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

[hawkeyefan]

Do you not see that constantly asking folks whose opinions differ from you, "would it really be that bad if you just did things my way? How bad could it be?" Sounds an awful lot like, "your way is wrong"?

I haven't asked anyone to do things my way.

People have made generalizations or assertions about my way to justify their preference for another. In some cases, I've pointed out that those generalizations or assertions are inaccurate.

If you don't feel you've made generalizations or assertions about the style of play I've been advocating, then you can assume that I'm not talking about you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To be fair, this would be the bandwagon fallacy and it is possible that everyone else is wrong, though in most of these I have to disagree with @hawkeyefan , I don't see these things as "taking agency away from the players", I see most of these decisions as "keeping internal consistency".

I had players who actively tried to have the winged kobold party member carry the other four members around in a bag of holding, with just their heads popping out, so they could zoom over to an enemy and then pop out of the bag right next to it or fly over hoards of combat encounters. Obviously, I denied them the ability to do this. Doing so doesn't take away agency, it's making a rules decision that if I didn't, would affect the game significantly, yet I'm pretty sure he'd say I was taking their agency away.

I don't know exactly how I'd classify this. But I have questions.

Why did you shut it down? You say that it would affect the game significantly. How so?

And why would you think the obvious choice would be to shut this idea down? I know there are rules about how much fits inside, and I imagine a whole party of people may exceed that... but probably one or two people could fit.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Something that may have not been mentioned in many pages I have missed - I as a DM enjoy secret backstory because anything that surprises my players (whether it be a twist in a story, or a sweet revelation, or a cool moment) is a win for the table.
My players and I view many of these indie RPG practices in the same way, cause they are not part of your typical 5e, therefore when I inject them into play, there is a similar appreciation back as I do with secret backstories being revealed.
They are seen as something novel.

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

Why did you shut it down? You say that it would affect the game significantly. How so?

Because it would invalidate entire encounters in droves, and led to an extremely asinine attempt at tactics repeating itself ad nauseum. Observe:

A bag of holding has a mouth that is 2 feet in diameter, and the bag itself is 4 feet long. The bag weights 15 lbs regardless of what is stored inside it, and it's inside is an extradimensional space that holds about 500 cubic feet of things. Removing an item from the bag takes an item interaction, and you can use an action to just dump everything out of the bag that is inside it. If you only go by measurements, you can in fact fit three to four average sized humans into the bag with their heads sticking out. They would be uncomfortable, and they would take time to get into the bag, but they would fit.

A flying character has a flight speed equal to their movement speed. The character in question was a Winged kobold monk a t 11th level with 16 strength (really good stat rolls). Since the bag is always 15 lbs, the flying character now has the ability to carry the entire party at 60 feet per round, or 120 if she dashed.

Additionally, there are no rules limiting flying beyond standard travel rules. A simple calculation reveals that traveling at a normal pace covers a distance of approximately base move speed x 8 = miles traveled. Base move speed of 3 results in 24 miles per day. A base move speed of 6 = 48 miles per day. A fast pace increases that speed by a factor of 1/3, so 3 becomes 4, and 6 becomes 8. 8x8 = 64 miles in 8 hours. This would allow my players to move over extremely large distances in a relatively short period of time with absolutely no penalties. Even using the teleport spell robs a player of a 7th level spell slot OR requires extremely rare and powerful items, often consumables, such as a scroll of teleport.

The tactic in question goes as such: Everyone rolls initiative. The Kobold moves in combat and flies 60 feet right toward the enemy. The Kobold uses an action to dump the bag of holding's contents out (containing the paladin, rogue, and barbarian). The Paladin, Rogue and Barbarian are now right in the face of the backline because the Kobold can simply fly over any guards or significant barriers. It is effectively a deep strike maneuver. Now I had to come up with a valid reason why EVERYONE with a bag of holding didn't attempt this same maneuver, or why the rogue in question didn't simply tuck his head inside the bag since it holds 15 minutes or so of air and infiltrate dangerous locations.

