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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

No. Nothing is stopping you but personal interest. The rules of the game, however, don't particularly facilitate the type of play you're championing, however.

 

[zakael19]

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.

I just felt the need to flesh out what I actually grt from it in reply to your post. I certainly hope all GMs are at their core here to facilitate enjoyment - otherwise you’re facilitating what, sadness? Punishment? Sharing your world with no regard for how it’s received?

 

[TwoSix]

No. Nothing is stopping you but personal interest. The rules of the game, however, don't particularly facilitate the type of play you're championing, however.

My Eberron game was fairly basic 5e with only a few house rules (some 3pp classes and subclasses).

I don’t really see 5e as picking a side in terms of favoring “prep-focused” versus “malleable setting”. At least in the core rules, its publishing focus does lean towards heavily prepped adventure path modules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My Eberron game was fairly basic 5e with only a few house rules (some 3pp classes and subclasses).

I don’t really see 5e as picking a side in terms of favoring “prep-focused” versus “malleable setting”. At least in the core rules, its publishing focus does lean towards heavily prepped adventure path modules.

More's the pity IMO. I'd love to see more support in the current edition of the most heavily-marketed (and thus most popular) RPG for sandbox play, just so more people are exposed to what I see as a very rewarding and fun playstyle.

 

[hawkeyefan]

More's the pity IMO. I'd love to see more support in the current edition of the most heavily-marketed (and thus most popular) RPG for sandbox play, just so more people are exposed to what I see as a very rewarding and fun playstyle.

So I think that part of the problem in many of these discussions is that preference is often mistaken or misinterpreted as fact.

In this post, you're lamenting that 5e doesn't do more to support the style of play that you enjoy. And there's nothing at all wrong with that.

There's also nothing wrong with other people lamenting that it doesn't do more to support the style of play that they enjoy.

 

[Lanefan]

"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.

And me, for small-scale stuff such as e.g. whether a previously-unvisited village that\s not yet on any player-facing maps is on the north or south side of a river.

But the large-scale stuff - the overarching history, the realms and rulers etc. local to where the campaign begins, the pantheons for the playable species, etc. - is all locked in before play begins. Also, if a player says their PC comes from the village of Martages on the south side of the Swan River but the player-facing map already shows Martages as being on the north side, the village doesn't get up and move. It stays on the north side.

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.

Which is relatively easy in the early days of a campaign, or when a campaign is intended to be fairly short-running. But after 5 or 10 or more years in the same campaign in the same setting it's inevitable that loads of established material will build up, which makes introducing completely new elements much more difficult (if only because of the "If it's there now and has always been there, why haven't we heard of it before?" problem).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And me, for small-scale stuff such as e.g. whether a previously-unvisited village that\s not yet on any player-facing maps is on the north or south side of a river.

But the large-scale stuff - the overarching history, the realms and rulers etc. local to where the campaign begins, the pantheons for the playable species, etc. - is all locked in before play begins.

It however is mostly the smaller scale stuff that it is helpful to keep fluid in more narrativist style. I don't think having the more macro scale fixed is really a big issue. (Though I think someone disagreed with me the last time I said something like this.)

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Where perhaps I'm more of a fan of the party as a whole rather than any of the PCs in it.

Being or becoming a fan of one or more specific PCs makes it harder to inflict Bad Things on those PCs when the time comes.

 

[Lanefan]

I just felt the need to flesh out what I actually grt from it in reply to your post. I certainly hope all GMs are at their core here to facilitate enjoyment - otherwise you’re facilitating what, sadness? Punishment? Sharing your world with no regard for how it’s received?

For some, "facilitate enjoyment" carries an implied expectation to also provide that enjoyment (as in, be the lead entertainer and-or storyteller), rather than simply providing a space and situation (as in, the setting and its backstory) in which people can find or provide their own enjoyment.

Personally, I lean greatly toward the latter option here.

 

[zakael19]

For some, "facilitate enjoyment" carries an implied expectation to also provide that enjoyment (as in, be the lead entertainer and-or storyteller), rather than simply providing a space and situation (as in, the setting and its backstory) in which people can find or provide their own enjoyment.

Personally, I lean greatly toward the latter option here.

If only there was a rule about discussing that with your table, understanding the play style that's at hand and ensuring everybody is on the same page so that all participants are having "fun" however they all define that...