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

[hawkeyefan]

Obviously not. But if it was the GM who framed the existence of the sack of gold, you would not think it was weird. Which to me rather implies that the game, nor you, expects players to have authority to frame significant new setting elements via their action declarations.

Weird in what way? If the Gm narrates a sack of gold where that would be a very weird thing to find, I would think of it as... weird.

Whether or not something is significant or not depends, I suppose. I don't know if I've said otherwise. I would be open to something significant, yes... if it made sense in the fiction to do so. Hence my suggestion about how to handle the Odin situation.

Does this mean that I want or expect players to go around narrating things willy-nilly? No, of course not.

I think people have rather extensively gone into the reasons, you just have hard time accepting them.

No, I accept them. I'm just pointing out the impact they have on player input.

Well, it can become so. If overdone it might become exhaustive to the players and will raise a question why the characters would even continue to work together. It sorta was getting at that point in our Blades game, though thankfully it got resolved.

Well, sure... anything can get exhausting in play. The level of conflict among the crew members in Blades is pretty much up to the players. Obviously, the GM can narrate consequences that may put some pressure on them, but that's still gonna need the players to run with the idea.

Not so sure about that. In Blades the actual rules reinforce the characters being a team. There is the crew sheet to which we all contribute together.

Oh the teamwork elements are much better designed than D&D, absolutely! The ability to aid another is significant and doesn't take up a player's "turn", group actions are simple and effective, and there are a lot of playbook abilities that promote working together. And then of course, the crew sheet and the shared abilities and resources there.

But that doesn't mean that the game relies on them to be a tactical unit, with each member having a specialty that they perform for the group. A given character may have a specialty, or may be best at something, but everyone can attempt anything. There's far less niche protection.

And then when it comes to roleplay, there are a lot more factors that will promote tension amongst the members of the crew because that's interesting to see. You can get XP for expressing conflict, you can get XP for roleplaying your trauma, you can overindulge when indulging your vice which causes difficulties for the crew.

D&D doesn't have anything like that. At most, 5e had BIFTs, which included a Flaw. But the player could easily never bring the flaw into play and nothing bad would ever happen. If they roleplayed it, they'd get inspiration on a roll, and they could only have one inspiration at a time. And let's be honest... most players tend to have strong feelings about what characters are meant to be doing in D&D based on their class. The longer they've been playing, the stronger these feelings are likely to be.

So yeah... the game does more to promote both teamwork and conflict within the team. It wants to portray a group of damaged people in a crap situation as volatile, even if they are connected by strong bonds.

Sure. But it might be an issue if different players have different comfort levels with this. I might be fine with crashing my stolen car, but if I crash it into another player's beloved and carefully maintained automobile they might not be happy about it.

Sure, of course. But that's the thing... the game tells its players to embrace this. To expect this in play. It pushes for that kind of play.

So, yeah, some people may not like that... which is fine. But either they were unaware of that (which may be the case if they didn't read the book and the GM never shared these expectations with them) or they decided to play anyway. It's not all the game is about, of course, so maybe there's enough there for them to enjoy despite not liking this. Or perhaps they can downplay those elements and their fellow players will be on board with that. To be honest, I've seen several crews in Blades and they ranged from a devoted found family who'd die for one another to a crew that was totally self destructive. Both can make for excellent games.

 

[TwoSix]

Is it terrible DMing to expect the players to ask questions or is it terrible playing to not ask those questions?

It's more along the lines of:

Player: I walk into the inn.
DM: You take 1d4 damage as you bang your head; this is a halfling inn and you didn't check the size!

 

[hawkeyefan]

The phrases "involves the players more" and "It's more collaborative" are effectively saying that it's better. It's also untrue.

It may involve the players more or be more collaborative for you. I involve the players, my game is very collaborative. It's just a different approach. It's done through what the characters say and do or in discussions outside of the game.

No, it's not the same as saying that. You need to start reading what people write and respond to that instead of responding to what you think they're saying.

If someone out there hates collaboration, then a more collaborative game is not better.

If a game allows an additional type of collaboration than another, then there is (potentially, anyway) more collaboration.

That's the trade off... you enjoy building your world ahead of time, over years of DMing? Okay cool... do that. It's not a problem in any way. I've done that in the past and I loved it. But, by definition, doing that is less collaborative than involving the players in building a world.

