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

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Exactly. Sandbox is less economically viable for publishers (which is a real shame; I'd love for there to be more sandbox setting material out there). Doesn't mean it's an uncommon playstyle.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

Not my personal preference either, but if you want your PCs to be heroes, and they're on-board with that limitation, then it's all good at the vital table level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I am arguing with people who say (i) that only simulationist-type mechanics permit immersion, and (ii) that an action can't be declared from a character's perspective if the resolution of the action is sensitive to the player's intent in declaring it.

Those are both preferences, which may or may not be negotiable for a particular player (including the DM) or a particular table. For me, i agree with both i and ii personally, but you obviously don't. Both perspectives are valid.

 

[Oofta]

It apparently mattered enough for you to object to it.

Yes, and I explained why. But obviously you're sticking to your opinion so there's no sense beating the dead horse.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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).

I don't allow evil PCs. I will never tell a person what their character can do, although if the outcome is obvious I will tell them the result. Tell me they're going to jump across the Grand Canyon? I will let them know the consequence. Unless they have some magic I don't know of they won't make it and that the fall will kill them. Tell me they're going to commit an evil act? The consequence is their PC becomes an NPC. They can still tell me their PC jumps or commits the act, it's still their choice.

There are some behaviors that I don't allow because it would harm the enjoyment of the game for all the other players at the table. Stopping those behaviors overrides the authority of the player over their PCs. Continuing to play an evil PC is one of them.

 

[Cadence]

Creative input on the world is world-bending power. Literally.

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? I would guess that things akin to the former happen in most games and are almost impossible to avoid. If asking always makes it so, then it feels like an in demand alter-reality to me.


Tangentially...
Another one in my head is what happens if the DM has "completely" designed the castle but ignored something like air circulation, or adequate water supply, or water disposal -- and if, after exploring the contents of every room, the player asks about it because any of the three would work for their plans.

 

[Oofta]

Do you think it would be possible to not frame their desire to have creative input as world bending power?

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. In standard D&D you are only in control of what your character says and does, which is my preference.

In my game? In standard D&D? The player's authority ends at the PC's words and deeds, the DM controls everything else. Want to go to the nearest temple to confess the sins you're about to commit? I'll tell you if there's actually a temple in town and you can take it from there unless the details matter. Ask me if there is a blacksmith in town? I'll let you know based on the size of the town and any notes I may have (e.g. it's a small hamlet and the blacksmith disappearing is a plot hook). Same with any number of things, I'm not going to give a perfect description of everything so if you ask for clarification of the scene I'll provide one. Drunk in a bar? Want to punch someone? I'll describe how crowded the bar is if I haven't already, perhaps give some details about the guy next to you. I may even give you a chance to realize the guy on your left is the Duke's favorite son or that you saw a poster of the guy on your right proclaiming their martial prowess.

There is no one true way, nobody is telling you your playing a game wrong. We just have different approaches.

 

[Oofta]

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?

An example of a module that largely has a sandbox approach would be Dragonheist as far as I can remember (it's been a while). I skimmed through the module after we played but unfortunately the DM we had didn't really understand that and it just kind of fell apart. The thing is that it tells you about a treasure hunt of sorts where multiple factions are pursuing the same treasure. It lets you know different factions, what their goals are, how they are likely to react to the PCs, but that's about it. It gives you various plot hooks but that's it, there isn't really a linear path and if the PCs faff around enough a specific organization gets all the money. But our DM didn't really understand that or how to make it all work. I've heard the same complaints about Rime of the Frostmaiden.

So yes, some modules are designed to be settings, not linear adventure paths. They don't work for some people.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Creative input on the world is world-bending power. Literally.

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

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’

My character can pick up the person in front of them, my character cannot influence what species they are, you cannot ‘pick up the gnome in front of me’ if it has not been established they are a gnome.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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? I would guess that things akin to the former happen in most games and are almost impossible to avoid. If asking always makes it so, then it feels like an in demand alter-reality to me.


Tangentially...
Another one in my head is what happens if the DM has "completely" designed the castle but ignored something like air circulation, or adequate water supply, or water disposal -- and if, after exploring the contents of every room, the player asks about it because any of the three would work for their plans.

I will say that asking if something exists isn't world-bending, but declaring it exists is (although I'd likely let it go in actual play if I think it makes sense).

Pointing out issues with design to the DM is correcting a potential mistake, which is also ok. I'm big enough to admit screwing up and correcting it when pointed out.