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

[Aldarc]

Imagine the Siege of Troy, if you will, with the Trojan Horse. Different historical texts lists the number of solders it held as anywhere from 30 to 50 men, so the Trojan Horse was quite massive. Now imagine that due to magical shenanigcans, the Trojan Horse is only the size of a poorly rolled up sleeping bag, but still carries inside it 50 Trojan Warriors fully armed and ready to go. Now imagine that those 50 fully armed Trojan Warriors can exit the bag effectively at their whim, without having to be in a line, or go one or two at a time, or get out first then reach back in to grab their spear and shield; no they just all spontaneously BAMF into existence in the space around the Trojan Bag. And since the bag is so small and weighs so little, really you don't even need to pretend that the rest of the Greek army is sailing away, you just sit on the beach and in the middle of the night, put 150 of your soldiers into 3 bags and sneak up to the gate and toss them over the gate. Soon as the bags land, you've successfully invaded the inner keep of your enemy.

BUT WAIT, I hear you say: There's two more inner keeps! Don't worry your pretty little head. Because there aren't rules that stop you from one of the Trojan Warriors inside the bag of holding with 50 Trojan Warriors having another bag of his own with another 50 Trojan Warriors inside of it, and one of them has another bag with another 50 Trojan Warriors.

And now you see why I had to deny this.

I'm reading this but I keep getting snagged on one repeated detail in all of this: since when has the Trojan Horse contained any Trojan Warriors? Did I read a different Iliad?

Or is this like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

What a wonderful phrase!

It feels a bit like being threatened with a good time.

Though to be fair, a lot of cakes (Torten) in Germany and Austria are basically a single layer. So cake on cake actually sounds like a proper American cake.

Fate does. I think Cortex has it too. I'm sure there are others.

To do so in Fate, the player is not just spending points to introduce these things willy nilly. Spending a point requires (1) engaging with the mechanics, (2) engaging with the fiction, and (3) a discussion with agreement.

First they have to invoke an Aspect - a mechanical representation of the fiction - that is in play, whether that Aspect is that of a character, NPC, or the scene. Any new player introduced fiction for character or setting details must be connected to the available Aspects. So the first question that a GM should ask if a player wants to use a Fate point to add new narrative details shoud always be, "What Aspect are you invoking?" If they are not invoking an Aspect, it's a fumble.

Moreover, doing so should "follow the fiction." The table as a whole then discusses if the introduced fiction makes sense.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"I punch the nearest dude!" is not describing the situation. It's declaring an action.

So is "I pick a big bag of gold that I see lying on the ground unattended" but unless presence of such bag has been announced, that seems pretty questionable.

That's your interpretation. It's not what the play loop states expressly, and it's not the only tenable implication of what is expressly stated.

I think it is pretty sensible inference. Whilst I agree that the players should be able to assume minor details based on the context, this is actually just for speeding up the play, not them actually having framing authority like the GM does. If the players assume things the GM did not intend to be there, it is perfectly fair for the GM to ask the player to amend their action declaration.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I was not going to post this, but I thought this when I first read this post: back in the day I had a DM that would have 100% taken it literally like that and made the PC roll to hit another character (whoever was sitting closest at the gaming table probably) without allowing any clarification or take-backs.

Seems that would break my immersion as a player.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm reading this but I keep getting snagged on one repeated detail in all of this: since when has the Trojan Horse contained any Trojan Warriors? Did I read a different Iliad?

Good pick up!

 

[Manbearcat]

Thanks for that @Manbearcat, just a question to get your perspective.

In certain RPGs, if you succeed in an action, the rules state the player gets to narrate the success.
Is that more or less immersive in your opinion?

I don't think there is a singular answer to that question as immersive is a slippery quality of play that is idiosyncratic to the user.

