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

[Micah Sweet]

The analysis on what is happening in Brindlewood Bay games is a little more than a hair askew:

The players are still solving mysteries. It's just that the unraveling mysteries and their solves are (a) emergent and (b) a byproduct of a combination of procedural generation via system + intuitive continuity (which simultaneously binds, generates, and propels the action) + anchored by PC playbook premise.

Those games are absolutely still TTRPGs that center unraveling and solving mysteries. It is just that those unraveling mysteries and their solves are not wholly prefabricated GM puzzles and the role of players isn't exclusively to probe environs and denizens, prompting clue reveals and exposition dumps from the GM, in order to unravel the mystery and its solve.

See to me that would make it feel unrealistic, since aspects of the actual mystery are determined by the people solving it, and that doesn't make sense for the kind of setting I want. I'm absolutely not saying it can't work well for some people. Just not me.

 

[soviet]

Maybe technically, but the perspective of @pemerton , @hawkeyefan , and others seems deeply informed by their experiences of and preferences for narrative-focused games (PBtA, Stonetop, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, and Blades in the Dark are all current or recent games for these two I believe). Those games not only use very different rules from traditional D&D and its relatives, but very different philosophies of play and different balances of GM/player authority. What seems simple and logical from that perspective may not be so from a different one.

I understand. I also like games of that type, and in fact wrote and published one called Other Worlds that has 'players create the gameworld' as a central part of play.

My posts, and I think the posts of others, have still been about what's possible or enjoyable within D&D. I don't just play storygame style RPGs. I also play and GM traditional games like D&D, MERP, and WFRP 1e.

When I run those games I do approach them differently, and I don't delegate world creation elements to the players in the same way. BUT, I have learned that such delegation can be fun, particularly at a micro level. So if the players go somewhere I haven't prepped, eg a roadside tavern, I might ask them to tell me some things about it - who the landlord is, whether there's a band, whather there's food, other details. I might even deliberately leave things as blank during prep with the express intention of asking the players those questions in play. And if players say stuff like 'hey, I know a blacksmith round here'... well, maybe they do. I try to roll with it. Sometimes I really have prepped the whole village, or there's a special reason why there wouldn't be a blacksmith, and then I would say no.

While some games are more equipped to handle this stuff than others, I don't think there's anything special about D&D or other trad games that makes player contributions to the world difficult, or risky.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, I don't think that is a problem I have. If you do, then obviously you should do something about it. But the implication here is that GM deciding certain things makes players unhappy. It generally doesn't.

What? We’re talking about a case where there may be conflict between a DM and a player. If there’s no conflict, then there’s no problem.

As I’ve already said, this stuff works fine in my D&D game.

Is it though? Because every actual example of the GM saying no is met by criticism by the same couple of people.

I’ve shared examples involving a DM saying no.

Do we all agree? I'm not quite sure that @pemerton does.

You’d have to ask him. As I said, I have a good idea of his preferences and expectations for play.

So it still really isn't about exploits or bad faith play. (Or it could, but that's not the point I've desperately been trying to get across.) It is that if we accept it as axiomatic that it is bad form for the GM to block player lore suggestions, then, in absent of other constrains it becomes valid gameplay strategy to use such suggestions to gain an advantage. And that is not bad faith play, that is just how the game now works. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but It changes the decision landscape of the game significantly, and not in the direction I would like in a game that is net designed to handle it.

As I said, I haven’t had such issues.

That you suggest that it comes with a drawback tells to me that you actually do see it as different. Why there is no cost or sacrifice for knowing a tavern? Because one is mostly about flavour and another is about gaining an advantage.

I suggest a cost because it makes sense for the scale of the favor and the person being asked.

If you asked a thieves guild master for the location of something, you’d very likely include some kind of cost.

And if a player had their character ask a child on the street to locate the warded mcguffin, they’d get no assistance.

The situation in the game informs all of this.

Now another way these are different, and which I think is significant (I've been trying to tell you this in several posts) is that we are not just dealing with situational one-off with this divine intervention here. We are establishing a new tool in the toolbox of the players, one which they quite reasonably would expect to be able to be used again. And as this tool has no practical limit, it is super useful and applicable to all sort of situations. The limit is just the GM setting cost do high than the players are not willing to pay it (but isn't that just anothe way for saying "no"?) But I don't want the gameplay to become this sort of "mother Odin may I," where the players bargain with the GM-god to get things done.

Yes, this is the slippery slope argument.

I mean… I’ve shared an example from my game that involved this kind of thing, and my game did not suffer for it. In fact it benefitted.

So tell me an example from your game where you allowed this sort of thing and it became problematic.

 

[Oofta]

I assume practically everyone that has DMed D&D, even those who think the DM who said no to the Odin request "missed an opportunity", have a line they would not cross. An extreme example of course would be something like the player that says they call up their buddy an ancient dragon who just happens to be invincible and immune to all spells to destroy the enemy city. Basically the fantasy equivalent of a tactical nuke.

You can say "A player would never do that", but I have had players that pushed the boundaries just to see what would happen. If I never said no, the player admitted they would have just kept escalating. Even in the dragon scenario if the DM said the cost was that they become a dragon snack, some players would still go for it. Either out of a sense of noble sacrifice or because they wanted to play another character anyway.

