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

[Scribe]

I absolutely despise this and other things (like the "true exotics" phrase). These things openly prejudice the game toward specific things and away from others. They are emphatically not something a "toolbox" should EVER be declaring, period.

Then I'm sure you approve of the obvious shift in the new edition. The bit you quoted there was almost certainly included to call back to the pre 4e fans.

 

[Greg K]

The books (for 5.0) straight-up explicitly say that humans/elves/etc. are present in effectively all settings, meaning they are instructing DMs they aren't allowed to not use those tools.

Why should I care what the books say on that regard? It is, imo, the same bad advice we started seeing from the designers in mid to late 3.5 beginning in Andy Collin's Sibling Rivalry column on the WOTC website. That article contradicted everything he wrote earlier in Dragon Magazine. It came across to me then as advice good for selling their products, but not necessarily good advice as a whole for the game given different preferences for what people want in their D&D fantasy and the variety of possible influences. Some want to lean towards Tolkien while others might want to lean into Arthurian, more human-centric medieval fantasy , Perdido Street Station science fiction influence, some particular anime that may or may not have Tolkien races, or any other number of influences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Based on what they want their PCs to do.

In the example of play in the AW rulebook, Marie's player wants (as Marie) to visit grief on Isle. So goes to look for her. That does not require a dice roll but rather simply prompts the GM to say something. The GM, following the principles, chooses to tell Marie's player that she finds Isle (and two other people) sitting on the roof of a car eating tinned peaches.

Marie's player declares that she (as Marie) walks past them and uses her mental powers to compel Isle to follow her. This requires a roll, and the result of the roll requires the GM to decide whether Isle does what she wants, or suffers (what D&D would call) psychic damage. The GM opts for the latter, and describes Isle's head lolling onto her boyfriend's shoulder.

Marie's player, like Marie, is disappointed by this outcome. And so goes back home. As this doesn't require a roll, the GM says what happens next, and describes noises at Marie's door after she's been home for a few hours - the noises are Isle's friends coming to get revenge against Marie. And then asks Marie what she does.

Etc.

On what basis do they decide what they want their PCs to do?

 

[Oofta]

Why should I care what the books say on that regard? It is, imo, the same bad advice we started seeing from the designers in mid to late 3.5 beginning in Andy Collin's Sibling Rivalry column on the WOTC website. That article contradicted everything he wrote earlier in Dragon Magazine. It came across to me then as advice good for selling their products, but not necessarily good advice as a whole for the game given different preferences for what they want in their D&D fantasy given the variety of possible influences. Some want to lean towards Tolkien while others might want to lean into Arthurian, more human-centric medieval fantasy , Perdido Street Station science fiction influence, some particular anime that may or may not have Tolkien races, or any other number of influences.

I would be more concerned if it were actually true.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why should I care what the books say on that regard? It is, imo, the same bad advice we started seeing from the designers in mid to late 3.5 beginning in Andy Collin's Sibling Rivalry column on the WOTC website. That article contradicted everything he wrote earlier in Dragon Magazine. It came across to me then as advice good for selling their products, but not necessarily good advice as a whole for the game given different preferences for what they want in their D&D fantasy given the variety of possible influences. Some want to lean towards Tolkien while others might want to lean into Arthurian, more human-centric medieval fantasy , Perdido Street Station science fiction influence, some particular anime that may or may not have Tolkien races, or any other number of influences.

Indeed. The books say all sort of silly things. They're just dead words on a paper, ignore them if they go against what you want to do.

Also, with themes, I don't that much care what the theme is, rather than that there is one. I greatly prefer that the setting has some sort of thematic focus and vibe, even if it was not my favourite one. What I find unappealing is generic unfocused whatevergoes. (cough*forgottenrealms*cough) That is my issue with collaborative world building. It can work, but often without one unifying vision it has a good chance of ending up like that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In the post you responded to, I quoted a post from @Oofta which illustrates the players not knowing the stakes.

And my impression is that this is very common in "living world" play.

I don't quite see the relevance of people in real life not getting to make informed choices. Most of real life is not playing a game.

I would prefer my PCs make choice based on what they have reason to know, not on what I want from the story narratively or what I know outside of the PC.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the post you responded to, I quoted a post from @Oofta which illustrates the players not knowing the stakes.

And my impression is that this is very common in "living world" play.

I don't think it is that common. I think it is generally good for players to make informed decisions, but this doesn't mean they need to be perfectly informed all the time. It also might sometimes require the players to take actions to obtain information instead of just rushing headlong to do things.

I don't quite see the relevance of people in real life not getting to make informed choices. Most of real life is not playing a game.

I think you at this point should see the relevance, given that it has been explained to you countless times over the years by several people. But in case you have forgotten, it is the goal for some people create an impression of being a person living in a fantasy world like we live in the real world.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would agree that if the players and DM have agreed on a focused concept campaign, blowing that up a few sessions in isn’t good play.

As a hypothetical, it could be the concept isn’t as engaging, or the players are flaky. Both definitely happen.

Seems like the proper response in at least the first case is "This isn't really working for us. I don't think we want to continue." And being flaky is often the cause of being chaos-bringers, but at the very least, people who want to tolerate an unlimited degree of that are on fool's errand if they try to focus a campaign at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd rather the players get to see the fruits of their actions, to be honest. That doesn't mean that you can't have aspects of the settings that potentially turn into lengthy, emotional resonant events. But the players choose with what they wish to engage.

That really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

[TwoSix]

Seems like the proper response in at least the first case is "This isn't really working for us. I don't think we want to continue." And being flaky is often the cause of being chaos-bringers, but at the very least, people who want to tolerate an unlimited degree of that are on fool's errand if they try to focus a campaign at all.

So I'm assuming you're anti-beekeeping campaign.