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

[Oofta]

I didn't say that you did. I said that not knowing the likely consequences of your actions appears to be a common thing in a certain GM-centred approach to play, and posted your example as an illustration.

You said games were not real life. I was just pointing out that in the games I prefer that, much like real life sometimes I have a good idea of what the consequences of my actions will be and sometimes I don't. That's not true of all RPGs.

You're not disagreeing with anyone here. @TwoSix didn't say anything about deciding the consequences of punching the nearest guy in the bar. The question was, rather, whether or not there is a "nearest guy" to punch, and who has the power - as a participant in the game - to make the presence of such a person part of the shared fiction.

Then let me restate. I prefer the D&D default that the authority of a player only extends to what their character says and does.

 

[Oofta]

[citation needed]

Seriously, I've not seen signs that outside the OSR community, sandboxes have been a particularly common playstyle in decades. As such, I'm afraid I'm not going to buy I'm making anything close to an extreme claim here.



I don't think I ever said anything about how many campaigns are homebrewed. Nothing about being homebrewed requires it to be a sandbox, however.



Because the best evidence I have is (again outside the OSR), they are. If that's unsatisfactory to you, so be it. Non-sandboxes do not imply prepared modules. They just imply that there's some borders on the expected range and scope of the campaign. I've never run a module in my life, but haven't run a sandbox in more than 30 years at this point. They aren't the same thing.

I just disagree with your statement of fact that a particular style of play was "fringe" i.e. extremely rare. Believe what you want, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Oofta]

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?

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.

I don't know how many times I have to say that the default D&D assumption - the player's authority is over the character's words and deeds and everything else is up to the DM - is what I prefer. If you want to do something different? Go for it! Just don't expect me to join. I have never said my preference is superior or that other methods of play do not work for other people.

Can you please, please, stop accusing people of saying there is one true way when we are not?

 

[Oofta]

No one denies that the GM narrating stuff might create opportunities for action.

The point is that, if all opportunities for action are dependent upon the GM narrating stuff, then that is not very immersive. Doubly so if the narration is dependent upon the player first asking questions to prompt it.

There will certainly be times when the player asks for clarification and details the DM has not provided. Typical would be you go into a town, the DM gives a quick description and a player asks "Is there a blacksmith in town?" At that point the DM may say yes, perhaps more than one based on the size of the town. They may decide that it's uncertain and roll a die. They may say no, because in their notes one of the issues in the town is that the only blacksmith disappeared under mysterious circumstances two days ago.

I find that more immersive than the player going into a small hamlet of 40 people and declaring they go to the blacksmith.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who is saying anything about "what I want from the story narratively". I'm talking about what is at stake in the situation.

Eg in the example of punching a guy in the face, that is about the character wanting to punch someone in the face. It's a "diegetic" desire.

When I, as my PC Thurgon, look out for members of my family as Aramina and I arrive in my ancestral lands, that is a "diegetic" desire.

There's no connection between whether or not a player is playing their PC from their character's perspective and who gets to establish shared fiction, and how, about whether or not another NPC is nearby.

Sure there is. The PC themselves doesn't have the power to decide a particular NPC is nearby, but it that system the player does. Thus, when the player makes that decision it is non-diagetic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

[citation needed]

Seriously, I've not seen signs that outside the OSR community, sandboxes have been a particularly common playstyle in decades. As such, I'm afraid I'm not going to buy I'm making anything close to an extreme claim here.



I don't think I ever said anything about how many campaigns are homebrewed. Nothing about being homebrewed requires it to be a sandbox, however.



Because the best evidence I have is (again outside the OSR), they are. If that's unsatisfactory to you, so be it. Non-sandboxes do not imply prepared modules. They just imply that there's some borders on the expected range and scope of the campaign. I've never run a module in my life, but haven't run a sandbox in more than 30 years at this point. They aren't the same thing.

Does the OSR community not count?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think I need to have a right to speak for things I've both observed and seen described. If that was a requirement to discuss things, no social science would exist, and probably mighty little history.

How exactly have you observed the popularity of the adventure path over other forms of gaming in sufficient numbers to be confident its the most popular one?

 

[niklinna]

Sure, I'm not interested in a player guided development.

This does not change that fact that other people are.

 

[niklinna]

More importantly, my players aren’t interested in player guided development. If they wanted to make the world they would be the DM and give me some time off.

This does not change that fact that other people are.

 

[Lanefan]

You're really got to stop assuming everyone has the ultra-sandbox approach you do, man. In most cases just following the flow unlimitedly is not what GMs are interested in doing, and to assume they will in this situation is just projecting what, as far as I can tell, is pretty fringe approach on the rest of the hobby.

How is allowing player agency a fringe approach?

Because that's what this is. Player agency includes the players having both the ability and the right to do things the DM doesn't expect - in other words, to throw curveballs - and a DM who arbitrarily denies or disallows these curveballs is not acting in the interests of player agency.

Therefore, it's on the DM to be ready and able to hit those curveballs, even if not always 100% willingly,