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

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan whilst the approach you describe is fine and I've played that way, I do not prefer it. Now we all of course know that the game world is made up, but to me the act of making parts of it up during the play as a player calls attention the artificiality. It breaks the illusion of the world being objectively existing separate thing. It puts me from the actor mode to the author mode.

Yes, all approaches are fine and may be someone's preference. We don't need to say that anymore. I hope at this point that it's clear I'm not damning any type of play. I think I've been mostly very reasonable about this discussion, and I am approaching it with genuine curiosity. I'm assuming the same of everyone else!

So you mention actor mode and author mode here, and that's an interesting reason for your preference. There's a couple of things for me that matter here.

So for one... players shift out of actor stance all the time. I mean, it's just the nature of the game, right? And while I understand most people will say something like "well I try to keep such interruptions to a minimum", and I get that, I also think that sometimes there are instances of shifting away from actor into author that will subsequently enhance your actor stance portion of play.

Second, something like a person's faith... in this case, the relationship between a cleric and their deity is something I don't really view as external to my character. Looking at others to define that for me? That's far more intrusive to me than having to not think as my character for a moment.

Now, all this accomplishes is that we all engage with the fiction in our games in different ways, and there's no correct way for a given player to "get into character" or "immerse" or whatever other term you want for it. But it also means that we should understand what people say when they say "this is how it works for me".

When I say that, I don't think anyone should feel the need to defend their views. It shouldn't be "Well, my way is THIS way and I don't see why it matters" and all that. What I'm more looking for is more "Wow, that's interesting because it's so different for me... why does that feel internal to you?" and similar.

As far as I know, I don't have some deep psychological reason why I prefer the traditional separation of DM and player authority, and I don't think I need one to justify my preference. People have fun in different ways.

You don't have any need to justify anything to anyone. If I ask a question you don't want to answer, you can simply not reply. However, the end of your previous post said "I'll happily answer any more questions" so forgive me if I misunderstood.

Yes, we all have fun in different ways. I'm just trying to talk about why instead of continually pointing out that we have different preferences. We're getting there... but really, there's no need to point out what our respective preferences are any more, or that we're allowed to have them. I don't think any of us are saying otherwise.

The world feels more real to me when I, portraying a character born into that world and possessing abilities similar to that of a person living in this world (at least conceptually; as in, we are both people) don't have the ability or the responsibility to create parts of that world the character could not logically create on their own in-setting.

As a DM, I want and enjoy that responsibility.

Okay, cool. See for me, the world feels less real when my character seems like a little bubble floating in someone else's water and anything that makes it into the bubble is subject to some outsider's approval. The same way that you probably view your character's thoughts and feelings during play... that they're solely up to you as the player... I cast a wider net and include some other things with that.

I find that kind of approach makes it glaringly obvious that the world and my character are two entirely separate things that are later smooshed together.

 

[pemerton]

If we accept as axiomatic that the GM is not to block player suggestions regarding the setting, then using this to solve problems becomes a valid gameplay strategy for the players. And like I said in another post, D&D is not designed to be played that way and will not handle it well.

I'm not sure what problem is being solved by "I punch the nearest dude in the face".

But consider "I go to the castle to speak to the king." Presumably D&D has the resources to frame a check around that: CHA/Diplomacy/Persuasion might be a starting point.

Or, having arrived at a settlement, "I go to the blacksmith to buy some iron spikes". Presumably this can be resolved via Streetwise (4e) or Local Knowledge/History (3E) or maybe just an INT check (5e).

There is the question of establishing consequences for failure. I didn't generally have any problems with this GMing 4e. Maybe there are features of 5e that make it harder?

 

[pemerton]

something like a person's faith... in this case, the relationship between a cleric and their deity is something I don't really view as external to my character. Looking at others to define that for me? That's far more intrusive to me than having to not think as my character for a moment.

<snip>

the world feels less real when my character seems like a little bubble floating in someone else's water and anything that makes it into the bubble is subject to some outsider's approval.

<snip>

I find that kind of approach makes it glaringly obvious that the world and my character are two entirely separate things that are later smooshed together.

I think what you're describing here is similar to what I was getting at, upthread, using words like "alienated" and "disembodied".

 

[hawkeyefan]

And then they intentionally take steps to block the game veering outside of that.

