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

[Lanefan]

But the only "plot" that may be allowed is one that uses the pieces that exist in the world. The only "script" that may be allowed is one that uses those pieces. That's the problem here.

Problem, or feature?

If I have 1000 pieces of Meccano but don't have the specific piece I need to build whatever I'm trying to build, then obviously I have to test my creativity by building something else instead.

If I may, allow me to use a hyperbolic hypothetical to demonstrate how a DM/director/"referee" could claim that the players/actors have the freedom to improvise without really having that much actual freedom. Consider a situation where you, as a player, are only allowed to quote from Bible passages that have been pre-approved for quotation. You technically still have freedom to "largely improvise" the script/plot...but you're not really in the driver's seat, are you? It would take extreme, near-genius level creativity to dynamically turn such Bible passage quotation into something personal and individual, even though you technically have the freedom to quote any part you want.

I'm not touching this analogy with a 10-foot pole.

Now, this is pretty obviously extreme. I sincerely doubt any DM has ever done something actually like that, where players are literally only allowed to quote from things someone else wrote. I certainly don't believe anyone here, even folks whom I think DO go overboard, has ever done this. So, to be absolutely, unequivocally clear, this is not an accusation of any kind, I don't believe real people do this, and I certainly don't think anyone here does it. The point, as stated, is to show that at some point, the DM taking too much control over setting does in fact take away the players' ability to "largely improvize the script...or...the plot", because "choos[ing] which bits of the scenery they interact with and-or play in front of" isn't enough, by itself, to avert a railroad. To use the Disney theme park variation of the railroad concept, just because you can take pictures with Mickey and decide which rides you ride on doesn't mean you aren't on rails or walking pre-determined paths 99% of the time.

For these purposes let's assume we're the only people in the Disney park today and thus won't be spending all day waiting in lines.

A sandbox game is a bit like a Disney park, only you don't know exactly what each ride might entail other than vague generalities and perhaps some "You really should be this tall..." signs. One major difference would be that a Disney park has borders beyond which are nothing but hotels and parking lots, while a true sandbox always has more "rides" if you keep going.

To me, this isn't a railroad. The players get to choose which rides they engage with (if any!), the manner of that engagement, and the outcome they intend to work toward through said engagement. Never mind that after a while they'll become experienced enough to start building their own rides.

Put 10 different groups of players into the same sandbox and you're going to get 10 completely different sets and sequences of events leading to the logging ot 10 completely different stories. And to me that's the opposite of a railroad.

Conversely, I think we're all agreed that player improvisation necessarily has to be present when DM's setting material is pretty soft-touch or sparse. Not because anything about that side is better (I love me some great worldbuilding!), but simply because...the players have to be improvising just to participate at that point. Meaning, if we grant that the above (intentionally extreme example simply to show that at some point player improvisation is clearly completely taken away by excessive DM setting control), then there must be some point or range where DM setting control begins to outweigh player improvisation.

Here's an actual example. Earlier today my DM sent around a highly detailed map - right down to the house-by-house level includng the footprint of each house - of his setting's version of Rome.

Now, if I'm a player looking to engage with that city - let's say my PC wants to buy a house there - then I can approach it in one of two ways:

1. I can complain that the rigidity of the map precludes me from envisioning where my house will be in the city* or what its footprint will be or how much land it'll have etc. - in other words I can see it as an arbitrary bunch of DM-imposed limits - or

2. I can use the map as a guide to decide where within the city I'm going to try to locate my PC and to inform myself what kind of neighbours my PC will likely have - in other words I can use it as an aid to play.

I'll take option 2, thanks.

* - in this case my PC already has a house there; I'd always thought of it as being kind of in the southeast part of the city for some reason, but the map puts it on the northern edge. Fine with me - at least now I know where the damn thing is!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whether or not the fiction is realistic, or is verisimilitudinous, is about its content. Just as is the case for a TV drama.

But the notion that some method of creating the fiction - say, having the GM just narrate it - is more realistic is a contentious claim. Like, is a novel more realistic because it was written in order rather than written and revised in a manner that does not reflect the sequence of the novel?

I don't think I made any claims regarding realism. It was not about that.

Experiencing things as "external" - ie narrated to me by someone else - is one part of the experience of a RPG. Experiencing things as "alienated from me" because they are narrated to me by someone else - is another part of the experience of a RPG. Spending time adding up numbers and looking up information in books is yet another part of the experience of a RPG.

