy most about GMing is creating a world with stuff in it (that makes logical sense to be there) and letting the players loose in it to explore that world through their PCs. There is little to no room for this in Story Now games, because setting is explicitly backdrop for the players to perform in front of. Nothing in it has any independence (even imaginary independence) outside of the players and their PCs, because everything is about them. The playstyle minimizes my favorite part of RPGs.

 

[TwoSix]

My point is, the GM's fun in these games seems to be entirely derived from the fun of others. Of the three roles of the GM in Story Now games (facilitate, respond, and oppose), none of them start with what the GM wants to do, because these games are about doing what the players want (not the PCs, that's what the oppose part is for).

Well, the example @pemerton gave above was about running a game of Torchbearer. From his enthusiasm for the game, it seems pretty certain that the game started with Torchbearer being what the GM wanted to do!

And at a zoomed in level, the opportunities to facilitate, respond, and oppose give the GM ample leverage to assert setting elements which then become parts of the shared fiction. It's obviously not exactly the same as making up everything beforehand, but I DO have fun doing it.

What I enjoy most about GMing is creating a world with stuff in it (that makes logical sense to be there) and letting the players loose in it to explore that world through their PCs. There is little to no room for this in Story Now games, because setting is explicitly backdrop for the players to perform in front of. Nothing in it has any independence (even imaginary independence) outside of the players and their PCs, because everything is about them. The playstyle minimizes my favorite part of RPGs.

I think the urge to setting build and the ability to play in a Story Now fashion aren't as opposed as you might think. A few years ago, I ran a 5e game in an Eberron I heavily modified prior to play. And I did my best to play in as much a player-facing, Story Now method as possible.

Where that game differed from what you (presumably) would do is that a lot of the elements I added had a pretty loose touch. I had initially conceived of the king of Karrnath as being one of the main villains. But one of the players had a backstory of being a close adviser to the king, and another had a drive to get revenge on his older brother who has betrayed him and left him to die. So in play, it was revealed that the player's brother had become Hand of the King, and the campaign shifted to opposing his actions and freeing the king from his clutches.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, the example @pemerton gave above was about running a game of Torchbearer. From his enthusiasm for the game, it seems pretty certain that the game started with Torchbearer being what the GM wanted to do!

And at a zoomed in level, the opportunities to facilitate, respond, and oppose give the GM ample leverage to assert setting elements which then become parts of the shared fiction. It's obviously not exactly the same as making up everything beforehand, but I DO have fun doing it.


I think the urge to setting build and the ability to play in a Story Now fashion aren't as opposed as you might think. A few years ago, I ran a 5e game in an Eberron I heavily modified prior to play. And I did my best to play in as much a player-facing, Story Now method as possible.

Where that game differed from what you (presumably) would do is that a lot of the elements I added had a pretty loose touch. I had initially conceived of the king of Karrnath as being one of the main villains. But one of the players had a backstory of being a close adviser to the king, and another had a drive to get revenge on his older brother who has betrayed him and left him to die. So in play, it was revealed that the player's brother had become Hand of the King, and the campaign shifted to opposing his actions and freeing the king from his clutches.

I see your point, but that's a big part of my problem with it. A setting where the universe shifts after the campaign begins to align more closely to what the player wants (by which I mean established setting facts are no longer the same) feels less real and immersive to me. As a player, I want the setting to have an existence outside of my interaction with it. As a GM, I want to create a world that doesn't change later based on anything other than PC (not player) action. I can't do that if the rules of the game force me to change things because the player rolled high and wants to invent setting details.

Now, if your king example wasn't in the world as you envisaged it before the player gave you a better idea, then that's cool. I do that for stuff that hasn't been determined, but usually before session 1, or related to details that I haven't written down yet. I added a lizardfolk nation to my main fantasy homebrew because a player had an idea for a "crocodile man" PC and I had no reason to say no. But it was during the worldbuilding phase of my prep (during/after session 0 but before session 1), and it didn't affect anything I'd already written.

 

[TwoSix]

I see your point, but that's a big part of my problem with it. A setting where the universe shifts after the campaign begins to align more closely to what the player wants (by which I mean established setting facts are no longer the same) feels less real and immersive to me. As a player, I want the setting to have an existence outside of my interaction with it. As a GM, I want to create a world that doesn't change later based on anything other than PC (not player) action. I can't do that if the rules of the game force me to change things because the player rolled high and wants to invent setting details.

"Established setting facts" can have multiple meanings here.

"We've already established it in play" is my standard for "fact". "I wrote it down in my campaign notes" is malleable to a broad extent for me.

Now, if your king example wasn't in the world as you envisaged it before the player gave you a better idea, then that's cool. I do that for stuff that hasn't been determined, but usually before session 1, or related to details that I haven't written down yet.

