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

[Paul Farquhar]

No you wouldn't. You would be stopped by guards.

Tried it have you? When it comes to the safety of the monarch guards are not known for politely turning away someone striding forward zombie fashion without some sort of reason. News stories of nut jobs being arrested trying to get into the palace is a semi-regular occurrence around here.

If you then made a second choice to continue on, then things might escalate


State action. Raise complication.

In this case, you haven't stated your action. You stated your intent. Your action is HOW you are going to try and get into the castle to see the monarch.

 

[Mort]

That's how royal courts worked. Being a noble could get you in, but then there are hundreds of other nobles all competing to get close to the monarch.

Or the DM can see it as an opportunity. The royal chamberlain might let the PC noble know that if a certain task or 2 is accomplished... - front of the line (and the DM makes it clear the feature helped grease some palms for this easier solution).

 

[pemerton]

I was simply disagreeing with the statement "We were all bad DMs at one point (when we started)". An inexperienced DM isn't inherently bad, they're just inexperienced. I've played in games with brand new DMs where we all had a lot of fun. Of course they could have done better, every DM could always do better.

You seem to have a different definition of bad DM than I do.

"Bad" means "unskilled, incompetent" = bad at doing the job one was meant to do. Like a bad plumber, bad electrician, bad singer, bad lecturer, etc.

I know I was a pretty terrible GM when I started. I learned how to do a better job - by way of practice, reflection, reading, and conversation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Or the DM can see it as an opportunity. The royal chamberlain might let the PC noble know that if a certain task or 2 is accomplished... - front of the line (and the DM makes it clear the feature helped grease some palms for this easier solution).

Why would the DM do that, unless it was a narrative driven adventure in which meeting the monarch was a plot point? In the royal court everyone is a noble, and when everyone is a noble, no one has an advantage from being a noble.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I've been mostly GMing for 40+ years. I have GMed campaigns long and short.

But as I posted not too far upthread, I haven't approached things in the way being described in the quotes - the game is virtually defined by the GM's setting, and the job of the players is to help the GM bring that setting to life - for most of those 40 years.

I certainly wouldn't regard the fact that the GM has been running games in their world for 1000s of hours as a reason that they have to keep doing so!

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I get the awesome opportunity to play, I select a character that would have strong ties to the setting giving the DM a number of hooks from which he can use to let him spin the story.
I think also much of my fun comes from exploration of the setting (the DM's imagination) and what you have previously described as colour which is not your primary interest as you have indicated in the past. I enjoy playing my character and bringing about cool moments but I find myself interested in the story being woven and the richness of the setting. I want to get lost in it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well actually . . .

Most long-running franchises that get RPGs based on them change up their "nailed down" settings all the time. Almost every time a TV series gets another season, a movie gets a sequel, or a franchise gets expanded into novels, comics, and games . . . the setting changes and expands.

The idea that the writers and creators behind these franchises stick to a "nailed down" setting is patently untrue.

There are a ton of ongoing shows set on Earth, where the setting remains Earth and there are no added vampires etc. Having a fixed setting doesn't prevent you from telling stories.

 

[nevin]

No, that paying attention to rules is never relevant to fun.



I'd argue that's because early on we taught everyone to expect an authoritarian approach on the part of GMs and that's been very hard to kill, even when people were trying to. Rule 0 feeds right into that.

Not all early GMs were that way.

 

[Mort]

Why would the DM do that, unless it was a narrative driven adventure in which meeting the monarch was a plot point? In the royal court everyone is a noble, and when everyone is a noble, no one has an advantage from being a noble.

Presumably because it could lead to some interesting places where everyone can have an interesting time?

One of the fun things about the noble feature is that it provides an audience, but the strings attached, consequences, etc.are left up to the DM and the circumstances. I'd prefer to make the feature interesting rather than useless.

And if the player tries to abuse the feature? Considering how much leeway the DM has in interpreting it, that's not really going to be a problem.

 

[Clint_L]

Well actually . . .

Most long-running franchises that get RPGs based on them change up their "nailed down" settings all the time. Almost every time a TV series gets another season, a movie gets a sequel, or a franchise gets expanded into novels, comics, and games . . . the setting changes and expands.

The idea that the writers and creators behind these franchises stick to a "nailed down" setting is patently untrue.

I couldn't give a toss about established canon when I set a game in an established IP setting. I take what I like, change what I don't, and encourage players to do the same. My current beginner campaign is based on Matt Mercer's Exandria, and I use the maps and broad historical details because it saves me a lot of work, but whenever I or a player adds something new or changes "established" lore, I only care about whether it works in the story we are creating.

 

[TwoSix]

Tried it have you? When it comes to the safety of the monarch guards are not known for politely turning away someone striding forward zombie fashion without some sort of reason.

Why would it be zombie fashion? There's no reason to create that narration.

In this case, you haven't stated your action. You stated your intent. Your action is HOW you are going to try and get into the castle to see the monarch.

The difference between "action" and "intent" isn't really relevant. The point is "Don't ask for permission."

When you ask for permission, you're implicitly stating that you as a player are trying to determine what's plausible in the fiction. But you already know what's plausible, it's the DM's job to tell you what occurs that renders the action challenging or implausible.

Going to talk to the king is a plausible activity. Tight security and a barred castle are the complications in the path.