Which combination of experiences will most lead to an immersive RPG experience seems like it might be idiosyncratic, reflecting particular features of the mental and emotional processes of a particular RPGer. The notion that there is an a priori "logical" truth about this doesn't seem tenable to me.

Yes, probably. Over the years with all the arguments here I've come to the conclusion that a lot of disagreements stem form people's minds just working differently.

 

[pemerton]

Unless it was established that the bar was empty or almost empty, assuming that there is such a thing as "nearest guy" within reasonable engagement distance seems pretty safe on the player's part to me.

I think we can safely assume that @TwoSix, who is a very experienced RPGer, doesn't declare actions for his PC that contradict the established fiction. So if he declares (as his PC), "I punch the nearest guy", then we can probably take it as given that it has not already been established that the bar was empty or almost empty.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, probably. Over the years with all the arguments here I've come to the conclusion that a lot of disagreements stem form people's minds just working differently.

It certainly seems the only plausible explanation (as long as you're assuming good faith) for the differences in how people avowedly seeking the same experience feel how its necessary to arrive at it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think we can safely assume that @TwoSix, who is a very experienced RPGer, doesn't declare actions for his PC that contradict the established fiction. So if he declares (as his PC), "I punch the nearest guy", then we can probably take it as given that it has not already been established that the bar was empty or almost empty.

Honestly, in some cases where the issue comes up, it simply may not have been described in detail at all. The degree of description applied to incidentals varies considerably in my experience.

 

[TwoSix]

I think we can safely assume that @TwoSix, who is a very experienced RPGer, doesn't declare actions for his PC that contradict the established fiction. So if he declares (as his PC), "I punch the nearest guy", then we can probably take it as given that it has not already been established that the bar was empty or almost empty.

Exactly. Which works fine as long as the the DM doesn’t contradict me by saying he had already thought the bar was empty, or he had written it down in his notebook, or he needs to double check his 1d100 bar patron random generation table.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think I made any claims regarding realism. It was not about that.

You posted this:

Some people like to try to make them work as much like the real world within the limitations of the medium.

That looks like a claim about realism (as in working like the real world).

As per the post that I replied to in the post that you just quoted, you then talked about externality/independence, comparing the externality of the real world to the externality of the GM to the player.

In RPGing, externality works well for the experience of consequences, especially adverse consequences. As per @TwoSix's accounts of punching the guy and visiting the king, and as per my discussion upthread of the difficulty of picking the lock, it works much less well for the experience of opportunities. For two reasons: (1) it is un-immersive to have to ask on someone else to know what opportunities for action are surrounding you, and to have to wait on their doling out of answers; and (2) in the context of RPGing, asking for opportunities comes very close to having the person who answers you be the only actually playing your PC.

 

[pemerton]

Exactly. Which works fine as long as the the DM doesn’t contradict me by saying he had already thought the bar was empty, or he had written it down in his notebook, or he needs to double check his 1d100 bar patron random generation table.

Pfft! A mere d100? I want a GM who is more ambitious than that!

 

[Thomas Shey]

It occurs to me that I may have created some unintended confusion, so I wanted to clarify something:

My bringing up the Paizo extended module series was not about them being published adventures; it was specifically about a number of them having initial setups that constrained the nature of what goes on because of the situation the PCs are in: in one they're circus performers, in another members of a magical school, and in yet a third local law enforcement. As such my suggestion wasn't that this should "most people played modules" so much as "most people must find some constraints on character situation acceptable". Its still possible for various reasons for people to not agree with that conclusion, but I thought it best to make clear what that conclusion was intended to be.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You posted this:
That looks like a claim about realism (as in working like the real world).

As per the post that I replied to in the post that you just quoted, you then talked about externality/independence, comparing the externality of the real world to the externality of the GM to the player.

It was not about realism, it was about the relationship between the world and the person in it.

In RPGing, externality works well for the experience of consequences, especially adverse consequences. As per @TwoSix's accounts of punching the guy and visiting the king, and as per my discussion upthread of the difficulty of picking the lock, it works much less well for the experience of opportunities. For two reasons: (1) it is un-immersive to have to ask on someone else to know what opportunities for action are surrounding you, and to have to wait on their doling out of answers; and (2) in the context of RPGing, asking for opportunities comes very close to having the person who answers you be the only actually playing your PC.

I'm not sure what you mean by opportunities here. Like if the world is described to you, then certainly you can see the opportunities in it and declare actions to pursue them? Like when a crowded bar is described to you, this also implicitly includes an opportunity of punching some poor sod that happens to be in the bar, no?