The party had met the king for the first time (in-game) during a previous session. (Backstory, they were already familiar with him due to the campaign concept.) Between sessions, the player and I during discussions brought up the idea of his brother being a confidant of the king. I liked the idea, and then also established that he was actually plotting against the king. (But I kept this a fun reveal, as the player asked specifically for me to surprise him with the reveal.)

I added a lizardfolk nation to my main fantasy homebrew because a player had an idea for a "crocodile man" PC and I had no reason to say no. But it was during the worldbuilding phase of my prep (during/after session 0 but before session 1), and it didn't affect anything I'd already written.

As much as possible, I run my settings so that introducing new elements is painless and there isn't a ton of established material to contradict.

 

[zakael19]

Thank you. I think I understand it now. No wonder we clash so much! That game sounds like the GM gets very little from it if they are interested in any aspect of play that doesn't rely on facilitating the enjoyment of other people. Story Now GMs are there to perform a service for their players, with everything they do designed solely to make things more interesting and fun for them. It also sounds like a lot of work and responsibility for the players, so you really need the right group of folks for this to work as intended. More power to you as it seems you have that group, and what Story Now games allow the GM to do is also what you want to do.

From my perspective, this is a fundamentally different kind of game than anything I've played in more than one or two sessions. I now know why I couldn't wrap my head around it. Thanks again.

My enjoyment from GMing Story Now is how goshdarn engaging and on-my-toes it keeps me watching a fascinating and unknown narrative unfold. I get to root for my players (core GM principle: be a fan of the PCs), while knowing that to really do that I need to throw challenges at them that speak to their priorities / drives as @pemerton wonderfully illustrated.

There’s never really a moment where I’m “off.” I’m either bouncing cause-and-effect back and forth, doing some on the spot collaborative world building to flesh something out, portraying an NPC as appropriate, or nodding “yes go on” as PCs have really strong thematic conversations exploring their priorities and perceptions of each other (or just getting mentoring / sounding each other out / etc).

At the end of the day, story now play in a narrativist system creates play that feels like a good protagonist focused novel when you look back at it in a way no other play I’ve experienced ever has.

 

[zakael19]

"Established setting facts" can have multiple meanings here.

"We've already established it in play" is my standard for "fact". "I wrote it down in my campaign notes" is malleable to a broad extent for me.


The party had met the king for the first time (in-game) during a previous session. (Backstory, they were already familiar with him due to the campaign concept.) Between sessions, the player and I during discussions brought up the idea of his brother being a confidant of the king. I liked the idea, and then also established that he was actually plotting against the king. (But I kept this a fun reveal, as the player asked specifically for me to surprise him with the reveal.)


As much as possible, I run my settings so that introducing new elements is painless and there isn't a ton of established material to contradict.

Yeah, once something is established in the shared fiction (eg: we’ve all discussed it around the table) it’s there. Signed, sealed, delivered. Even metacurrency heavy games like Fabula Ultima tend to hardline established facts from player changing.

Ideas the GM has? They’re just ideas, questions, possibilities until you speak them forth and other people agree that it is so. Some systems encourage leaving lots of blanks or just “hmm, maybe …” so that as stuff happens you don’t feel like players are “denying your prep” or whatever when they come up with an interesting idea. Some have guidance on what it means to prep and how close you should hew to what’s written (as @pemerton noted AW has some really interesting advice on how to get there for story now play).

And of course in heavy “puzzle” play like say Delta Green / CoC, prepped truth has to be super in stone for that game to work. The question here is “does D&D require the same thing” and I think the answer is pretty clearly, apart from a well crafted and advertised puzzle type situation, no. Nothing is stopping you from playing heavy “prepped truth” but nothing is stopping you from following this rule 0 idea and doing table consensus / player fed world building.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My enjoyment from GMing Story Now is how goshdarn engaging and on-my-toes it keeps me watching a fascinating and unknown narrative unfold. I get to root for my players (core GM principle: be a fan of the PCs), while knowing that to really do that I need to throw challenges at them that speak to their priorities / drives as @pemerton wonderfully illustrated.

There’s never really a moment where I’m “off.” I’m either bouncing cause-and-effect back and forth, doing some on the spot collaborative world building to flesh something out, portraying an NPC as appropriate, or nodding “yes go on” as PCs have really strong thematic conversations exploring their priorities and perceptions of each other (or just getting mentoring / sounding each other out / etc).

At the end of the day, story now play in a narrativist system creates play that feels like a good protagonist focused novel when you look back at it in a way no other play I’ve experienced ever has.

That's the issue. We want different things out of gaming. I'm a fan of the players, certainly, but I wouldn't necessarily say I'm a fan of the PCs. PCs come and go IMO.

And I have no interest in writing a novel with my players, because I'm not a narrativist gamer. I'm a simulationist gamer. I want to create and explore a logically consistent, even realistic world (fantasy trappings aside there). Telling a story and facilitating my protagonist players is not where my fun comes from.