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

[Lanefan]

As I said, a much wider view of "I'll run any campaign that evolves" than I have any reason to believe any significant number of GMs are interested in.

Then perhaps those DMs aren't as good at it as maybe they think they are. DMing involves a great many skills, one of which (and arguably the most important of which) is adaptibility as evidenced by a willingness to abandon pre-laid plans.

And most people aren't willing to run two campaigns if a split happens, either.

It depends on the level of commitment the DM is willing to put in. There's many ways of running a split campaign - and I've probably done all of them over the years - and some of them don't involve much if any extra DM time.

Me, I just assume the party is going to split at some point and stand ready for that eventuality.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My sales pitch is "You start out [location/opening scenarios/general description of where and what's happening]. You get to decide where you go from there."

And that's not what I'm talking about, which I've made clear multiple times now. And that's not only about GMs.

 

[pemerton]

I think I need a better definition of what you mean?

If the DM hasn't thought of it yet, is asking "Is there a taxidermist in town?" world-bending? I mean, would the DM have included one if not asked? Or do you only mean to count it if the player gets to guarantee there is one by asking?

This arose out of @TwoSix saying that he prefers not to ask "Is there a taxidermist in town?" but rather to declare "I go to visit the taxidermist", or "I enter the castle", or "I punch the nearest dude in the face", thus putting the onus back on the GM to respond to the declared action.

I have elaborated on TwoSix's point, by explaining how it is more immersive to take his approach, as it presupposes the presence of the character as an embodied, perceiving, volitional being in their world; rather than the sort of alienated, anaesthetised, disembodied persona that is implied by having to ask the GM at every point what I can see and what I can do. Which, as I've also posted upthread, tends to drift towards the GM playing my character for me.

To characterise the approach that TwoSix and I prefer as "world-bending power" is just absurd.

Some of what has been described is the power of creation beyond PC actions and words, it is world bending power. There's nothing wrong with that if it's what you want. Want your PC to declare that there's a blacksmith in the town you just entered named George and that he's your long lost twin brother? Go for it if that's what works for your game.s.

The world-bending power of hope and memory!

Not to mention that you're mocking an example that no one has given.

The actual example was "I punch the nearest dude in the face".

 

[Oofta]

So you agree that it is not true that because the player's action declaration establishes some setting element (let's say, the presence of a nearby dude in the bar) then (i) it must be un-immersive and (ii) it must involve thinking about things other than from the character's point of view?

Or maybe not:
No, it is not literally world-bending power. Declaring I punch the nearest dude, in circumstances where no one has yet established anything about the details or presence of people in the tavern - where the player is extrapolating from what is implicit - is not "world-bending power" either literally or metaphorically.

How is it not? You just created an NPC out of thin air.

They are not preferences. Both (i) and (ii) are propositions about what is possible in RPG play. Either they are true or they are false. For instance, if you agree that there are some people who become immersed without using simulationist-type mechanics, then you are denying (i). It's not relevant to that denial whether or not you are one of those people.

Many things are possible. What we choose to include or not include, what game we play, is preference. Want to play D&D according to the standard play loop? Then you can't declare anything for your character than what they say and do.

Do we need to bring up the strawman that @Micah Sweet or anyone else is saying that the only way to have immersion is to follow D&D standard play? It's getting kind of old, and raggedy isn't it?

 

[pemerton]

I would specify the definition with: ‘creative input on the world that is not enacted directly through the actions your character performs is world-bending power’

And who has advocated this?

I walk into the castle, I punch the nearest dude in the face, I keep my eyes open for members of my family, now that I have returned to my homeland, I go to visit the blacksmith - these are all actions that my character performs.

Characterising this as "world-bending power" is ridiculous.

 

[pemerton]

It's fine to say they're looking for someone. It's up to the DM to determine if so-and-so is there and how that is determined. The resolution procedure is up to the DM in the games I play.

What is the status of the second sentence?

I mean, it might be true in railroad games. It's false in most of the RPGs that I play. There are rules for resolving this action declaration, just as there are rules for resolving other declared actions.

 

[Oofta]

And that's not what I'm talking about, which I've made clear multiple times now. And that's not only about GMs.

You literally stated "find anyone who's running a campaign with an initial sell and see how many of them are willing to fly off in an entirely different direction". I mean, that's literally how I run my game. Unlike @Lanefan I'm not up to splitting a group because we don't get together often enough to make it happen, but if the group says they go left when I expected them to go right, we go left. Last game I played in the DM admitted that it went nothing like he had expected and that 90% of it was improvised.

If that's not what you're trying to get at you need to explain what it is you are trying to ask.

 

[pemerton]

Those questions at the end of your post is how I'd want it to go, yes. Your preference and mine are different, not better or worse.

The point at issue is that you characterise those with different preferences as being anti-immersion and as believing that their PCs have world-bending power.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yes there is, unless all your campaigns take place in a endless featureless empty white void.

Yup. What else have I been building all this time?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’ve seen plenty of people praise Dragon Heist. And similar modules. And the Adventure Path is pretty much the dominant form of play.



No, all games take place in the shared imagination. There is no actual world. It’s fictional details that participants share.

When a player declares details, they are describing that fictional space. No world is “changing”.

All that’s being negotiated is make believe. There’s no “truth” except what is accepted by all participants.

You're not going to convince me any of those statements are anything more than your preference.