I also would have had to come up with rules for how to escape a bag of holding from inside when there is no real space to move, and whether or not being dumped out of a bag of holding would result in one falling prone, and how many other things in the bag took of space to calculate volume compared to the mass of the players.

And why would you think the obvious choice would be to shut this idea down? I know there are rules about how much fits inside, and I imagine a whole party of people may exceed that... but probably one or two people could fit.

In older editions, certainly there were rules that explicitly stated why this could not happen. But no, get out a tape measure and measure two feet in diameter. When you remember that it's an extra dimensional space, you just need each character to get in one at a time and they can, in fact, fit. You either then engage in large amounts of geometry to calculate volume, mass, space, etc, or you just assume that the bag of holding runs on the same type of physics as a clown car in a cartoon show, and all of the implications that this implies.

Imagine the Siege of Troy, if you will, with the Trojan Horse. Different historical texts lists the number of solders it held as anywhere from 30 to 50 men, so the Trojan Horse was quite massive. Now imagine that due to magical shenanigcans, the Trojan Horse is only the size of a poorly rolled up sleeping bag, but still carries inside it 50 Trojan Warriors fully armed and ready to go. Now imagine that those 50 fully armed Trojan Warriors can exit the bag effectively at their whim, without having to be in a line, or go one or two at a time, or get out first then reach back in to grab their spear and shield; no they just all spontaneously BAMF into existence in the space around the Trojan Bag. And since the bag is so small and weighs so little, really you don't even need to pretend that the rest of the Greek army is sailing away, you just sit on the beach and in the middle of the night, put 150 of your soldiers into 3 bags and sneak up to the gate and toss them over the gate. Soon as the bags land, you've successfully invaded the inner keep of your enemy.

BUT WAIT, I hear you say: There's two more inner keeps! Don't worry your pretty little head. Because there aren't rules that stop you from one of the Trojan Warriors inside the bag of holding with 50 Trojan Warriors having another bag of his own with another 50 Trojan Warriors inside of it, and one of them has another bag with another 50 Trojan Warriors.

And now you see why I had to deny this.

 

[Oofta]

Because it would invalidate entire encounters in droves, and led to an extremely asinine attempt at tactics repeating itself ad nauseum. Observe:

A bag of holding has a mouth that is 2 feet in diameter, and the bag itself is 4 feet long. The bag weights 15 lbs regardless of what is stored inside it, and it's inside is an extradimensional space that holds about 500 cubic feet of things. Removing an item from the bag takes an item interaction, and you can use an action to just dump everything out of the bag that is inside it. If you only go by measurements, you can in fact fit three to four average sized humans into the bag with their heads sticking out. They would be uncomfortable, and they would take time to get into the bag, but they would fit.

A flying character has a flight speed equal to their movement speed. The character in question was a Winged kobold monk a t 11th level with 16 strength (really good stat rolls). Since the bag is always 15 lbs, the flying character now has the ability to carry the entire party at 60 feet per round, or 120 if she dashed.

Additionally, there are no rules limiting flying beyond standard travel rules. A simple calculation reveals that traveling at a normal pace covers a distance of approximately base move speed x 8 = miles traveled. Base move speed of 3 results in 24 miles per day. A base move speed of 6 = 48 miles per day. A fast pace increases that speed by a factor of 1/3, so 3 becomes 4, and 6 becomes 8. 8x8 = 64 miles in 8 hours. This would allow my players to move over extremely large distances in a relatively short period of time with absolutely no penalties. Even using the teleport spell robs a player of a 7th level spell slot OR requires extremely rare and powerful items, often consumables, such as a scroll of teleport.

