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

[Oofta]

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.

Specific secrets? Who knows what? What clues will there be? Even some possible paths? Sure. Enforcing a specific path, action or sequence of steps the players must take? Nah. At least not with any decent DM I've ever had. I'm playing D&D not a video game.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Then you are assuming limits enforced by the players based on either predefined expectations, verbal agreement or rules of a game. Like I said, there are limits it's just a question of where and how those limits are set.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

What does it mean to "feel unrealistic" here? Are you certain that is the word you're looking for? Unrealistic doesn't seem to fit here (a) given the context of your reply and (b) given that our games + their settings + their core genre logic are utterly steeped in "unrealistic."

Did you maybe mean something more like "see to me that would make it feel unsatisfying <because the core experience I'm looking for as a player is to exclusively probe environs and denizens, prompting clue reveals and exposition dumps from the GM, in order to unravel the mystery and its solve>?"

@Oofta , I see you just answered as well. Does the above paragraph fit your position as well (subbing unsatisfying in for unrealistic and then the elaboration at the end)?

---

I appreciate your perspective, although I don't think anyone is saying we don't understand why some people prefer a different approach than the D&D default play loop. I do understand some of your issues, I get mental dissonance every time a TV show has a hacker wearing glasses with letters projected onto it breaking into a system by madly clicking their keyboard.

But, for example, telling someone what the emotional state of their character is results in a massive red flag for some people. Bram the Brave is never frightened by anything! Just ask Joe, the player. Now, I think that fear and our reactions to certain situations is pretty much baked into us and is healthy. Unless Bram is abnormal, there are times when they should be frightened. Doesn't mean they won't still do what they need to. I'm reminded of the difference between bravery and courage, bravery is being too stupid to be afraid and courage is doing it anyway. But it's really not my place to tell Joe that their PC is frightened, it's his character and fantasy not mine. Maybe they've based their PC on a fictional character, maybe it's just his way dealing with some real life issues.

So I think we just need to find like minded groups and not worry too much about how other people play and why. Personally if I had someone that I knew was into mountain climbing and I knew I had such a scene coming up I'd ask for advice and have them add a bit of descriptive flavor to how their climbing. They just don't get to decide there is no mountain.

@Manbearcat whilst I totally agree that how one approaches immersion is highly personal I don’t think it is useless to think these things on population level. If one would want to write a game that is immersive to most people it is pretty useful to know how most people achieve immersion!

And your comment on social/emotion mechanics certainly is illustrative of the great variation that exists in how people feel about these things. To me mechanics that tell me how my character acts or feels are the worst. It is not that my characters are emotionless, always-in-control Vulcans, far from it. But to me their reactions stem from my mental model of the character and situations where my mental model says one thing but the mechanics say another are literally the worst immersion killer I know. In fact, I feel that running this mental model is the main thing for my role as a player, so my reaction to systems that routinely override it is that I am not really needed and the GM can use these rules to determine how my character acts and I can leave and go to do something that’s worth my time. To me such mechanics butcher the core of what I seek from roleplaying, and kill the sort of agency I care about the most.

Just a couple things here (that could use some clarification from you guys):

1) As CL notes at the bottom, system/mechanics in these cases (and/or GM's required mediation when prompted by system) is what does the work of momentarily hijacking a character's emotional states (like on a failed move where the PC's emotional state is on the line) or correcting their accumulated knowledge (like on a failed move where the PC's recollection or knowledge is on the line). Just to make sure all lurkers and respondents in the conversation understand, these sorts of system-based moments of play aren't unconstrained GM fiat or uses of GM Force to ensure a GM-preferred outcome. They're resolved by system and player collisions within the scope of the play of the game.

2) On which of the two is more immersive:

* momentary PC emotional state (etc) hijack

vs

* complete and perpetual player autonomy over PC emotional state

I have to say...these one is a bit odd to me. It feels like almost a category error to call the latter more immersive than the former. Again, to harken back to the top of this post, I almost feel like "unsatisfying <given certain other priorities>" is what we're looking for here? I mean, how can it be immersive to have absolute autonomy over your emotional state? That doesn't happen for any human ever? That also doesn't happen to heroes (big damn or otherwise) or even gods in high fantasy or mythology or romantic fiction?

