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

[Crimson Longinus]

Is there a nearby dude to punch? Is there a band to interact with? Is there a fireplace to take a brand from?

The fact that there are many other things to which the GM might say yes is not the key point; it's about who has the power to establish salience.

But for this to be railroading, it would require the GM to use this power to close avenues with an intent to shut down directions the player wants to take the game into on macro level such as leaving the town on personal business whilst others stay there.

GM making isolated micro decisions based on plausibility and vibes is not that, and it is laughable to suggest that it would. If we took you idea seriously, it would mean that in order to not to railroad, the GM should allow players to assume and ask into existence literally anything that was not previously explicitly excluded.

 

[Oofta]

But for this to be railroading, it would require the GM to use this power to close avenues with an intent to shut down directions the player wants to take the game into on macro level such as leaving the town on personal business whilst others stay there.

GM making isolated micro decisions based on plausibility and vibes is not that, and it is laughable to suggest that it would. If we took you idea seriously, it would mean that in order to not to railroad, the GM should allow players to assume and ask into existence literally anything that was not previously explicitly excluded.

I was in a campaign where a player was running a cleric of Odin. He insisted that he could just chat with Odin to find out exactly where the McGuffin was and how the BBEG was protecting it because "Odin sees all". The DM shut it down of course but that's the kind of player that would abuse the ability to add lore and details to the world. D&D does not have the checks and balances other games have to limit the impact of things players add.

 

[soviet]

But for this to be railroading, it would require the GM to use this power to close avenues with an intent to shut down directions the player wants to take the game into on macro level such as leaving the town on personal business whilst others stay there.

GM making isolated micro decisions based on plausibility and vibes is not that, and it is laughable to suggest that it would. If we took you idea seriously, it would mean that in order to not to railroad, the GM should allow players to assume and ask into existence literally anything that was not previously explicitly excluded.

Do you accept that if a GM shuts down every single player suggestion, such that no avenue that wasn't previously created by the GM is viable, the effect might be a form of railroading even if that wasn't the GM's intent?

If not, what term would be appropriate?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I was in a campaign where a player was running a cleric of Odin. He insisted that he could just chat with Odin to find out exactly where the McGuffin was and how the BBEG was protecting it because "Odin sees all". The DM shut it down of course but that's the kind of player that would abuse the ability to add lore and details to the world. D&D does not have the checks and balances other games have to limit the impact of things players add.

Right. And it doesn't need to even be as blatant as that to become an issue. The intended checks and balances in D&D is the GM adjudication, but some people do not seem to find that acceptable.

 

[soviet]

I seem to remember that early on in this thread, several people on the more 'GM authority' side made comments that their games were inundated with players and potential players. I find it difficult to reconcile this apparently deep pool of candidates with the notion that 'players can't be trusted and will exploit every small freedom you give them'.

Personally I just play with the same group of old friends, occasionally with new people added, and I've never experienced these difficulties with player overreach.

 

[hawkeyefan]

At a certain point, asking the question repeatedly and not accepting any answer becomes sealioning after a while. I've explained why I do what I do and it seems that no amount of explanation will suffice. The only other thing I can point out is that while I'm good at extemporaneous creativity, a lot of people are not. Put them on the spot and ask them to describe the person they're talking to and it will be incredibly stressful and unfun.

The immersion factor applies to both DM and player for me. As a DM I'm immersing myself in the world, picturing it and figuring out how the different pieces are interacting and how they're going to respond to what the players say and do. Yes, sometimes I'll fill in the picture a bit based on players asking questions, but that's different from players regularly adding to the picture and then trying to figure out how to add it in. Especially now because I have to figure out what it is exactly they're adding. Is there a band? If I add it, I can decide certain details as needed and riff off of it. If the player does it, is it a bluegrass band? Jazz equivalent? Perhaps a sultry lounge singer? Or are we going with Renaissance Festival folk music? Now it's 20 questions to the player, it's just flipping who needs to add details. I can't just run with my image of the band and characterizations of the band members, I have to fit it to the player's imagination. Maybe I imagine a Willie Nelson as main singer and they're envisioning ye' old version of Taylor Swift.