The tactic in question goes as such: Everyone rolls initiative. The Kobold moves in combat and flies 60 feet right toward the enemy. The Kobold uses an action to dump the bag of holding's contents out (containing the paladin, rogue, and barbarian). The Paladin, Rogue and Barbarian are now right in the face of the backline because the Kobold can simply fly over any guards or significant barriers. It is effectively a deep strike maneuver. Now I had to come up with a valid reason why EVERYONE with a bag of holding didn't attempt this same maneuver, or why the rogue in question didn't simply tuck his head inside the bag since it holds 15 minutes or so of air and infiltrate dangerous locations.

I also would have had to come up with rules for how to escape a bag of holding from inside when there is no real space to move, and whether or not being dumped out of a bag of holding would result in one falling prone, and how many other things in the bag took of space to calculate volume compared to the mass of the players.


In older editions, certainly there were rules that explicitly stated why this could not happen. But no, get out a tape measure and measure two feet in diameter. When you remember that it's an extra dimensional space, you just need each character to get in one at a time and they can, in fact, fit. You either then engage in large amounts of geometry to calculate volume, mass, space, etc, or you just assume that the bag of holding runs on the same type of physics as a clown car in a cartoon show, and all of the implications that this implies.

Imagine the Siege of Troy, if you will, with the Trojan Horse. Different historical texts lists the number of solders it held as anywhere from 30 to 50 men, so the Trojan Horse was quite massive. Now imagine that due to magical shenanigcans, the Trojan Horse is only the size of a poorly rolled up sleeping bag, but still carries inside it 50 Trojan Warriors fully armed and ready to go. Now imagine that those 50 fully armed Trojan Warriors can exit the bag effectively at their whim, without having to be in a line, or go one or two at a time, or get out first then reach back in to grab their spear and shield; no they just all spontaneously BAMF into existence in the space around the Trojan Bag. And since the bag is so small and weighs so little, really you don't even need to pretend that the rest of the Greek army is sailing away, you just sit on the beach and in the middle of the night, put 150 of your soldiers into 3 bags and sneak up to the gate and toss them over the gate. Soon as the bags land, you've successfully invaded the inner keep of your enemy.

BUT WAIT, I hear you say: There's two more inner keeps! Don't worry your pretty little head. Because there aren't rules that stop you from one of the Trojan Warriors inside the bag of holding with 50 Trojan Warriors having another bag of his own with another 50 Trojan Warriors inside of it, and one of them has another bag with another 50 Trojan Warriors.

And now you see why I had to deny this.

Yeah, that last bit doesn't work because as the rules state

Placing a bag of holding inside an extradimensional space created by a handy haversack, portable hole, or similar item instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane.​

​

<joke>
Obviously the correct way to handle it would have been to ask some simple questions. Did any of the PCs have edged weapons out or not in a sheath? The bag ruptures and they're sucked into the astral plane! Do any of them have any extradimensional equipment such as another bag of holding? To the astral plane it is!
</joke>

I agree with your handling of the situation, but sticking their heads out? Amateurs. They don't need to stick their heads out, they just need snorkels!

These ideas aren't new, we proposed something similar once except with snorkels and a catapult. Except, of course, we all knew we were just kidding because we didn't want to play the game with silly exploits. That and we could never figure out how to trigger the catapult.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I was assuming D&D 5e.

Then the procedure in place is that the GM can veto player lore suggestions, if they feel it is necessary, correct? Not that they need to, but they can. Like I tried to say earlier in my post regarding blacksmith that you liked, as long as the GM can deny the suggestion, the situation is not significantly different regardless of what form the player's suggestion takes. Like if instead what you said, the player said something like "Hey GM, my character has travelled a bit, so do you think she could have visited this town before and would know a nice inn or tavern?" and the GM said "Sure," that would be basically the same thing.

What I feel would significantly alter things if the GM was not allowed to deny such requests. Because that's what @pemerton effectively implied when they called denying them railroading.

I'm not sure I see the major distinction between the god example and determining if there's a tavern/blacksmith/whatever that a player knows about... I'm guessing it's the scale?... but sure.

