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

[pemerton]

I have yet to see anyone comment on the situation of a player wanting an option that does not exist in the setting provided by the DM yet is not willing to do so the work of adding that option to the setting.

Are there people who say that the DM should be forced to do the work to accommodate that player?

I'm not sure what sort of work you have in mind. Are you meaning a backstory for the PC?

 

[pemerton]

I mean, MMOs and CRPGs in general owe an enormous debt to D&D, and there can be innovations in that space that could propagate back. We shouldn't expect that absolutely everything MMOs do is useful. But it seems unwise at best to start from a position of "there's nothing of value for RPGs to learn from MMOs."

I guess my thought is that RPGs offer something different from what MMOs do. Why would I want to emulate a medium that already does its thing perfectly well?

 

[TwoSix]

The are often things that will be apparent to a character, that would be unknown to the player. For a start, the character is often more intelligent than the player, but aside from that they have lived in that world all their life, whereas the player has only lived there a couple of hours. Sure, it will eventually come down to one or more dice rolls, but part of playing the game is trying to come up with the option that has the highest chance of success - i.e. the lowest DC. Otherwise, you might as well play Snakes and Ladders.

Yea, that's the entire thing I'm trying to avoid. I am actively trying to not play in a style that minimizes risk and optimizes efficacy. I'm trying to generate conflict.

 

[pemerton]

It only implies a need to communicate more carefully as a DM's creation is not known the world over. It is still, hopefully, a carefully crafted setting that has a look and feel. It is something, again hopefully, the DM has spent time developing and giving a lot of elements to create a feeling of realness. Verisimilitude if you will.

So yes, the DM should be very clear but no, it shouldn't get less respect being new.

Perhaps I'm overly sceptical, but I would tend to doubt that a typical GM's world is as vital and compelling as some of the most famous creations in fantasy fiction.

 

[pemerton]

The are often things that will be apparent to a character, that would be unknown to the player. For a start, the character is often more intelligent than the player, but aside from that they have lived in that world all their life, whereas the player has only lived there a couple of hours. Sure, it will eventually come down to one or more dice rolls, but part of playing the game is trying to come up with the option that has the highest chance of success - i.e. the lowest DC. Otherwise, you might as well play Snakes and Ladders.

This is a pretty strange claim.

Just to pick one example: in Apocalypse World, there are no difficulties. So there is no wargame-y/boardgame-y play of trying to come up with the option that has the best chance of success. That doesn't make AW "snakes and ladders".

 

[Oofta]

This thread has reached one of those points where people's written explanations and opinions on the subject have become most likely far more intractable and extreme than what actually would occur at the table. So people are arguing degrees that more often than not would never happen anyway.

It's no wonder why the thread has reached 97 pages with people going around the same exact circle again and again again... because people are butting heads against situations that never actually exist because at the table all of us are much less strident about what we "believe in" once we're facing other people, LOL.

Either we work things out at the table or we simply sort into groups that work for us. When I play a PC I want to explore and experience the world, not help build it on the fly. So I'm not going to seek out and am less likely to stick with a group that does collaborative world building. If you want to help build the world you're going to play in outside of your character's sphere of influence, I'm not the DM for you.

It's a good thing if we can all enjoy the game. Perhaps at different tables, different groups, different assumptions. Life would be boring if everyone wanted the same thing at all times.

 

[TwoSix]

My problem is that I find that a lot of DMs who do the ultra-high levels of worldbuilding expect a sort of blanket deference and trust from the players, when the actual effect should be quite the opposite. I know more or less what to expect if someone proposes Star Trek or Middle Earth or Athas. I've no idea what to expect if someone proposes Thraes or Artha. This intensifies the already pretty significant need for the DM to prove why I should care. Just because they did a lot of work doesn't mean I should feel anything at all about that work. I don't owe the DM anything just because they wrote a lot of setting material. That was their choice, and it doesn't create any sort of duty on my part as a player.

This, 1000%. You're not doing me a favor by writing up hundreds of hours of setting detail. I'm doing you a favor by being willing to engage with your work enough to make it a playable game.

There are more players than there are DMs, sure. But there also more DMs who love creating detailed lore than there are players who want to read it.

 

[Oofta]

OK? That doesn't change the truth of this:

If a person has a campaign that works for them, that their players enjoy, that continues to work for them, they never have an issue attracting or retaining players, why change? Why change just because they could theoretically attract a different set of players? Changing fluff and cosmetics doesn't really change the core campaign design directions. People still haven't run out of ideas for stories based on the real world.

I see no value in change for the sole purpose of changing. You may not want to be part of my campaign but I have plenty of players and I don't need any more.

 

[pemerton]

It's a very popular way of playing and historically it's been the way D&D started. I agree though that there are many ways to play but I really enjoy both playing and DMing those style of games. Everyone is free to play the game the way they like. I think though attacks against my style of play will be argued against by me.

It is human nature to think everything new is better. So part of embracing a new thing is putting the old thing down. You hear it all the time. It is not always true though.

Well, I'm not the one who has posted that successful play depends upon a GM having sole authority, nor that immersion is not possible in a system that resolves declared actions, in part at least, by factoring in a player's expenditure of "points".

I also don't think "new" and "old" are very meaningful labels here. As I already posted, I haven't tried to play in the GM-centred style for around 40 years. Given the hobby is only 50 years old, I don't think my approach is all that new. And the RPGs I play include Classic Traveller (1977) and Prince Valiant (1989). They're not all that new.

 

[pemerton]

This might not be the perfect example but I think Paul's point is a good one. I don't hand you a 30 volume history when you take the history skill. I am not a master thief even though my character can pick a lot of locks. Asking, "How hard does that lock look?" is a valid player-DM conversation. The character knows already. The player just needs to know what the character knows. The Diplomacy skill is another that often the DM needs to provide information. My PCs don't know diplomacy but if they have that skill they will be warned in certain circumstances. For example, you all should probably dress in finer clothing if you are going to meet the King. It would be a social faux paus otherwise. The character with Diplomacy would know that fact even though the Player didn't even think about it.

If the player declares an action, "I study the lock to see how hard it would be to pick" then set a difficulty and roll the dice. Conversely, if you're going to tell them without requiring a roll then just tell them! If not when you first describe the lock, then as soon as it becomes obvious at the table that they're thinking of trying to pick it.

With your Diplomacy example, wouldn't putting on fine clothes be part of making the check? Or wouldn't their absence cause a penalty?

Neither of those is like the players asking them about the disguise stratagem, though.