As a player I want to focus on my character, what they're thinking and feeling. I want to experience the world not create it.

But it really comes down to an agreement on what game we're playing. I can't explain why I like the standard style of D&D other than "it's a preference" any more than I can explain why I prefer the taste of whole wheat bread to white, I just like the flavor better. Why do I put grape jelly on my toast instead of strawberry? Because it's a preference. We like what we like and sometimes there's no deeper meaning.

So in your post that I quoted, you mentioned that you’d be concerned about players abusing the kind of authorial influence we’ve been talking about. That was a new idea introduced to the conversation, and that’s what I asked about.

Instead of talking about that, you respond with the above. Which, as you point out, you’ve said before.

Can’t we talk about that instead? About the idea that players can abuse the authority and how D&D doesn’t have sufficient “guardrails” to prevent that? That was an interesting thought.

I’ve said I’m interested in examining why we have the preferences we do. I’ve made that obvious. I’ve flat out said that’s what I’m asking about. If you’re not interested in doing that, then that’s fine… but you can just not respond or respond with a simple “I’m not interested in talking about why I have the preferences I have”. You don’t need to type an essay that says nothing new.

And you’ll have to forgive me for assuming that someone who’s taken part in a discussion as long as you have… who’s made as many posts as you and who seems to have strong feelings about the topic of rule zero and player authority… might have some thoughts that are deeper about the topic than they do about the type of jelly they like on their toast.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you accept that if a GM shuts down every single player suggestion, such that no avenue that wasn't previously created by the GM is viable, the effect might be a form of railroading even if that wasn't the GM's intent?

What is meant by "player suggestion" here? Because to me this includes action declarations and their intended outcomes, not just setting elements (In fact, in D&D it is mostly the former.) Because if we include that, it would be railroading, but also not something that generally actually happens.

But if we are talking just about setting elements, then no, it would not be. Like my setting are not so detailed that I would have streetmaps of every city or details of every person in a bar preplanned, so in effect some things are made up on the spot and some of those might be made up due player prompting. But in this thread we've heard of people who do preplan in such detail (which to me seems insane, because it is so much work.) And I don't think the GM declaring what exists based on their notes irrespective of player desires is railroading, if the players can still interact with and utilise the GM determined elements.

 

[Oofta]

So in your post that I quoted, you mentioned that you’d be concerned about players abusing the kind of authorial influence we’ve been talking about. That was a new idea introduced to the conversation, and that’s what I asked about.

Instead of talking about that, you respond with the above. Which, as you point out, you’ve said before.

Can’t we talk about that instead? About the idea that players can abuse the authority and how D&D doesn’t have sufficient “guardrails” to prevent that? That was an interesting thought.

I’ve said I’m interested in examining why we have the preferences we do. I’ve made that obvious. I’ve flat out said that’s what I’m asking about. If you’re not interested in doing that, then that’s fine… but you can just not respond or respond with a simple “I’m not interested in talking about why I have the preferences I have”. You don’t need to type an essay that says nothing new.

And you’ll have to forgive me for assuming that someone who’s taken part in a discussion as long as you have… who’s made as many posts as you and who seems to have strong feelings about the topic of rule zero and player authority… might have some thoughts that are deeper about the topic than they do about the type of jelly they like on their toast.

I've replied the best I can. See my post above about the player with the cleric of Odin for an example of how people would abuse the ability to add to the fiction of the world through things other than what their character says and does. There are no built in limitations for limiting that kind of thing in D&D because it's not designed for players having that role.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Error

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was in a campaign where a player was running a cleric of Odin. He insisted that he could just chat with Odin to find out exactly where the McGuffin was and how the BBEG was protecting it because "Odin sees all". The DM shut it down of course but that's the kind of player that would abuse the ability to add lore and details to the world. D&D does not have the checks and balances other games have to limit the impact of things players add.

This is an interesting example worth some discussion!

In what way did the DM “shut it down”? Did they just pause the game and say “yeah, that’s not the way things work”?

Or did he say that “Odin knows all. Long ago when the worlds were young Odin gave his eye to Mimir’s well for knowledge of secret things. Odin knows the cost of knowledge. Do you? What will you sacrifice to know what you seek?”