Well, no… as I said, my earliest games were railroads not because I intended them to be, but because I didn’t know it could be any different.

Later I did it out of a combination of expectation on the part of my players (“surely it’s the DM who’s supposed to do all this”) and my desire to tell a story (“I’ll create a compelling world and make it fun”).

I don’t really think there’s intention involved there, either. Or if there is, it’s not specifically about railroading players so much as it is to do what’s expected of me.

Railroading is about controlling the overall trajectory of the game, not about individual details.

Okay… so I want to apply this to a recent example that’s come up because I think it’s enlightening.

Allowing the cleric of Odin to commune with his deity to help find the maguffin would be one trajectory of play, not allowing it in favor of (I presume) only allowing one of the DM’s predetermined paths to the maguffin is another trajectory of play.

Or at the very least, that’s how it could be viewed by some.

Do you see why?

In a system that has gods and the like, I think it can be helpful for the system to also provide some guidance on these sorts of matters.

Of course, that guidance won't necessarily create the game, or fiction, someone is looking for. That's one reason for having multiple different games!

So, in AD&D the rules spell out (with only a small amount of contradiction between the PHB and the DMG) how clerics relate to the gods. At low levels, not at all - 1st and 2nd level spells are essentially "rotes" that the character can prepare and perform due to their training. At mid levels, via intermediaries - 3rd to 5th level spells are bestowed upon the cleric by such beings. And then at upper levels, directly - the god is the granter of 6th and 7th level spells.

So a low-level cleric of Odin can speak a prayer, but unless performing an Augury ritual (or similar low-level spell) is really no better off than a common person praying to Odin. So that can be resolved via the Divine Intervention rules (found in the DMG). At higher levels, the communion takes place when memorising spells, and so the GM could use that as an opportunity to have an intermediary, or Odin himself, advise or even dictate to the cleric.

I don't know if the above is fully satisfying, in fiction and game play terms, but it is a model that can be applied by GM and player.

Yeah, it’s at least a structure. Though I imagine it’s also an element of play totally ignored or abandoned by many even in the AD&D days. And subsequent editions have done nothing to reinforce or restore it; I’d say most have mostly ignored it (though I could certainly be wrong… some editions had so many supplements that it may have been addressed and I totally missed it).

4e D&D takes a very different approach, without imposing the same "structure" or certainty that AD&D does. In my main 4e game, the player of the paladin would very frequently pray to the Raven Queen, from 1st level onwards. As the GM, I used the improvised action and skill challenge rules to handle this. Other players (via their PCs) would also get in on this sort of action from time to time. Here's an example of the sort of approach that I took:

You won't be surprised that, for me, the 4e approach is more satisfying than the AD&D approach. But both create a framework which is not just "shutting down".

No, not surprised at all. I tend to bring these relationships forward in play because to me, they are foundational to the characters. And my focus tends to be on characters more than setting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure what problem is being solved by "I punch the nearest dude in the face".

Not necessarily any, but that's not the limit of this. If we accept the player ability to suggest things into being as general principle, it will do much more.

But consider "I go to the castle to speak to the king." Presumably D&D has the resources to frame a check around that: CHA/Diplomacy/Persuasion might be a starting point.

Perhaps, though it will probably be way easier when the player suddenly announces that he has an invite from the king as he did a favour to him earlier, before the game began! Could have happened, seems plausible to me! If you say no, you're railroading!

Or, having arrived at a settlement, "I go to the blacksmith to buy some iron spikes". Presumably this can be resolved via Streetwise (4e) or Local Knowledge/History (3E) or maybe just an INT check (5e).

Are you saying that a successful check establishes the existence of the blacksmith? Because otherwise I don't see reason for any check here.

There is the question of establishing consequences for failure. I didn't generally have any problems with this GMing 4e. Maybe there are features of 5e that make it harder?

So are you suggesting an approach, where we roll dice to see whether the player gets to describe the things about the setting? Like if I want there to be a secret door, I roll perception and if I succeed there is? Or that if I want to declare that the mayor owes me a favour and I roll diplomacy and if I succeed, they do? Because that's not how D&D works or is designed to be played. And of course even in this sort of approach the GM can "railroad" by deciding which announcements require checks and which just autosucceed, and by setting DCs for the checks. Also neither 4e or 5e really has codified system for consequences for failure, in the same way than Blades or Apoc World has. Often the failure might just mean that nothing happens.

