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

[Lanefan]

Here are two approaches to GMing (not the only two possible):

* "Setting the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns, by presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs;​

​

* Providing a space and situation (as in, the setting and its backstory) in which people can find or provide their own enjoyment.​

Perhaps the first could be construed as a special case of the second. The second certainly encompasses possibilities that are very different from the first, though.

The first emphases situations and their relationship to player-authored PC concerns. This is the essence of the "conflict" that @Manbearcat posted about upthread. It is the essence of the players brining the protagonism, which as I have said is core to "story now" RPGing.

The second leaves it completely open how setting and backstory (a) relate to situation, and (b) relate to player-authored concerns. The second is quite consistent with a very wide range of RPGing, much of which will not be "story now".

So @Lanefan, I think your preference is actually quite a way off the "story now" approach. Which also came through in last year's thread.

Which is precisely why I said we greatly disagree on how to achieve a fairly similar desired end result.

 

[Aldarc]

Who says I'm not conflating the meanings?

Probably the fact that you don’t seem to believe in consent, safety, and using safewords in tabletop games.

 

[pemerton]

Which is precisely why I said we greatly disagree on how to achieve a fairly similar desired end result.

I do not think we are aiming at fairly similar desired end results.

My impression is that we have very different desired end results, as far as RPGing is concerned.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Here are two approaches to GMing (not the only two possible):

* "Setting the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns, by presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs;​

​

* Providing a space and situation (as in, the setting and its backstory) in which people can find or provide their own enjoyment.​

Perhaps the first could be construed as a special case of the second. The second certainly encompasses possibilities that are very different from the first, though.

What I think is common in practice in a lot of games (in mine certainly) is that the second is always happening, but the first is just sometimes happening. Ie. the situations are sometimes such that they relate more closely to the concerns/desires/beliefs/etc of the characters, but sometimes they do not. And I think this is perfectly fine, and to me a desirable state of affairs. I've used this example many times, but in Star Trek we can have some episodes that are more character focused and delve into backstories of the characters and challenge their beliefs, and some episodes where it is more about just solving the problem of the week. This is what I want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here are two approaches to GMing (not the only two possible):

* "Setting the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns, by presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs;​

​

* Providing a space and situation (as in, the setting and its backstory) in which people can find or provide their own enjoyment.​

Perhaps the first could be construed as a special case of the second. The second certainly encompasses possibilities that are very different from the first, though.

The first emphases situations and their relationship to player-authored PC concerns. This is the essence of the "conflict" that @Manbearcat posted about upthread. It is the essence of the players brining the protagonism, which as I have said is core to "story now" RPGing.

The second leaves it completely open how setting and backstory (a) relate to situation, and (b) relate to player-authored concerns. The second is quite consistent with a very wide range of RPGing, much of which will not be "story now".

So @Lanefan, I think your preference is actually quite a way off the "story now" approach. Which also came through in last year's thread.

The second approach is definitely far and away my preference, but I'm glad I have a better understanding of the first now.

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

Probably the fact that you don’t seem to believe in consent, safety, and using safewords in tabletop games.

That's a hell of a leap in logic dude. I also disagree with safewords, that doesn't mean I want my players to feel unsafe or don't believe in consent. Similarly, here is a counterpoint: by coming to my table, where and after I've described what the campaign is going to have in terms of content, you choose to remain and play at my table, you've given consent. Honestly I find the entire concept to be a bit dumb when we're talking about consent in an RPG setting, as it always ends up comparing apples to oranges. Unless someone is physically stopping you from leaving their table, you're consent isn't being violated, and pretty much every "I didn't consent" argument I have ever seen at any table was just a bad attempt to misconstrue "whining about a bad roll and having to be subject to the consequences of that roll" to "violating consent".

That being said, most of this debate seems to be reliant on a difference without a distinction. Whether you call it a facilitator, DM, GM, or story teller, or anything else, most of the descriptions given regarding the role of the DM from about everyone here have such minor differences that there really is no difference at all. It's like seeing three different knights, one blue, one orange, one green, all lawful good wielding the same equipment, all arguing about which one is the most knightly of knights. The only difference is the color of your armor which amounts to diddly squat.

 

[Mort]

That's a hell of a leap in logic dude. I also disagree with safewords, that doesn't mean I want my players to feel unsafe or don't believe in consent. Similarly, here is a counterpoint: by coming to my table, where and after I've described what the campaign is going to have in terms of content, you choose to remain and play at my table, you've given consent. Honestly I find the entire concept to be a bit dumb when we're talking about consent in an RPG setting, as it always ends up comparing apples to oranges. Unless someone is physically stopping you from leaving their table, you're consent isn't being violated, and pretty much every "I didn't consent" argument I have ever seen at any table was just a bad attempt to misconstrue "whining about a bad roll and having to be subject to the consequences of that roll" to "violating consent".

That being said, most of this debate seems to be reliant on a difference without a distinction. Whether you call it a facilitator, DM, GM, or story teller, or anything else, most of the descriptions given regarding the role of the DM from about everyone here have such minor differences that there really is no difference at all. It's like seeing three different knights, one blue, one orange, one green, all lawful good wielding the same equipment, all arguing about which one is the most knightly of knights. The only difference is the color of your armor which amounts to diddly squat.

Uh oh, thread necromancy. Though it's not too old, so more of a revivify than a raise dead!

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

Uh oh, thread necromancy. Though it's not too old, so more of a revivify than a raise dead!

I blame the thanksgiving feast and subsequent hibernation it caused. Damn you Waffle Momma and your amazing cooking!

 

[Mort]

I blame the thanksgiving feast and subsequent hibernation it caused. Damn you Waffle Momma and your amazing cooking!

My brother in law used a deep Frier for the Turkey this year. Between that and mashed potatoes with, shall we say, an impressive butter to potato ratio, I'm surprised I'm not still sleeping!

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

My brother in law used a deep Frier for the Turkey this year. Between that and mashed potatoes with, shall we say, an impressive butter to potato ratio, I'm surprised I'm not still sleeping!

My sister and her husband went to visit his parents this year, so it was just me and my folks. But that just meant more Pecan Pie for me so I'm not complaining rofl.