Oh. You don't see a difference between knowing a tavern or a blacksmith and establishing a way for a god to circumvent the game mechanics in a major way for you, in order to help you to obtain an item central to your main goal?
I think there is a teensy-weensy difference here; you might be able to notice it if you squint really hard.

Let's say it's not a hometown of any PC. It's a city. The party arrives, the fighter says "I know of a tavern nearby..." but this city hasn't yet been brought up in anyone's backstory, or in any major way in relation to the players. How is it determined if the PC may have been here before? Different groups will handle it differently, of course.

But if the DM simply accepted the player's declaration and narrated accordingly... do you really think that it will create a problem going forward that every time you arrive in a city, someone will declare that they know of a tavern?

No, I don't really.

Related questions... if they did, is that really a problem?

Yes, it would. Some places are meant to be explored and some things work better if no one has been in the place before.

If they did and in some way it was a problem, couldn't you simply deny them at that point? "Actually, no... none of you have ever been here before because X reason." Does every instance of this need to be shut down, or just ones that seem to actually be problematic in some way?

Yes I would, and not every instance need to be denied.

Actually, it's not a case that mysteries MUST work this way. There are plenty of games that show otherwise.

These kind of all encompassing statements are what I'm pushing back against. You may prefer that mystery games work that way, but it doesn't mean they MUST.

You can have a narrative that is a mystery. But you cannot solve a mystery if you are inventing it as you go along.

Also, this applies to far more than to mysteries. It is about having objective world with objective facts that you can learn and leverage in your favour.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It just feels like something that could imbalance the game if it was limited to clerics (or warlocks I suppose) which is why I was curious.

True. 5e doesn't have a Faith score so to speak.
Casters with a patron/deity have a primary requisite score and their level but maybe that isn't a fair indication of the strength of one's faith. A devout fighter may have firmer beliefs than a cleric depending on how you/your table views it.

If a cleric can always be calling in favors, why have a spell list?
How does it not make them the go-to for a power player, especially one that has the ability to influence the DM into agreeing?

There is a lot at play here - mechanics, consistency, stakes, DM willingness for added work...etc but also narrative opportunity. I do not have all the answers, I'd have to think how to make it work for my table, like i said before take into account TIBF and probably incorporating some of the limitations @hawkeyefan posted.
To be frank I'd also have a quick discussion with the players, particularly if the table was invested.

But say this was sprung on me, as a DM I'd be very interested in the narrative opportunity that could be explored.
I could figure out the limitations later and my table is pretty easy with me making house rules.

I'm also not certain I could come up with penalties that really mattered that would be appropriate. I'm sure some games handle this, just don't see it for D&D games I run.

DW SRD provides some neat ideas. I'd also say exploring the possibility of the loss or additions of TIBF.
Then look towards old school - permanent attribute loss, aging, permanent cosmetic feature, attunement reduction, additional hour of prayer every day (to gain spells/avoid 1 level of exhaustion)...etc
The character would always have the option of denying the bargain, but then they'd likely shut themselves off to persuing such course of action again. I'm just throwing ideas here.

In any case, if you think it makes sense for your game go for it. There's a lot of things people do I wouldn't want in my game, doesn't make them wrong.

It is all good, generally people will play what they are comfortable/confident to play. This is just a fair exchange of ideas.

 

[TiQuinn]

BUT WAIT, I hear you say: There's two more inner keeps! Don't worry your pretty little head. Because there aren't rules that stop you from one of the Trojan Warriors inside the bag of holding with 50 Trojan Warriors having another bag of his own with another 50 Trojan Warriors inside of it, and one of them has another bag with another 50 Trojan Warriors.

Might wanna recheck the rules on that one.

