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

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, that's a fair point. I think it's generally good practice to establish new rules ahead of play and get everyone's buy in.

I don't think what was being described is exactly a rule, per se... nor could it be something that would generally be anticipated.

What about NPC relationships? Do you feel the need to restrict them or limit how they can work in some way? Do PCs in your game ever have NPC allies of significant power and/or influence? How would you see this as being very different?

Characters of course can have NPC allies. I however am a bit cautious about situations where they have some really powerful ally. It could lead to the situation where logically the NPC would just solve the PCs' problems for them, which would not necessarily produce an interesting game. Because whilst the characters probably would be trilled if Elminster showed up to beat the bad guys for them, it generally is something the players hate. So when putting powerful people in the world (which in mine are far rarer than in Forgotten Realms) I usually give them motivations and commitments that limit them. This of course doesn't mean that they could not offer any assistance.

Gods, I feel, are the Elmister problem times hundred. If we accept that the gods directly intervene, and not just act trough the powers they give to their clerics, then that becomes the ultimate trump card. There is nothing they could not solve. So whilst the gods in my D&D worlds are undeniably real, and do commune with people in some limited ways, they also do not directly involve themselves into mortal affairs.

Fair enough. I think it'd work fine. But I think I care more about the characters compared to the setting than a lot of folks here.

I don't hate your approach, but I feel it is better suited for a game in which magic and divine favour are handled in more freeform way to begin with. And I don't think this is really about caring about the world over the characters, my concerns were mainly about the gameplay dynamic.

 

[soviet]

--- Is there a DM out there who doesn't want more-proactive players?

Presumably, those GMs who continually say no when players suggest there might be someone else in the bar, music in the bar, food in the bar, etc.

--- Changing or overwriting rules after some forethought and consideration is often good. Doing so on a whim without forethought or consideration is almost always bad, if not right at the moment then later once the long-term effects emerge.

No fudging, in other words?

 

[Oofta]

Presumably, those GMs who continually say no when players suggest there might be someone else in the bar, music in the bar, food in the bar, etc.

Just because some people don't run the game the way you do does not mean players are helplessly shackled to the railroad tracks.

 

[Mort]

Characters of course can have NPC allies. I however am a bit cautious about a situations where they have some really powerful ally. It could lead to the situation where logically the NPC would just solve the PCs' problems for them, which would not necessarily produce an interesting game. Because whilst the characters probably would be trilled if Elminster showed up to beat the bad guys for them, it generally is something players hate. So when putting powerful people in the world (which in mine are far rarer than in Forgotten Realms) I usually give them motivations and commitments that limit them. This of course doesn't mean that they could not offer any assistance.

Certainly see your point, but there are usually good ways to ensure powerful allies don't become a big crutch.

One good one (though since I generally have the same players, I've only been able to pull this off once) is when the players ask the powerful mentor to solve their problem, but the baddies were anticipating exactly this (had in fact moved to set it up) and used the opportunity to trap the powerful mentor.

 

[soviet]

Just because some people don't run the game the way you do does not mean players are helplessly shackled to the railroad tracks.

No, but clearly players will be more inclined to be proactive if they don't feel it will be just shut down.

 

[Oofta]

No, but clearly players will be more inclined to be proactive if they don't feel it will be just shut down.

The players have almost complete freedom to do what they want in my campaign as long as they follow the rules of the game. One of those rules is that the player interacts with the world through their character's words and deeds. We also frequently discuss campaign direction, themes and tone.

It's utter BS to say my players can't be proactive and I get tired of the accusation being thrown around.

 

[Mort]

No, but clearly players will be more inclined to be proactive if they don't feel it will be just shut down.

One thing about threads like this - positions become polarized and extremes are taken/assumed.

At the table, A DM who insists on the standard D&D play loop, but is permissive about it and works with/for the interest/fun of the players and a DM who allows a degree of narrative fill-in from the players may not look all that different in the grand scheme of things.

But as I said, something like a 1,000 posts ago, A DM that constantly and consistently says no and shuts down the players is a big red flag.

 

[Oofta]

Certainly see your point, but there are usually good ways to ensure powerful allies don't become a big crutch.

One good one (though since I generally have the same players, I've only been able to pull this off once) is when the players ask the powerful mentor to solve their problem, but the baddies were anticipating exactly this (had in fact moved to set it up) and used the opportunity to trap the powerful mentor.

But if that "mentor" the player is going to for a favor is a god?

On a related note if a player takes something like the noble background they have to come up with a reason why the parental units don't just bail them out on a regular basis.

 

[Mort]

But if that "mentor" the player is going to for a favor is a god?

On a related note if a player takes something like the noble background they have to come up with a reason why the parental units don't just bail them out on a regular basis.

Well, that's why I said mentor and not god.

But this could absolutely happen (with a god)in a high power (or maybe even lower) campaign. Baddies manipulate the group (which has been shown to or worse flaunting) their connection to some god, into calling the god. Baddies then use a prepared ritual/some other means to trap the god. PCs run for their lives and now have a whole new set of problems and a lot of adventures ahead to solve them.

 

[soviet]

It's utter BS to say my players can't be proactive and I get tired of the accusation being thrown around.

I didn't say this at all. I said that continually shutting down player ideas is likely to make them less proactive.