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

[Lanefan]

Its not just the adventure paths. That's just an external example that can be pointed at. But as I followed the hobby over the years, I saw less and less mention of what would be considered sandboxes anywhere, and I think I saw enough to at least be as representative as anything anyone could see, and more than most have.

There's less mention of it in "official" sources for a few perhaps-cynical monetary reasons:

--- sandbox campaigns are most often homebrew (can't sell any setting material)
--- there's been very few sandbox-style published modules* in the WotC era (path-style modules sell better)
--- sandbox campaigns have more potential to last longer than path-style campaigns (less campaign turnover means less likely to update to every new edition)

* - is Madness at Gardmore Abbey the only one?

 

[Lanefan]

When apparently there's no limit on it besides what is constrained in game. Player agency is a virtue, but I don't see much sign people consider it so paramount they're willing to let people regularly detonate campaigns or take them in directions they're not interested in.

I suppose that also depends on the DM's breadth of interest in where the campaign might go and what might happen when it gets there.

For me the loss-of-interest shut-it-down tipping point comes if-when the players decide to have their PCs quit adventuring and become business tycoons, then expect me to work out the economics of it all. Fine for them, but someone else can DM it.

Its not favoring that, but favoring it with no limits that's fringe. There can be any number of reasons people will say "Could you not do that?" or in more extreme cases "No. We're not going where that would go." (See the reaction of any number of people to evil characters or play).

A reaction that I honestly don't understand a lot of the time.

I mean hell, part of the appeal of playing a game like this is that, if you want, you get to do the stuff and be the people you'd never even think of trying to do/be in real life. You can be a fantasy Mafia don(na). You can be a fantasy sellsword with no regard for any life but your own. You can be a fantasy assassin. You can be a fantasy second-story artist who doesn't care who you steal from. You can be the person (or party) who kidnaps the prince rather than rescues him. All of those are evil.

And all of those are IMO perfectly playable.

I'm not suggesting every character every time has to be a complete psychopathic whack-job, but denying evil PCs entirely always strikes me as overkill.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem is with the kinds of set ups I'm talking about, its pretty likely returning isn't possible. You've burned the bridges that allowed you to be in the position that made it possible.

If returning to the original story isn't possible, so what? You're on a different story now, one that (because the players took the campaign in that direction) you have to assume is engaging enough to the players that they'll keep playing it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But you're not "spawning reality".

Consider this: in a book that you are reading - a work of fiction - the author might refer to trees. And given that other features of the book make you think the fiction is set somewhere more-or-less temperate European, you probably imagine deciduous trees. And if the fiction also says or strongly implies its spring or summer (eg there's no reference to snow or cold winds, there is reference to sunshine and golden crops in the fields), then you will imagine leaves on those trees.

That is not you "spawning reality". That is you immersing yourself, imaginatively, in the fiction you are reading.

Now, suppose that the GM tells you there is a tavern. Are you expected - contrary to all intuition - to refrain from imagining anything? For my part, and I am guessing @TwoSix's also, I imagine stuff that flows naturally from what the GM has said, and other established or implied fictional context - so a fireplace, tables and benches, patrons drinking ale, etc.

And so when I then declare "I punch the nearest guy in the face" I'm not "spawning reality". I'm sharing my imagination, and acting on it.

To have to refrain from imagining anything until the GM tells me - eg there's a tavern, but it has no particular look, no particular people in it, no particular furnishing, etc - is extremely un-immersive. It's not how I engage with written fiction. It's not at all intuitive.

but in this instance you haven't actually created anything, you've only interacted with what already exists, or implied to exist, if you said 'i punch the largest guy'(note-this is a perfectly valid action by itself as it is only dictating the state of your own PC) and the GM replies 'you cannot do that: the bar is empty of patrons besides yourself' i'd consider that a perfectly valid denial of your proposed action although a notable failure on their part to sufficiently describe the empty bar as being such, if you had said 'i punch the largest guy, they are a male goliath who is a sailor' or 'i punch the largest guy, it is the local blacksmith' then that's when you''ve stepped into 'spawning reality'

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's a difference between a castle such as Buckingham Palace (constant high security both at the perimeter and internally, even the workers get vetted on entry) and Winterfell, which is more like a defended village where in times of peace people come and go all the time.

