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

[CreamCloud0]

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!

maybe i'm being dumb but what do you mean by this? i don't want to interpret this in a bad faith reading but it comes across a little as 'put away your layered and long developed setting so we can play with the other toys in the box'

Edit: maybe that’s a little harsh of phrasing but the point is, anyone who put in a 1000 hours of play developing a setting all the while likely has investment in that setting, saying ‘you don’t have to keep doing it’ is overlooking the fact that if they didn’t want to be doing it then they likely would’ve quit or started a new world some time ago already.

 

[Greg K]

I create the setting and story hooks and then the events and world are the playground of the characters.

Yeah, I create potential story hooks, but, once the players create their characters, they are free to grab on to those potential hooks or come up with their own goals based on their character's background and goals (within the limits of the setting). This is where players may also suggest some potential minor additions.
For example, one player wanted his barbarian's clan leader to have a daughter whom was kidnapped during an attack by some foreign wizards (the wizard attack was an established recent event in that area). He wanted to rescue the daughter and, through additional deeds, establish himself as a warrior worthy of marrying her and, if necessary, challenge for leading the clan.
Another player, who had also wanted to be from the same culture said his druid was going to accompany the first player as a diplomat to try to peacefully secure the daughter's relief and to both act as a mentor to and recorder of the barbarian's deeds. His reason for being sent as a diplomat was that most of his druidic order was wiped out in the attack (as the druid's were targeted in the assault). His eventual goal was to rebuild his order and take down the wizards.

The above was all reasonable and worked within the limits of the setting. Both the daughter's existence and kidnapping and the druid order being nearly decimated were established as lore. The player goals for their characters were also worked into the game (as were the goals of other players).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I expect you to earn my trust and enthusiasm, rather than justifying anything and everything you do with, "Don't you trust me?"

Earning that trust and enthusiasm is not all that difficult a prospect. But it does require that you display behaviors consistent with actually caring about what I think and feel, with seeking consensus rather than laying down dicta, and being willing to accept and incorporate criticism even if you don't like it or outright disagree with it. Or, in simpler terms: being willing to have a real, respectful conversation about issues and working to find a solution we can all work with. As I've said. Several times.

I'm curious. How many DMs have you run across that actually meet your personal criteria here? That actually do what you say you want to the degree that is acceptable to you?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then you've been fortunate. It doesn't require evil behavior at all; something as simple as "We're having a meeting with the Evil King, so let's try to kill him right now" can be, shall we say, something of a problem in all kinds of cases, and when only one player goes for it...

Eh. I don't see that as a problem per se. It will certainly create a difficult situation the the characters, but if the players are to have agency, then it also means they can make "bad choices."

I actually had somewhat similar situation in my campaign. One player decided to fireball a powerful crime boss in middle of a meeting in a situation they were completely surrounded by his thugs and hopelessly outnumbered. I as a GM though it was a bad call (though I didn't say it then.) The other players thought it was a bad call (and I think they said it.) But miraculously the characters survived and managed to beat the enemies that should have been way too tough for them. Afterwards one of the other characters yelled at the fireball caster to not to ever do something stupid like that again and punched them in the face, knocking off their last hit points and dropping them to dying. (The healer healed them though.)

It was very cool and memorable.

And yeah, it could easily have gone way worse for them, but such is the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Done well, this can be absolutely amazing. The Players really feel like their characters are part of a bigger world and when they accomplish things in the world it's with an even bigger sense of accomplishment because it wasn't "made" for them, they had to carve their path. I've been in a group where the DMs world really came alive, it was awesome and gave me a lot of inspiration going forward.

But there is a danger - If the DM is too in love with the world and barely tolerated the players "messing" with it. I've seen this a few times. One was particularly bad. The DM had this clearly vibrant, detailed world with lots of things for characters to do - in theory. The problem was he clearly didn't ACTUALLY want the players (through their characters) making any changes or affecting anything. This was to the point where if the players where engaging in anything non-trivial, they literally couldn't solve it/conquer it (be it a BBEG fight or an exploration challenge). As in when we would engage something, we would just flail at it uselessly (combat or non-combat challenge) until one/some of his designated NPCs would come in and literally solve the situation for us (despite none of us actually wanting that). The DM was so attached to his world that he didn't want the players to be the ones actually affecting it!?! Extreme example, but it actually happened to me (lasted about 3 sessions before I realized that's just how thing will be then made my excuses as to why not coming anymore).

I've seen lesser extremes of the above, as well, the DM SHOULD have a love for his world, but they should also have a love for the PCs interacting with and messing it up!

That is a danger, but I'm not interested in letting that stop me from trying.

 

[Oofta]

"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.

I've had some brand new DMs that ran a fun game. Not at all professional, asked a lot of questions on how to do things, but decent. We all enjoyed the game which is all that really matters to me at the end of the day.I don't assume new = bad because it's not always true. New = not totally professional and polished? Sure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think, however, you're making a distinction between races a random new D&D player in a campaign would not make, one way or the other.

Why assume any player new to your table is in any way new to the game, or new to fantasy? I have a new player coming to my game tonight, for example. I know nothing about them but their name and the fact that another player (who I like but don't know especially well) vouches for them. I have no idea how much (if any) experience with D&D they have. I assume none specifically with Level Up. But I also make no other assumptions.

 

[Mort]

That is a danger, but I'm not interested in letting that stop me from trying.

Of course. Goes right back to the only way to get better is by doing.

But in this case, it's also good to recognize that you've started the world, let the players loose in it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How long do we have to wait for them to no longer be 'new'? Dragonborn and Teiflings have been core for 15 years and in the game longer with tieflings being from the 90's. Goliaths have been around for 20.

Play with people who started at 4e or later.

And convince Hollywood to use them in TV and film.

 

[Oofta]

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!

I'm not following. I have an established world. It works for me because I know, at least at a high level, a great deal about the world and it's history. My players appreciate that level of depth and knowing that their PCs can have a chance to impact that history.

There's all sorts of ways of running campaigns. I happen to prefer games that have more depth than "What campaign world are we building now!" For other people? It's a fun exercise in creativity and expression.