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

[Crimson Longinus]

I generally ask questions when people bring up things with which I’m not familiar.

I sure have tried!

 

[soviet]

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.

Oofta, earlier in the thread you made the above comment, which seemed to accept that some very minor player narration of things in the PC's environment would be acceptable.

I appreciate there is a spectrum here, and that 'I bump into my old schoolfriend down at the docks' or the like would be a stretch too far for many people. But in the post of mine that your quote above replied to, the examples I gave of player narration to fill in expected or plausible scene details were:

• whether there are other people at the bar (by which I mean NOT specific people, just people in general, or perhaps typical kinds of bar clientele such as drunks, barstaff, local farmers, etc)
• whether the bar serves food
• whether the bar has any music playing
• whether the PC's table has an ashtray or abandoned tankard on it

Do these constitute 'world bending' in your view? Are they acceptable exercises of player narration?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s as a player. I asked why you feel that way as a DM.

Imagine you have a player who doesn’t share your preference. Why would you want to hold that player to the same process from your perspective as a DM?

For my part, I feel that creating the world is my duty (and my joy) as a DM. I've also never had a player that objected to that in principle. I have had players object to specific points of narration, and when that happens we discuss it. Sometimes my narrations stands, and sometimes I change it because the player made a good point or corrected an actual error on my part.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I explained how the rule works: players enter and leave the phase at the same time. Thus the game mandates party play.

Thus the character cannot leave town or camp alone, making @Lanefan's original assumption that you mocked correct?

 

[Vaalingrade]

And... what about the players who do want that and came to an alleged collaborative storytelling game for that?

And if someone replies, please do so without using the words preference, opinion or associated synonyms.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The bar is just an example. Likewise the leaves on the trees.

I mean, the GM tells us that we're in the castle, at the king's court. I imagine that the castle has a Master of Horses - a chief groom - and so declare, "I go to speak to the Master of Horses!" Is that reasonable, or do I have to ask the GM's permission.

The GM tells us that we're in the castle, at the king's court, and even mentions the Master of Horses. I assume that the Master of Horses lives in the castle, and so declare "I wait until the Master of Horses is at the stables, and then sneak into his quarters." Is that reasonable?

Even returning to the tavern: I declare "I grab a burning brand from the fireplace." Is that reasonable? Does the GM have to describe the fire and its fuel, for it to count as a good description?

Every description leaves stuff unstated or implicit. And every bit of setting that the GM assumed to be mere background, can be rendered salient by a player's action declaration (assuming the game is not a railroad).

If, at every point, the player has to go back to the GM for permission and clarification, that - in my view - undercuts immersion, by fostering a sense of alienation and disembodiment.

I'm not sure why you keep explaining this to me. I have said several times that I am fine with players inferring certain things. I just feel that getting everyone to imagine the same sort of stuff in the first place is helped by the GM including anchoring information in their initial description. Like do you have something against the GM telling how crowded the bar is when they first describe it?

 

[Oofta]

That’s as a player. I asked why you feel that way as a DM.

Imagine you have a player who doesn’t share your preference. Why would you want to hold that player to the same process from your perspective as a DM?

Because it works for me and my groups. Because when we sit down to play D&D I assume we're playing D&D not another game. Because it's never, ever been an issue. Because I've had a handful of players who, given the restrictions of D&D were fine but who I know would abuse the ability to add to the worlds fiction and D&D doesn't have the guardrails in place to counter that and I don't want to have to deal with it. Because I accept that I may not be the right DM for every player and I don't try to be.

If a player doesn't share my preference (the default play style for D&D) then they need to find a different DM. No hard feelings, we're just not a good match for each other. I have plenty of players who are enthusiastic about how I DM.

 

[Oofta]

Oofta, earlier in the thread you made the above comment, which seemed to accept that some very minor player narration of things in the PC's environment would be acceptable.

I appreciate there is a spectrum here, and that 'I bump into my old schoolfriend down at the docks' or the like would be a stretch too far for many people. But in the post of mine that your quote above replied to, the examples I gave of player narration to fill in expected or plausible scene details were:

• whether there are other people at the bar (by which I mean NOT specific people, just people in general, or perhaps typical kinds of bar clientele such as drunks, barstaff, local farmers, etc)
• whether the bar serves food
• whether the bar has any music playing
• whether the PC's table has an ashtray or abandoned tankard on it

Do these constitute 'world bending' in your view? Are they acceptable exercises of player narration?

A player can of course make reasonable assumptions. That there's air unless I say otherwise, that trees in my world are green, that horses have 4 legs and whinny unless I tell them otherwise. If you're in the wilderness, most areas will have dirt (there are, of course exceptions). But if they're in a bar and I haven't established that there is music playing and they state that they go up to the band and ask for a specific tune I'll tell them that there is no band or music.

Obviously there are times when the vision of player and DM don't match close enough for gameplay. But the DM corrects the misconception or the assumption of the player, the player does not establish that there is a band.

 

[pemerton]

Ok, I can accept that you can immerse using this method.

Thank you.

Now, to take this all the way back to what prompted my engagement in this particular topic in this thread:

the reason I want the rules to be aligned with the fiction, is because then I can only think about the fiction, and the rules will follow. But if you disassociate them, then you end up thinking about the rules more, as the decisions about the rules become disconnected from the decisions of the character so you need to do them separately.

As I posted upthread, this is an empirical conjecture, and is false.

There may be some RPGers for whom (say) the ability to give it your all by spending points on bonus dice disconnects them from their PC's decision.

But that is not true in general.

 

[Oofta]

Thus the character cannot leave town or camp alone, making @Lanefan's original assumption that you mocked correct?

My guess would be that the games simply work with a completely different construct. It's like someone playing checkers and someone else saying the player must pay rent if they land on Boardwalk. It makes no sense to the person playing checkers because they have no concept of what "Boardwalk" is.