So to me, much of this is just where you draw the line, when do you set limits. How much lore and setting detail can a player add and when? What limit is there to the actions they take and who decides the result?

But maybe there are some DMs that literally "Always say yes." I've just never had one and don't see how it would work for a D&D game in the long run unless of course there was some predefined limits. Maybe a verbal agreement or, I don't know, rules written in a book.

 

[Oofta]

The analysis on what is happening in Brindlewood Bay games is a little more than a hair askew:

The players are still solving mysteries. It's just that the unraveling mysteries and their solves are (a) emergent and (b) a byproduct of a combination of procedural generation via system + intuitive continuity (which simultaneously binds, generates, and propels the action) + anchored by PC playbook premise.

Those games are absolutely still TTRPGs that center unraveling and solving mysteries. It is just that those unraveling mysteries and their solves are not wholly prefabricated GM puzzles and the role of players isn't exclusively to probe environs and denizens, prompting clue reveals and exposition dumps from the GM, in order to unravel the mystery and its solve.

I'd have to see it to understand it. But I'm with @Micah Sweet on this one, even if it works for some people I just can't see it being as enjoyable an experience to me. I've tried shared narrative gaming, it's just not for me.

 

[Arilyn]

The analysis on what is happening in Brindlewood Bay games is a little more than a hair askew:

The players are still solving mysteries. It's just that the unraveling mysteries and their solves are (a) emergent and (b) a byproduct of a combination of procedural generation via system + intuitive continuity (which simultaneously binds, generates, and propels the action) + anchored by PC playbook premise.

Those games are absolutely still TTRPGs that center unraveling and solving mysteries. It is just that those unraveling mysteries and their solves are not wholly prefabricated GM puzzles and the role of players isn't exclusively to probe environs and denizens, prompting clue reveals and exposition dumps from the GM, in order to unravel the mystery and its solve.

I have to admit that the first time I ran Brindlewood Bay, I was nervous. I had a victim, a list of suspects, clues and locations. How is this going to come together? What if it takes only an hour to play? Will the players feel like they actually solved a mystery? Will the players be able to devise any kind of logical possibilities from this?

Works beautifully. We are having a blast and it's a fully immersive role playing experience, even with the cut to commercial mechanic! But I can understand if players hate that.

As far as D&D goes, 13th Age strongly encourages player input into the setting, even discounting The One Unique Thing mechanic, so D&D can certainly support player narrative input.

 

[soviet]

I assume practically everyone that has DMed D&D, even those who think the DM who said no to the Odin request "missed an opportunity", have a line they would not cross. An extreme example of course would be something like the player that says they call up their buddy an ancient dragon who just happens to be invincible and immune to all spells to destroy the enemy city. Basically the fantasy equivalent of a tactical nuke.

You can say "A player would never do that", but I have had players that pushed the boundaries just to see what would happen. If I never said no, the player admitted they would have just kept escalating. Even in the dragon scenario if the DM said the cost was that they become a dragon snack, some players would still go for it. Either out of a sense of noble sacrifice or because they wanted to play another character anyway.

So to me, much of this is just where you draw the line, when do you set limits. How much lore and setting detail can a player add and when? What limit is there to the actions they take and who decides the result?

But maybe there are some DMs that literally "Always say yes." I've just never had one and don't see how it would work for a D&D game in the long run unless of course there was some predefined limits. Maybe a verbal agreement or, I don't know, rules written in a book.

I think we have to assume a certain amount of good faith on the part of the player, right?

Do you know what I call people who would try to introduce their buddy TacNuke the Invincible Dragon to the adventure? I call them people I would never play with. I've never experienced this problem IRL.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe technically, but the perspective of @pemerton , @hawkeyefan , and others seems deeply informed by their experiences of and preferences for narrative-focused games (PBtA, Stonetop, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, and Blades in the Dark are all current or recent games for these two I believe). Those games not only use very different rules from traditional D&D and its relatives, but very different philosophies of play and different balances of GM/player authority. What seems simple and logical from that perspective may not be so from a different one.

I think a lot of this is on point. I have been speaking almost exclusively about D&D in this thread, except for a few comments on other games and examples of play from Pathfinder and Stonetop. But the style of play I’m advocating for… the recommendation that DMs do what they can to work with player ideas… has been about D&D.

Have my views been influenced by other games? Absolutely. I don’t see how that’s a problem in any way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that the mystery angle of the conversation is very revealing and really not all that different from a lot of the concerns expressed prior to this.

The idea is that there’s this thing that’s already here, and it’s expected for the players to engage with that thing. The DM has prepared this adventure/encounter/mystery, and it will require a specific sequence of actions to solve the problem.

 

[Scribe]

Reminds me of what is to me one of the biggest issues with D&D: so many different games over the decades with the same name.

I think the core of D&D has not really changed. I looked through the 5.5 DMG and its even more open to being the same as its always been, unlike the 5.5 PHB in terms of tone.

Whatever else is going on in this thread, for systems that are not D&D, again is just apples to oranges.