You've been advocating for denying player input throughout this thread. Not in every way... yes, players can have input, but only in such and such way. Now, you feel you have a good reason for restricting that collaboration... okay, fine. I understand your view, even if I don't agree with a lot of the stated reasons. But you're still limiting collaboration. There's really no avoiding that.

It'd be a lot easier to discuss if we could just acknowledge that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's basic existence was already set. That's how a sandbox works. The player, however, decided to pursue it, which led to the area being further developed. Had the player not been interested, the giant culture would not have vanished, but it would have remained undeveloped in all likelihood. This is one of the ways that players impact the setting under this paradigm.

Well, that's one way for a sandbox to work. And I agree that the player was involved and contributed. Just that I think perhaps that involvement was a bit overstated when first mentioned, and subsequent information showed that to be the case, which is why my presumption differed from yours.

How could the GM legitimately shut it down? A giant has been encountered. That means giants exist. If the giant behaved in a way consistent with sentient life, that means giant culture exists. What possible reason at that point could the GM give to prevent the player from attempting to investigate that culture?

How could they? A bunch of ways. I'll caveat this by saying I don't know all the details from the situation, so @Crimson Longinus may post more information that will then render what I say here inaccurate... but until then, here we go.

• Set the DC to learn more about the giant civilization beyond what the PC is able to achieve.
• Gate the information behind an NPC who requires a fetch quest to share the info, but the fetch quest is beyond the PCs current level... looks like they'll have to wait until they're higher level!
• Determine that such information simply cannot be learned... what the player wants to do is impossible.
• Consulting his prep, the DM sees that the great giant city of Agnor is warded against all divination.

There are any number of ways that the DM can say "no" as we've all seen in this thread. Why they would do so? I'm less sure... but I'm not the one saying they should do so.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Gate the information behind an NPC who requires a fetch quest to share the info, but the fetch quest is beyond the PCs current level..

Sandboxes don’t “gate” anything. If the players want to go into the lair of the ancient dragon at 1st level they can do that.

And difficulty classes are determined in accordance to world logic, not at whim. That’s the point - trying to make the world as much like a real world as possible, treating the PCs with dispassionate impartiality.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sandboxes don’t “gate” anything. If the players want to go into the lair of the ancient dragon at 1st level they can do that.

And difficulty classes are determined in accordance to world logic, not at whim. That’s the point - trying to make the world as much like a real world as possible, treating the PCs with dispassionate impartiality.

Yes... I was describing a situation where the information is put in a place that will be so beyond the PCs that they either won't try to get it, or they'll get slaughtered if they do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, that's one way for a sandbox to work. And I agree that the player was involved and contributed. Just that I think perhaps that involvement was a bit overstated when first mentioned, and subsequent information showed that to be the case, which is why my presumption differed from yours.



How could they? A bunch of ways. I'll caveat this by saying I don't know all the details from the situation, so @Crimson Longinus may post more information that will then render what I say here inaccurate... but until then, here we go.

• Set the DC to learn more about the giant civilization beyond what the PC is able to achieve.
• Gate the information behind an NPC who requires a fetch quest to share the info, but the fetch quest is beyond the PCs current level... looks like they'll have to wait until they're higher level!
• Determine that such information simply cannot be learned... what the player wants to do is impossible.
• Consulting his prep, the DM sees that the great giant city of Agnor is warded against all divination.

There are any number of ways that the DM can say "no" as we've all seen in this thread. Why they would do so? I'm less sure... but I'm not the one saying they should do so.

Options 1, 2, and 4 don't actually prevent the attempt, and option 3 has literally no reason behind it. All four of them would be classified by me as a severely jerkish move that make little sense given the information at hand.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes... I was describing a situation where the information is put in a place that will be so beyond the PCs that they either won't try to get it, or they'll get slaughtered if they do.

Definitely. I've been playing Dragon Quest 3 the last week or so; that's absolutely a sandbox game with a bunch of gating.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes... I was describing a situation where the information is put in a place that will be so beyond the PCs that they either won't try to get it, or they'll get slaughtered if they do.

Which is a misunderstanding of how a sandbox works. If something exists in the world, even by implication, the players can access it. If it’s not already detailed, then filling it in is the DM’s job, probably between sessions. And it makes sense to spend the time detailing the thing the players are interested in, rather than waste a lot of time on something they aren’t interested in, and therefore will never see.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Definitely. I've been playing Dragon Quest 3 the last week or so; that's absolutely a sandbox game with a bunch of gating.

No computer game is a true sandbox. It’s not possible.