So maybe instead of "immersive," what we're looking for here for clarity and exactness is more like "satisfying given my priorities for a particular genre of power fantasy that requires absolute authorship over the rendering of my PC's mood and feelings?"

It seems to me we're kind of folding in priorities around a particular type of (i) power fantasy expectations + (ii) authorship rights and calling it (iii) immersion? Those aren't the same, right? In some cases (IMO this one exactly), those priorities might actually come into conflict.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

To be fair, 13th Age owes a great deal of its DNA to the least traditional version of D&D, and for my money takes it farther away from the classic style than 4e did.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I'm fine with assuming good faith from the player so long as that street goes both ways. There are definitely folks around here who would have an issue assuming the same good faith from the GM.

 

[Xamnam]

I mean, how can it be immersive to have absolute autonomy over your emotional state? That doesn't happen for any human ever? That also doesn't happen to heroes (big damn or otherwise) or even gods in high fantasy or mythology or romantic fiction?

Not to ignore the rest of your excellent post, but to address just this: If a player's goal method/process to create immersion is to inhabit a character mind to the best of their ability (or, say, play a character who is similar to yourself, where your personal reactions can hew as close to 1-to-1 to their reactions as possible), forcing the character to experience something that the player is not can be a harsh disconnect for that person. For the sort of immersion that player is seeking, that presents a sudden and large problem.

Let me be clear, I agree that it is not necessarily realistic compared to how human emotion works, but for the purposes of "immersion", which is highly idiosyncratic, I don't know that you can say that's intrinsically a definitional problem. And obviously, what game you are playing and the goals thereof have a huge additional impact on the question. I also don't know that this language will come across as saliently semantically different from the idea of power fantasy in your mind.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

It's not a problem, but it is an obvious influence, maybe even bias, not shared by most of your fellow posters that needs to be called out IMO. None of us have been shy about where we're coming from, or even asking for ways to do things differently

 

[Micah Sweet]

What does it mean to "feel unrealistic" here? Are you certain that is the word you're looking for? Unrealistic doesn't seem to fit here (a) given the context of your reply and (b) given that our games + their settings + their core genre logic are utterly steeped in "unrealistic."

Did you maybe mean something more like "see to me that would make it feel unsatisfying <because the core experience I'm looking for as a player is to exclusively probe environs and denizens, prompting clue reveals and exposition dumps from the GM, in order to unravel the mystery and its solve>?"

I meant unrealistic, as in "controlling aspects of the universe outside my character's in-setting ability to do so is not like the real world, where obviously that limit to personal influence exists." Please don't insert your definition of what is unrealistic and/or immersive and try to make me agree with it.

 

[Oofta]

What does it mean to "feel unrealistic" here? Are you certain that is the word you're looking for? Unrealistic doesn't seem to fit here (a) given the context of your reply and (b) given that our games + their settings + their core genre logic are utterly steeped in "unrealistic."

Did you maybe mean something more like "see to me that would make it feel unsatisfying <because the core experience I'm looking for as a player is to exclusively probe environs and denizens, prompting clue reveals and exposition dumps from the GM, in order to unravel the mystery and its solve>?"

@Oofta , I see you just answered as well. Does the above paragraph fit your position as well (subbing unsatisfying in for unrealistic and then the elaboration at the end)?

---

For me it's unrealistic that I experience the world around me while also helping build that world. Ask me about some detail about my character's history? I'll come up with something that fits with what I've discussed with my DM. That's my character recalling a memory. Ask me to describe what a tavern my character has never been in looks like? Why would my character have that ability? I hadn't been there before, I'm not familiar with it. My character is no longer recalling something, they're inventing the world.

