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

[Vaalingrade]

"The guards stab you".

Ah, so it's not a castle but a spite rectangle built to make a point that only one person at the table gets to try to be a smartass about someone saying they're going to talk to the king.

 

[pemerton]

and why is that really such an issue?

I'm not @TwoSix, but here's my answer:

(1) Having to rely on the GM to tell me about the setting is not very immersive;
(2) Depending how it's done, it actually risks being tedious;
(3) It shifts the locus of play away from the player to the GM.

To elaborate on (3): the first time a friend of mine played in a GH-set game, he did some reading up on GH online. At one stage, the PCs were marooned in the Bright Desert. Drawing on his reading, the player said "Everyone knows that Suel nomads are thick as thieves in the Bright Desert", and then proceeded to try and find some nomads to help him (using the particular mechanic that the RPG we were playing permitted - in D&D it would be something like a Streetwise check).

If the player doesn't have that knowledge they can't confidently declare actions, and back to asking the GM to tell them what is possible for their character.

Because it puts me in a position of having to have my creativity verified as accurate.

Ninja'd!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ah, so it's not a castle but a spite rectangle built to make a point that only one person at the table gets to try to be a smartass about someone saying they're going to talk to the king.

You always have to see bad faith everywhere, haven't you? Your world must be so miserable.

The point of a castle is to keep people OUT. So it makes no sense for someone to be able to just walk in. The adventurers, being heroes, have every chance of being able to get in - IF they come up with a reasonable plan for getting in. That's called having an adventure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not if the players agree with him. But that's apparently not a factor.

Then it's not just Crawford and the DM we're considering, is it?

 

[Oofta]

QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9509081, member: 6801845"]
Why does it matter? The player went out of their way to prevent the success of the rest of the party when they had a clear goal.

Because this was supposed to be an example of a bad player.

But if the PCs have no reason to be chasing the NPCs other than player metagaming - "The GM has clearly set this up so that we chase the NPCs" - then it's not clear to me what was bad about it. I mean, maybe he was immersed in his character and felt that his character would be sympathetic to the fleeing PCs.
[/QUOTE]

---

So ... it's metagaming to have the PCs hired to find out who's stealing goods? The excuse "It's what my character would do" is one of the worst excuses for character behavior I've ever heard. Especially when it's not done for any reason other that "Woo-hoo! I'm chaotic insane and can never, ever be trusted to not stab another party member in the back!"

When you play D&D you are agreeing to be part of a group. I mean, if you want to help the enemy, feel free. Your PC has now become an enemy and I have no problem with the rest of the PCs attacking you. Have fun with the next PC. Why would anyone want to continue to play with someone that actively thwarts the goals of the rest of the group in a D&D game?

Being disruptive at the expense of the enjoyment of the game by everyone else at the table is being a bad player.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Strange reply, considering we are talking about a fantasy game.

Sure, if CSI suddenly started a vampires take over Chicago story arc, it would seem strange. Although, stranger things have happened in TV and movie land.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are there tons of movies and TV shows set in the "real world"? Well, yeah. So?

Again . . . if you are a DM who puts your own world-building ahead of player collaboration, that's fine if it works for you and your gaming group. But increasingly, that seems very unfun to many of us.

I would say there are different opinions on the subject, and all are valid. But saying, "many of us (and a growing many) think you're wrong" is just a way to artificially inflate the validity of your subjective opinion.

 

[Oofta]

For an unfamiliar IP, I just have to go read a book or watch a movie. That's easy. Asking a DM a bunch of questions about the setting is a pain in the neck.

Which is why during a session 0 we discuss broad options and then when we decide on a direction I give them the info they need to play the game and help fill in details for their character origins. If people are interested there's more info but I have no expectation that anyone is going to read it.

If my style doesn't work for you then I'm not the right DM for you. Just please don't accuse me of forcing people to read a novella about my campaign world before they start play because that doesn't happen.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You always have to see bad faith everywhere, haven't you?

"I go into the castle to talk to the king"

Options for Response:

"Okay, so the guards stop you at the entrance to the keep and ask your business."

or

"Tell me exactly how or you will be stabbed"

Yup. I'm the one in bad faith.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, the more derivative a setting, the less compelling the argument about how it expresses a particular vision etc.

It's about being respectful of others' preferences, even if you don't share them. "Knock-off" is pejorative in common parlance.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd say there is no such thing as a good or bad limitation unless the game becomes completely unplayable as a result. The limitations are just the boundaries of the setting. Whether those boundaries are good or bad would be subjective not objective and depend on the group.

Doesn't have to be unplayable to be bad. Example: "You can only participate in combat if you are standing on one foot at all times while responding." That's a limitation. I don't see how it would in any way actually help creativity. It certainly doesn't make the game unplayable for a typical person (a friend with inner-ear issues would find this unplayable though), but I think you'd agree that it does nothing to encourage creativity. Or: "You only earn experience during a session if you brought snacks with you." That doesn't make the game unplayable in the least....but it also doesn't actually make play any better (and could easily make things worse).

All limitations cut off possible behaviors. A good limitation must be either eliminating behaviors that would be detrimental (like the number-go-up math duel I mentioned), or making it an interesting challenge to succeed. It is simply not true that limitations-in-general are always good for creativity. Some limitations are productive. Others are neutral. And some are detrimental.

Or, in more pithy terms, "less is more" requires that you actually DO more with less. (Not necessarily "cover more things that you did before," but at least "cover more things per option.") Otherwise...less is, as one would expect, less.

So I think the limitations I am putting forth are at least acceptable to a portion of the playerbase and as such are fine.

I wasn't speaking of any specific limitations. I'm just saying that you can't claim that limitations are always good and thus a lack of limitations is always bad. That is simply not true. There are many things that contribute to creativity, yet many of those things can also detract from creativity if done unwisely.

A faraway country may only have a Greyhawk level description on day one but it will be fleshed out more if I go there.

I don't really see how that isn't compatible with what I said, so I'm kind of confused.

I don't think you do it on purpose but you do misunderstand me a lot.

I never intentionally misunderstand anyone. Unfortunately, I don't really know what to do with this statement.

Edit: It has nothing to do with the DM doing no wrong. Players have roles and DMs have roles.

And I reject the notion that the DM's role is one that deserves any special deference or trust from the word "go." Respect, trust, and enthusiasm are earned, the DM is not entitled to them simply by dint of having done pre-writing.