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

[Oofta]

A good RPG has formal or informal processes for resolving this.

So is D&D not a good system because it doesn't work like your preferred system? What about my preferences that when I looked at some of the PbtA games that they are something I would not enjoy?

 

[pemerton]

For others, GM creating the world the PCs play in is more immersive. Doesn't mean that every single detail needs to be out of the mouth of the DM. If the PCs are outdoors and the player declares they pick up a handful of dirt, it would be unusual for the DM to clarify or restrict that.

So now the boundary between "world-bending power" and "not every single details needs to be out of the mouth of the DM" is to be drawn exactly where you draw it in your play?

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

you might want to review what actually is and is not being classified as 'world-bending.'

we are not characterising any of that as 'world bending power' (confirmation pending on hypothetical state of the campaign world and that you're declaring your attempts to do those actions rather than asserting them as facts/truths.)

you can go to the castle (assuming one exists and entry is not barred)
you can attack the nearest guy
you can look for members of your family if you are in the right region
you can visit the blacksmith (if one exists)

you cannot say 'the guards left the back gate unlocked' or 'there are no guards'
you cannot say anything about who the nearest guy is, their species, their job, age, gender, clothing
you cannot say you simply 'run into' a member of your family
you cannot say what equipment the blacksmiths has in store to purchase

 

[pemerton]

If you're quoting or paraphrasing a rule from a game I shouldn't have to do any further research - assuming your quote or paraphrase is accurate - in order to discuss what you've quoted/paraphrased.

Here is what I posted:

Torchbearer has a rule that all the PCs have to enter and leave a phase (town, adventure, camp) together, and so in that sense it mandates a party. But it doesn't mandate a party goal. The players have individual goals.

And here is what you posted in response:

It mandates much more than that: it mandates against individual PC actions

That is not discussing what I posted. That is you just making an ungrounded assertion.

If you want to know how Torchbearer actually plays, you can read my actual play thread. It's not hard to find.

 

[Oofta]

So now the boundary between "world-bending power" and "not every single details needs to be out of the mouth of the DM" is to be drawn exactly where you draw it in your play?

Okay. This is going nowhere. The standard D&D play loop is simple and well documented. You don't have to accept it. You don't have to like it. But it is a clear and obvious line.

 

[pemerton]

Interfere with what?

<snip>

How does this jibe with @Micah Sweet ’s comment above about player’s pursuits “interfering” with… something?

So here’s the way it seems to me… there are two ways to look at the tavern situation. A player has declared that his character is drunk and itching for a fight, and that he punches the nearest person.

The first seems to be that this is an inconvenience to the DM in some way. Mostly because it’s a player over stepping their expected authority. Any further issues that people have here have yet to be explained. I have ideas, but I’m curious what others might say.

The second is to view this situation as an opportunity. I mean, the player is literally saying “I want to see this happen”… so why deny it due to some slavish adherence to power distribution? Instead, let the player have some say about how the game goes and what happens next. Use the altercation in the tavern as the thing that moves play forward.

This is a really good analysis, as well as an invitation to explain what the issue is.

 

[Mort]

Okay. This is going nowhere. The standard D&D play loop is simple and well documented. You don't have to accept it. You don't have to like it. But it is a clear and obvious line.

Is it clear and obvious? I tend to see the line as a bit blurry, as I see both your and @pemerton 's points. I tend to come back to the following example, which I had always thought fairly straightforward, but it has a lot of opinions (example is 3e because that's how long ago I posted the original):

Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.

The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him. Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain?

Interestingly, 5e has built a solution to this in. If the PC has the urchin background, he CAN per RAW find a better route and cut off the villain.

My point is, when framing the scene are we really saying the DM has closed off all options other than those they have explicitly stated?

 

[Oofta]

Is it clear and obvious? I tend to see the line as a bit blurry, as I see both your and @pemerton 's points. I tend to come back to the following example, which I had always thought fairly straightforward, but it has a lot of opinions (example is 3e because that's how long ago I posted the original):

Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.

The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him. Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain?

Interestingly, 5e has built a solution to this in. If the PC has the urchin background, he CAN per RAW find a better route and cut off the villain.

My point is, when framing the scene are we really saying the DM has closed off all options other than those they have explicitly stated?

I don't know how it can be much clearer. I quoted the play loop above, it's only 3 steps. The default is that PCs interact with the world around them through word and deed alone. You don't have to follow that of course. I never once stated that the DM framing the scene has closed off other options, setting the scene is not telling people what they can say or do.

What you're describing is a player working with a DM to establish what their character knows and what possible options are so that the player can act on their knowledge. In your scenario the villain may be taking the most direct route, but it will also be jammed with traffic this time of day, slowing them down. That, or the DM is perfectly within their rights to say that specific beats general and the current situation is more specific than the general urchin rule.

The player is not inventing something to slow down the villain. They don't get to inject a new festival Gaffoozle Day which means there will be a parade on the main route. They don't get to invent a guy sitting next to them at the bar if the DM said the bar was empty. The player can always ask for clarification. "Is there a dude sitting next to me?" is legit. If the DM says yes then the player can declare they punch them.

P.S. I'm glad they got rid of things like the urchin and noble features for 2024. There were times when some of the features made no sense.

EDIT: the exact wording from the 2024 DMG is (bold added) "D&D is about telling a story as a group, so let the other players contribute through the words and deeds of their characters. "

 

[pemerton]

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

@hawkeyefan's point, at least as I understand it, is that there is no objective, external, action-constraining entity that might, via human action, be "bent".

Rather, there is a shared fiction that is established and built upon during play.

And so when a player, speaking as their PC, says "I punch the nearest dude in the face" - and thus, if there action declaration goes uncontradicted, inter alia establishes that there is a nearby dude with a face to be punched - they are not "bending" anything. Rather, they are adding to the shared fiction: something that was previously implicit and merely background in the fiction, given that the PC was in a tavern - namely, the presence of that nearby dude - has now become explicit and highly salient in the play of the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That is not discussing what I posted. That is you just making an ungrounded assertion.

No we are not reading your actual play and what @Lanefan said was reasonable inference based on your sentence. You have had several opportunities to confirm how it actually works but you have chosen not to.

I assume "camp phase" correspond to fictional positioning of the party being at a camp, "town phase" at them being at the town etc. Is this roughly correct? If it is, then what happens, if in one of those phases one player declares that their character leaves the town/camp alone?