It's the same with the mystery scenario. My character can only relate what they know from their past history or what they have recently observed or are currently observing. I may notice that the butler chews his fingernails, I can't just decide that their fingers are discolored which indicates they were sloppy when making a poison and stained their digits.

Just a couple things here (that could use some clarification from you guys):

1) As CL notes at the bottom, system/mechanics in these cases (and/or GM's required mediation when prompted by system) is what does the work of momentarily hijacking a character's emotional states (like on a failed move where the PC's emotional state is on the line) or correcting their accumulated knowledge (like on a failed move where the PC's recollection or knowledge is on the line). Just to make sure all lurkers and respondents in the conversation understand, these sorts of system-based moments of play aren't unconstrained GM fiat or uses of GM Force to ensure a GM-preferred outcome. They're resolved by system and player collisions within the scope of the play of the game.

2) On which of the two is more immersive:

* momentary PC emotional state (etc) hijack

vs

* complete and perpetual player autonomy over PC emotional state

I have to say...these one is a bit odd to me. It feels like almost a category error to call the latter more immersive than the former. Again, to harken back to the top of this post, I almost feel like "unsatisfying <given certain other priorities>" is what we're looking for here? I mean, how can it be immersive to have absolute autonomy over your emotional state? That doesn't happen for any human ever? That also doesn't happen to heroes (big damn or otherwise) or even gods in high fantasy or mythology or romantic fiction?

So maybe instead of "immersive," what we're looking for here for clarity and exactness is more like "satisfying given my priorities for a particular genre of power fantasy that requires absolute authorship over the rendering of my PC's mood and feelings?"

It seems to me we're kind of folding in priorities around a particular type of (i) power fantasy expectations + (ii) authorship rights and calling it (iii) immersion? Those aren't the same, right? In some cases (IMO this one exactly), those priorities might actually come into conflict.

It really comes down to preference and play style. If you watch Critical Role, there are times when Matt describes the PCs emotional state. That the hair on the back of their neck raises up, there's a moment of fear or anxiety or anger. I have had players for whom that would be too much. People have posted on other threads that this would not be acceptable for them. I can't imagine a successful DM having complete and perpetual autonomy over PC emotional stated.

What makes a game immersive is going to vary by individual.

 

[Manbearcat]

I meant unrealistic, as in "controlling aspects of the universe outside my character's in-setting ability to do so is not like the real world, where obviously that limit to personal influence exists." Please don't insert your definition of what is unrealistic and/or immersive and try to make me agree with it.

Can you dial it back a hair, Micah? Why do you possibly feel that you need to throw that sentence in at the end? I'm just trying to communicate with you and clarify stuff and you randomly escalate to accusing me of trying to manipulate you or coerce you or whatever.

Like the above. At first glance, I honestly don't understand what is happening here. Upon further inventorying of that sentence, it looks, again, like a category error and then an inference based on that error:

* The characters within the setting aren't controlling aspects of the universe outside of themselves. You're subbing in player for character here, using them interchangeably. There is nothing unrealistic happening from the perspective of the characters within the setting or from the setting itself. They carry on and do the things we imagine them doing <a person treads the sidewalk and laments the coming day's work, another sits on a bench and reads the paper, rain falls, umbrellas pop open audibly, car horns blare at pedestrians that jaywalk irresponsibly, etc).

It's the players, and the players alone, that engage with the system and any attendant meta-conversation around the play of the game. The players do the game engine stuff, not the characters. So there is nothing unrealistic happening here with respect to the characters or the setting that we're all imagining as we play. Realistic (or not) doesn't enter into it.

So this makes me go "unrealistic...huh?..that doesn't seem like the right word. Maybe, unsatisfying? That looks like it does the job."

It's this kind of exchange that makes my brain go ???????? and then I have to suss out what is happening and then post a reply to you to communicate my sense of things and/or clarify details. This isn't coercion or manipulation. That is the machinery of what happened here. It's (well it is supposed to be) just two people talking (but now one of them feels like they're walking on eggshells because they have absolutely no idea why the other just randomly went aggro and accused them of being a manipulative jerk).