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

[Micah Sweet]

We don't even know what the objection is yet.

I don't feel like this imaginary person who exists to make a point is engaging the imaginary group here.

Yeah. I think an imaginary discussion where all the imaginary points are made and an imaginary compromise or other imaginary conclusion is reached.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We don't even know what the objection is yet.

I don't feel like this imaginary person who exists to make a point is engaging the imaginary group here.

I'm thinking of a similar real life issue that I had to smooth over as DM, so no, it's not purely hypothetical.

If you want to know what actually happened, I spoke to both parties after the game, explained why the other player was upset by what they wanted the party to do, and they agreed not to do anything similar again.

And of course, it involved religion.

It's very easy to forget, living in our digital bubbles as we do, that games can include players with very different cultures, religions and moral codes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm thinking of a similar real life issue that I had to smooth over as DM, so no, it's not purely hypothetical.

Yeah, but how are we supposed to discuss it if we're not privy to the information.

The reason I suggested burlesque there's no sex, just sexuality and some people against sex work aren't against burlesque. So there's a conversation to be had without making assumptions about that player's thoughts and motivations.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, but how are we supposed to discuss it if we're not privy to the information.

The reason I suggested burlesque there's no sex, just sexuality and some people against sex work aren't against burlesque. So there's a conversation to be had without making assumptions about that player's thoughts and motivations.

It's the inclusion of sexuality that is often an issue. Our game is PG - sex references are limited to innuendo (because we are British).

 

[Oofta]

But I can see how an extreme 'only the GM can say what exists' playstyle can be immersion-breaking for some. It puts the player and their character in a position of supreme ignorance about the world around them. Even the best GM's description can only go so far. Is there anyone else in the bar? I don't know, better ask the GM. Does this bar serve any food? I don't know, better ask the GM. Is there any music playing? I don't know, better ask the GM. Is there an ashtray or abandoned tankard on my table? I don't know, better ask the GM.

It seems to me that allowing players a small amount of discretion to fill in these everyday details themselves, rather than having to ask for permission, can make play feel much more alive and immediate.

For others, GM creating the world the PCs play in is more immersive. Doesn't mean that every single detail needs to be out of the mouth of the DM. If the PCs are outdoors and the player declares they pick up a handful of dirt, it would be unusual for the DM to clarify or restrict that. Perhaps the player states that they gather green leaves from a tree and the DM reminds them that it's winter and there are no green leaves.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's the inclusion of sexuality that is often an issue. Our game is PG - sex references are limited to innuendo (because we are British).

Then you've already had that conversation and the brothel person should have known, no DM necessary.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe they have to clear the brothel of monsters first?

If they're already there just hire them to work in the brothel.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Then you've already had that conversation and the brothel person should have known, no DM necessary.

People do not always remember that stuff. Hence the DM having to have a policeman's helmet along with all thier other hats.

But as I said, the real life issue involved religion, not sex, which had never come up in session zero. I can't get into the details, both because of privacy, and this website's no discussion of religion rules.

 

[CreamCloud0]

All this talk of "power" gives me the impression there is a "versus" viewpoint assumed here. What if the GM asks the player who else is in the bar? What if a player says "what if there's a drunken sailor in the bar?" and the GM enthusiastically agrees? What if a player says that and nobody's excited about that, or somebody (anybody at the table) points out that they are not in a port city? What if the GM and players, I dunno, collaborated on bending the world rather than fighting over it?

(I don't need to ask "what if?" about this because I have a GM who regularly does and encourages all that.)

(It's totally fine to play the power dynamic, by the way, but assuming it is correct, or universally desirable for every table, is not cool.)

i have no expectations of any dynamic where the GM is being put against 'versus' the player, i do however have expectations that the GM and player serve different roles as part of play, the GM is the world, the players are their characters, the use of the word 'power' is simply referring to having the capability of directly shaping the reality of the game world, the GM has this ability, the players do not-they have to act through their characters, the players may suggest anything they like, however, it is the GM who is the person who has the final say to accept or reject that suggestion as being part of the world or not, for they serve as the world.

 

[Vaalingrade]

People do not always remember that stuff. Hence the DM having to have a policeman's helmet along with all thier other hats.

But as I said, the real life issue involved religion, not sex, which had never come up in session zero. I can't get into the details, both because of privacy, and this website's no discussion of religion rules.

But again, the situation still doesn't require the DM and in fact could be made worse with the DM getting to overrule everyone if they decided to side with the brothel player instead of the group discussing and compromising.