 

[soviet]

'There's a guy at the bar'

'This bar has a band playing'

'This town has a blacksmith'

'I have a personal invite from the King to visit him in the palace and cash in that favour he owes me'

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, no… as I said, my earliest games were railroads not because I intended them to be, but because I didn’t know it could be any different.

Later I did it out of a combination of expectation on the part of my players (“surely it’s the DM who’s supposed to do all this”) and my desire to tell a story (“I’ll create a compelling world and make it fun”).

I don’t really think there’s intention involved there, either. Or if there is, it’s not specifically about railroading players so much as it is to do what’s expected of me.



Okay… so I want to apply this to a recent example that’s come up because I think it’s enlightening.

Allowing the cleric of Odin to commune with his deity to help find the maguffin would be one trajectory of play, not allowing it in favor of (I presume) only allowing one of the DM’s predetermined paths to the maguffin is another trajectory of play.

Or at the very least, that’s how it could be viewed by some.

Do you see why?



Yeah, it’s at least a structure. Though I imagine it’s also an element of play totally ignored or abandoned by many even in the AD&D days. And subsequent editions have done nothing to reinforce or restore it; I’d say most have mostly ignored it (though I could certainly be wrong… some editions had so many supplements that it may have been addressed and I totally missed it).



No, not surprised at all. I tend to bring these relationships forward in play because to me, they are foundational to the characters. And my focus tends to be on characters more than setting.

See now this is interesting. I am far more interested in setting than I am in character, both as DM and player and both in stories and games (which I see as having quite different goals). I have always been fascinated by and hungry for setting details in all media I consume, since I was a child, and appreciate TV and film others dislike simply because it has a wealth of world details, even if the acting and/or storyline wasn't amazing. My most loved supplemental products are worldbooks and fictional encyclopedias. Imaginary worlds and exactly how they work have always been a passion.

You know, I guess I do have a psychological reason for my game preferences! Huh.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, no… as I said, my earliest games were railroads not because I intended them to be, but because I didn’t know it could be any different.

Later I did it out of a combination of expectation on the part of my players (“surely it’s the DM who’s supposed to do all this”) and my desire to tell a story (“I’ll create a compelling world and make it fun”).

I don’t really think there’s intention involved there, either. Or if there is, it’s not specifically about railroading players so much as it is to do what’s expected of me.

So when I say intentional, I don't think many people think "I will be a railroader and deny the player agency." But they will have preplanned direction to which they will intentionally push.

Okay… so I want to apply this to a recent example that’s come up because I think it’s enlightening.

Allowing the cleric of Odin to commune with his deity to help find the maguffin would be one trajectory of play, not allowing it in favor of (I presume) only allowing one of the DM’s predetermined paths to the maguffin is another trajectory of play.

Or at the very least, that’s how it could be viewed by some.

Do you see why?

I think it is good example because I think here we see why intentions matter. If the reason for not allowing it is that you're a second level cleric and it is determined that in this setting second level clerics simply do not have this sort of access to gods it is not railroading. If the reason is that the GM has preplanned course of events they want to be played for finding the macguffin and this would short circuit that, then it starts to seem more like railroading.

And I'm sure you are already thinking, but why does it matter, from the player perspective they got denied all the same. But it will matter in the long run. If the GM decided things based setting logic, themes and plausibility irrespective of what direction it takes the game, this will not consistently push things into any specific direction of the GM's choosing, and the players can also leverage this setting logic in their favour. An on the other hand if the GM often makes decisions to intentionally push things to specific direction to blocking alternative paths, this will become apparent to the players and it will probably be frustrating to the most.

I hope that we can agree that the principles based on which the GM makes their decisions do matter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

'There's a guy at the bar'

'This bar has a band playing'

'This town has a blacksmith'

'I have a personal invite from the King to visit him in the palace and cash in that favour he owes me'

One of these things is not like the other.

Absolutely! Sorta the point even. But then you seem to agree that there actually is good to have some limit on what sort of assumptions and suggestions the players are allowed to make regarding the setting?

 

[pemerton]

'I have a personal invite from the King to visit him in the palace and cash in that favour he owes me'

I mean, suppose we're playing 4e D&D and the PC is upper paragon tier, this sort of thing hardly seems out-of-bounds . . .