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

There is a lot at play here - mechanics, consistency, stakes, DM willingness for added work...etc but also narrative opportunity. I do not have all the answers, I'd have to think how to make it work for my table, like i said before take into account TIBF and probably incorporating some of the limitations @hawkeyefan posted.
To be frank I'd also have a quick discussion with the players, particularly if the table was invested.

Something I'd like to point out that's relevant to this discussion is that, in the essence and act of world building, some things are implied because they are common knowledge and don't need to be stated outright. For example, someone earlier in this thread I think it was said something about how it's immersion breaking or something that all the planets are round.

The general assumption that a planet would be round comes from the general understanding that most people have of "Gravity", e.g. the gravity of the planets core pulls inward in a spherical shape, thus planets are generally spheres. This is also why the outer planes can be so funky, the plane of Elysium is four flat discs stacked on top of each other and connected by a literal river of pure goodness that flows upwards and sideways and each way like a hotwheels track, but that is because the outer planes are explicitly stated to operate on their own unique set of physics that functions differently from the material world, which otherwise is assumed to be like most worlds. This also means that if your character were to manage to teleport from Toril to Krynn, you would notice changes in flora and fauna and the sky and the number of moons or suns, but you would not notice a chance in gravity and not expect the planet to be flat. If you DID, on the other hand, end up on a flat planet that falls off into space on the edges, you'd likely pinpoint how far away from Kansas you've ended up.

These complaints some people have then are just nonsensical, and the complaints that taking these things aware somehow equates to taking away player agency or something really just comes off as trolling.

 

[Oofta]

True. 5e doesn't have a Faith score so to speak.
Casters with a patron/deity have a primary requisite score and their level but maybe that isn't a fair indication of the strength of one's faith. A devout fighter may have firmer beliefs than a cleric depending on how you/your table views it.

There is a lot at play here - mechanics, consistency, stakes, DM willingness for added work...etc but also narrative opportunity. I do not have all the answers, I'd have to think how to make it work for my table, like i said before take into account TIBF and probably incorporating some of the limitations @hawkeyefan posted.
To be frank I'd also have a quick discussion with the players, particularly if the table was invested.

But say this was sprung on me, as a DM I'd be very interested in the narrative opportunity that could be explored.
I could figure out the limitations later and my table is pretty easy with me making house rules.


DW SRD provides some neat ideas. I'd also say exploring the possibility of the loss or additions of TIBF.
Then look towards old school - permanent attribute loss, aging, permanent cosmetic feature, attunement reduction, additional hour of prayer every day (to gain spells/avoid 1 level of exhaustion)...etc
The character would always have the option of denying the bargain, but then they'd likely shut themselves off to persuing such course of action again. I'm just throwing ideas here.


It is all good, generally people will play what they are comfortable/confident to play. This is just a fair exchange of ideas.

It comes back to the same issue for me though. One particular class gets special benefits that others don't. Heck, if a cleric can call in a favor from Odin, why not just have Odin blast enemies from the heavens? All Odin has to do is point Gungnir at a mortal and they die after all.

Even if you had a system for devout non clerics, what about the guy that wants to play a non devout character? Is there an alternative power source for them to tap into? Can the rogue call in favors from a guild that have similar impact or a fighter cash in promises of aid? But then how do you accumulate them, how do you balance powers, how big a benefit can you get? What about a truly devout rogue that also has connections to the thieve's guild, can they call in favors from their god and the guild? So on and so forth. I'm probably overthinking it, but if I allow something like direct intervention from a deity, it needs to make sense and be balanced for me.

I can see how you could have a system where this could all work, especially for systems with a different structure. It just seems like a lot of effort to shoehorn it into D&D when clerics already receive spells from their deity. For really minor things it wouldn't really matter but granting power outside of the rules of the game can come with it's own issues of a DM showing favoritism or a player having undue influence.

I'm sure other people could get it to work, for me the juice is just not worth the squeeze when there are other viable options for the characters to achieve their goals. A player can always ask, sometimes the answer will be no. I don't see an issue with that as long as the answer is not always no.