My answer as a player is probably irrelevant given that I've just not been afforded enough opportunity to be a player in my TTRPG lifespan. The very few times I've played in games that feature such procedures, its fit me very well. As a lifelong GM of a large array of varying games, I inhabit situation and characters and the demands of system itself (trying to build out interesting decision-points and consequence-spaces that index system handles and PC motivations) simultaneously all the time. Consequently, minor fluctuations in perspective or multivariate mental processing absolutely enhance my inhabitation of the moment and its immediate needs (including those needs of the characters I play). Flat play that lacks in immediacy or weighty consequence, feeling any of conflict-neutral, uncharged, or deterministic is an absolute death knell for my moment-to-moment emotional and cognitive experience of TTRPGing.

So mostly all I can really do is point to the huge number of people I've run games for that feature such procedures. I've probably run games like you're describing for 200 people give-or-take. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen that procedure balked at and (a) it was the same two players whose proclivities were kindred with some of the people in this thread at that point and (b) now (some decade+ after these instances) their absolutely favorite TTRPG is Sword of the Serpentine (which includes that kind of procedure).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I make things difficult for myself all the time. As a player.

I as well. But I think this is actually an interesting topic, around which there is sometimes some genuine tension. I often play my characters "suboptimally," doing "stupid things" because "that's what my character would do." And if this leads to adverse consequences just for my character, then that's fine. But when it leads to significant trouble for other characters as well, there might be some tension.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, I would challenge that I don't understand what you do.

Pretty much everything you say indicates you don't understand. I'm big enough to admit I don't understand your style of play, are you too egotistical to admit you do not understand mine?

My game tonight, for example, is heavily derived from old-school principles, to the point of having GP = XP. If characters die, the player starts at level 1 again. It has much heavier loss conditions than a normal 5e game.

Which is nothing like my game. There are a lot more ways to win or lose than mealy dying.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't think there is a singular answer to that question as immersive is a slippery quality of play that is idiosyncratic to the user.

My answer as a player is probably irrelevant given that I've just not been afforded enough opportunity to be a player in my TTRPG lifespan. The very few times I've played in games that feature such procedures, its fit me very well. As a lifelong GM of a large array of varying games, I inhabit situation and characters and the demands of system itself (trying to build out interesting decision-points and consequence-spaces that index system handles and PC motivations) simultaneously all the time. Consequently, minor fluctuations in perspective or multivariate mental processing absolutely enhance my inhabitation of the moment and its immediate needs (including those needs of the characters I play). Flat play that lacks in immediacy or weighty consequence, feeling any of conflict-neutral, uncharged, or deterministic is an absolute death knell for my moment-to-moment emotional and cognitive experience of TTRPGing.

So mostly all I can really do is point to the huge number of people I've run games for that feature such procedures. I've probably run games like you're describing for 200 people give-or-take. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen that procedure balked at and (a) it was the same two players whose proclivities were kindred with some of the people in this thread at that point and (b) now (some decade+ after these instances) their absolutely favorite TTRPG is Sword of the Serpentine (which includes that kind of procedure).

That is a fair answer to a trick question. Apologies!
If you had said yes to it, I would feel it would have hurt your argument in your earlier reply to me about how people sometimes confuse authority and ownership rights with immersion.
So good job, you passed!

 

[TwoSix]

Pretty much everything you say indicates you don't understand. I'm big enough to admit I don't understand your style of play, are you too egotistical to admit you do not understand mine?

Absolutely not. My ego is nearly boundless. There's nothing you can understand that I can't.

Which is nothing like my game. There are a lot more ways to win or lose than mealy dying.

I'm assuming you're talking about something like diegetic consequence, where the campaign goes on a negative path?

Or do you have some sort of real-world physical consequence, where if you fail to beat the dungeon, you have to pay the DM 20 pounds?

Or maybe they break a finger! That's what I, with my godly ego, would do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm assuming you're talking about something like diegetic consequence, where the campaign goes on a negative path?

No.

Or do you have some sort of real-world physical consequence, where if you fail to beat the dungeon, you have to pay the DM 20 pounds?

No.

Or maybe they break a finger!

No.