For royal-residence castles I generally assume more the medieval version of high-security where just walking in to see the king would be fraught with problems and risk unless you were already a friend in good standing of said king and known as such by the guards.

Well, at some points Winterfell was a royal residence. I think especially for earlier medieval periods it is pretty appropriate imagining of a king's castle, and certainly much closer to what I would imagine to see in typical D&D world than Buckingham Palace, built at the turn of the 18th century.

Also, I really do not get what was controversial about what @TwoSix said. Seemed like a perfectly valid action declaration, though one that is far from guaranteed to lead to the desired results. But depending the fame, stations and social skills of the character it could work. Unless we are talking about super tiny petty kingdom where the king is just a glorified baron, it would probably take several steps, at least first convincing the guards at the gate to let you to see someone who can actually arrange an audience with the king (seneschal, vizier, or some other court official) and then get that person to take you to see the king. Or alternatively if the courtier has enough authority, you might actually get them to do whatever you wanted from the king.

I certainly could see the rogue in my game with persuasion of 12 and reliable talent, as well as reputation as a giant and dragon slayer being able to do this! Granted, that reputation might not have yet spread far enough for it to have an effect, as none of the nations in the area where these deeds happened had kings. But this can be rectified byt the party's bard in preparation for this singing songs aout their mighty deeds so their reputation spreads.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But you're not "spawning reality".

Consider this: in a book that you are reading - a work of fiction - the author might refer to trees. And given that other features of the book make you think the fiction is set somewhere more-or-less temperate European, you probably imagine deciduous trees. And if the fiction also says or strongly implies its spring or summer (eg there's no reference to snow or cold winds, there is reference to sunshine and golden crops in the fields), then you will imagine leaves on those trees.

That is not you "spawning reality". That is you immersing yourself, imaginatively, in the fiction you are reading.

Now, suppose that the GM tells you there is a tavern. Are you expected - contrary to all intuition - to refrain from imagining anything? For my part, and I am guessing @TwoSix's also, I imagine stuff that flows naturally from what the GM has said, and other established or implied fictional context - so a fireplace, tables and benches, patrons drinking ale, etc.

And so when I then declare "I punch the nearest guy in the face" I'm not "spawning reality". I'm sharing my imagination, and acting on it.

To have to refrain from imagining anything until the GM tells me - eg there's a tavern, but it has no particular look, no particular people in it, no particular furnishing, etc - is extremely un-immersive. It's not how I engage with written fiction. It's not at all intuitive.

Given that I was fine with the bar example, and I said that some things can be inferred, this is complete non sequitur. Descriptions do implicitly contain all sort of things that were not explicitly mentioned. "I don't know whether the trees during summer have leaves because the GM didn't tell me." C'mon! What you doing here is just building an obvious strawman and I think you're smart enough to know it.

 

[pemerton]

but in this instance you haven't actually created anything, you've only interacted with what already exists, or implied to exist, if you said 'i punch the largest guy'(note-this is a perfectly valid action by itself as it is only dictating the state of your own PC) and the GM replies 'you cannot do that: the bar is empty of patrons besides yourself' i'd consider that a perfectly valid denial of your proposed action although a notable failure on their part to sufficiently describe the empty bar as being such, if you had said 'i punch the largest guy, they are a male goliath who is a sailor' or 'i punch the largest guy, it is the local blacksmith' then that's when you''ve stepped into 'spawning reality'

Here's the example that @Crimson Longinus characterised as "spawning reality":

If I'm immersed in my character being drunk and angry in a bar, I don't want to ask the DM who the bar patrons are around me. I just want to narrate my character punching the nearest dude.

Now if someone's now decided that is not "spawning reality", take that up with them. It's not a phrase that I introduced into the discussion.

 

[pemerton]

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

All that @TwoSix did in the example was state was his character does: I punch the nearest dude.

 

[pemerton]

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

I haven't said anything about anyone saying that there is "one true way", except @Emerikol as per my post upthread in reply to you: D&D General - A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

 

[pemerton]

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.

No. When the player says "I am looking for so-and-so" that is declared entirely from the character's perspective.

That the resolution is done by (say) rolling a Streetwise check rather than (say) rolling a random encounter table doesn't change the preceding sentence, which is independent of the resolution procedure.