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

[AnotherGuy]

Following up with the natural question, did the fact that the powergamer created beneficial NPCs stymie your efforts to challenge the party?

Not at all.

It seems to me threatening the relationships the players’ created (especially the powergamer) makes it easier rather than harder to challenge the player.

The party may not care about saving the burgomaster’s son, but if Tom the blacksmith is too depressed to finish the 1,500 gp platemail he promised you because his son is missing, you’re definitely going to find that waif.

Yes there is that since they were created by them, they would supposedly care for them more. I haven't gone down that road, I've mostly used the NPCs to provide information, enlightenment, provide assistance and create complications.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, an idea that the player introduced. An angle to try and address a problem that didn’t come from the DM.

That’s pandora’s box?

No. It doesn't matter from whom this tactic came from. Were it GM introduced I would equally feel it was a bad idea. And I literally said this ages ago already.

Now, I get that folks don’t prefer to play that way… and that’s fine. What I’m objecting to is the idea that it cannot work.

But, AFAIK, no one has said that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So, I often use dice to inform the fiction, particularly if I do not have anything planned, but in the instance where I have things planned (which these days becomes less and less, 15th level and all),
I usually run the clock = x time passes but you are unable to find/persuade y.

(4) What I have in mind when I talk about "GM-controlled way of establishing consequences" is when the GM uses their knowledge of secret setting information (an unrevealed map, or unrevealed stakes in an unrevealed key) to introduce consequences into the fiction regardless of what the players take to be at stake in their action declaration. For instance, the GM "knows" (= has decided), based on their notes, that there is nothing of the sort of thing that the PCs are looking for able to be found in a given place, but lets the players spend time futilely having their PCs search.

When dice are used then complications could arise or rewards/clues found, otherwise IMO why bother with dice, I just run the clock and move to the next scene framing or action declaration.

Or the GM "knows" (again, = has decided) that a certain NPC won't accept a particular request, yet allows the players to spend time futilely trying to persuade or negotiate with that NPC.

Again in this instance, I run the clock, you spend x minutes debating with y but are unable to persuade her to see your way.
As above with dice.
i.e. due to a poor turn in the conversation PC incurs disadvantage on future social interactions with y or although y doesn't fully commit she is sympathetic to your plight and thus offers x to assist you - along those lines.

Do you ever tell the player, based on their character's insight, that y's initial interaction is not to assist/commit, and then ask if the character decides to engage further the results will be determined via a SC.
And then proceed to inform the player upfront of the possible stakes and possible rewards of failure and success respectively?

The stuff I've described just above in (4) has some overlap with (3), in terms of the techniques used (hidden information, map-and-key). But it differs in the way the GM approaches the relationship between (i) that information, (ii) framing of scenes/situations, (iii) the players' knowledge of what is at stake in scenes/situations, and hence (iv) how consequences of players' declared actions are established.

The approach in (4) is pretty fundamental, I think, to many people's ways of approaching RPGing, but is something I try to avoid. Hopefully you can see, in how I describe (3), that this avoidance can have an element of judgement and trial-and-error to it! But nevertheless is a real thing that one can aim for as a GM.

Thanks, got it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My bewilderment is about the enormity of expectations for the DM to do all that work himself, to keep track of it all, to make sure it’s all consistent, to make sure it’s all clear.

To have the ability to onboard player declarations and integrate them into the setting, and to have things adjust accordingly.

But to think that if the player contributes an idea for play beyond what their character can do, the DM can’t deal with it.

That idea bewilders me.

for some people it is simply more work to have to adapt around and incorporate other people's 'help' than it is to just have control of the whole thing themselves, after all players who make suggestions often do not have the whole picture, just what is immediately presented before them-if that, so it is not an 'expectation' for a GM to labour under it is a 'advantage' to be allowed to do it all themselves, to know where everything is and how it functions.

Now, I get that folks don’t prefer to play that way… and that’s fine. What I’m objecting to is the idea that it cannot work. That it’s flawed in some way. That it’s a slippery slope that will lead to further problems.

It’s simply not the case. It it doesn’t work for a given DM, sure… than it’s a case of that DM not being skilled at or comfortable with that approach. The issue is not with the approach itself.

we have never said that the style itself cannot work, and it is not the mark of a 'more skilled GM' to run a game that way, we simply just do not prefer to run games that way, and that is in no way a flaw in our style of GMing.

 

[Lanefan]

This depends on the players.
In all my years of gaming i've never experienced these players and DMs who prefer beating the game to telling great stories.

What's to say these two things aren't often one and the same?

Also, beating the game also implies that sometimes the game beats you, which is also a source of great stories.

 

[Lanefan]

Me personally? I'll let anyone try pretty much anything as long as it makes some kind of sense in our story.

With the operative word being "try".

I'm a bit the same way - you can try anything; and even though your odds of success might be vanishingly small, if the action makes sense those odds will rarely if ever be outright zero.

Divine intervention is something that any halfway devout character can try for...but on the long-shot chance the deity happens to be paying attention, there's still no guarantee any intervention will be in the character's favour or achieve anything remotely close to what the character wants.

 

[KYRON45]

What's to say these two things aren't often one and the same?

Also, beating the game also implies that sometimes the game beats you, which is also a source of great stories.

We all have different perspectives.

 

[Lanefan]

That's not what was problematic. I was saying that the idea that the DM giving the player some authority is a pandora's box and is therefore problematic. It's going to lead to other issues later.

It will.

As a player, if I'm given the ability to do something in the game and don't then at least try to use it to the limit, I'm not doing my job.

Giving players an ability or permission and then asking them to self-restrain or self-police their use of that ability is stupid. It's black and white: they either have an ability or they don't, and if they have it they can use it to the full.

Which means, don't give out an ability until you're sure you're willing to live with it no matter what uses the players see fit to put it to.

 

[Lanefan]

My personal interpretation is that D&D has moved away from having any sorts of "win conditions" or "loss conditions" that impact the player, and that's been the case for a very long time.

Some of us do our best to stand in opposition to this trend.

There are some diegetic "losses" that impact the path of the story. A TPK would generally be considered a group loss, but those are rare and often viewed to be as much a failure of the DM as of the players.

Player loss via "character death" is mitigated by the common condition of creating a new character at the same level as the current party and immediately integrating the new character into the party and story.

With "playing to win" mostly obviated as a player goal, the play goals then become maximizing the entertainment value and story quality within the game framework.

The bolded commentary makes me sad.

 

[Lanefan]

If you're playing in a game where the GM lets you create minor setting elements, and you don't want to create minor setting elements, can't you just choose not to create minor setting elements?

You could, but it's a poor choice to make if other players are gaining an in-play advantage by their creating setting elements while you are not.

Similar to how a player who doesn't track mundane equipment and instead just declares it into existence when it's needed has a clear in-play advantage over a player who meticulously tracks a character's mundane equipment.