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

[Pedantic]

As long as you keep pumping quarters it means you haven't won.

Most* arcade games were, in effect, rogue-likes: no matter how far you got or how well you did, sooner or later you'd lose. Beating the game was either impossible or extremely difficult.

* - the exceptions were those like original Pac-Man where if you knew the right pattern you could in theory go on forever.

I don't think that's a generally accepted definition of a roguelike. In fact, roguelikes with that trait are likely to be called arcade-style or sometimes score chasers.

 

[pemerton]

What game are you assuming is being played here? "Mark xp"?

Dungeon World.

 

[pemerton]

The thing is people in this thread have disagreed on several occasion what is and isn't "implicitly present" in a given description, so that is not an thing that can have an unambiguous answer.

No, but it doesn't need to have an unambiguous answer among the posters in this thread. All that is necessary is for the participants in the game to converge on an answer. One way for that to happen is for the player to do the sort of thing that has been discussed in this thread, and have everyone else at the table (including the GM) go along with it.

it was not obvious to me, that you intended that the players descriptive authority is limited only to what is implicitly present.

I have posted about this several times, and I think you have replied to some of those posts. It's not the only possible way to incorporate players' ideas into framing and setting. But it's probably the most straightforward.

You disagreed with this post in which Lanefan stated that non-DM player doesn't describe the situation.

Here's what I posted in reply to @Lanefan:

"I punch the nearest dude!" is not describing the situation. It's declaring an action.

That's your interpretation. It's not what the play loop states expressly, and it's not the only tenable implication of what is expressly stated.

The first paragraph is about the difference between describing a situation, and declaring an action. The second is reiterating another point that I've made throughout this thread, that the core play loop does not specify that a player's action declaration cannot refer to something that the GM has not expressly mentioned.

So what's the problem? Certainly it is plausible, that in a tavern a wealthy patron might have accidentally dropped their coin purse?

Your example takes it as a given that finding a large bag of gold is a meaningful upshot in game-play. That's why you chose a bag of gold rather than, say, a sack of coal.

It therefore raises the question of under what circumstances is a player's postulation that their PC achieves a meaningful upshot able to come true? Different RPGs answer this question differently. In 4e D&D, as in a number of other RPGs, the approach that I use - (i) because it works, and (ii) because the rulebooks tend to suggest it - is "say 'yes' or roll the dice". In applying that principle, I would also have regard to how many outstanding treasure parcels there are for the current level, which will give an idea of what sort of obstacle/skill challenge (if any) to put between the players and the gold that they desire for their PCs.

If the player (and their PC) gets what they want, then there is indeed a large bag of gold. If the roll/skill challenge (were one called for) failed, then there are obviously a host of candidate narrations possible, none of which require denying that the PC did indeed observe a large sack of something. Some don't even require denying that the PC observed a large sack of gold (eg if the upshot of failure is that the wealthy patron who dropped it comes back and thanks the PC for finding it for them).

 

[pemerton]

How could the GM legitimately shut it down? A giant has been encountered. That means giants exist. If the giant behaved in a way consistent with sentient life, that means giant culture exists. What possible reason at that point could the GM give to prevent the player from attempting to investigate that culture?

@hawkeyefan gave some examples of how the GM might shut it down. Here's another one: there's a geas/curse on any non-giant learning giantish language or culture, so that if the PC learns what the player is hoping they will learn, the PC is cursed/killed/struck dumb/whatever other effect the GM decides the geas/curse has.

Which is a misunderstanding of how a sandbox works. If something exists in the world, even by implication, the players can access it. If it’s not already detailed, then filling it in is the DM’s job, probably between sessions. And it makes sense to spend the time detailing the thing the players are interested in, rather than waste a lot of time on something they aren’t interested in, and therefore will never see.

It's basic existence was already set. That's how a sandbox works. The player, however, decided to pursue it, which led to the area being further developed. Had the player not been interested, the giant culture would not have vanished, but it would have remained undeveloped in all likelihood. This is one of the ways that players impact the setting under this paradigm.

I take it that you, @Micah Sweet, would agree with @Paul Farquhar that "being further developed" is something that the GM does - "filling it in is the DM's job".

And so the actual impact the player has had is to prompt the GM to author more setting details, about an aspect of the setting in which the player has expressed interest. Or am I missing something?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I take it that you, @Micah Sweet, would agree with @Paul Farquhar that "being further developed" is something that the GM does - "filling it in is the DM's job".

And so the actual impact the player has had is to prompt the GM to author more setting details, about an aspect of the setting in which the player has expressed interest. Or am I missing something?

It might be worth mentioning that although I understand sandboxes, my current game isn't really a sandbox because I have a bunch of players who have decision paralysis, and like to be given hints as to which way to go for the most interesting stuff.

But yes, the DM creates the world, but to a degree they do so at the direction of the players.

That goes back to the "fun" rule. If the players express an interest in giants, then the DM puts more stuff into the world related to giants, because the objective is to create a world that is fun for the players. Most of the actual creation occurs between games, not during games. They might add interesting challenges for the the players to overcome in order to find the lost city of the giants, because that is fun. They won't arbitrarily block the players learning about giants, because that is not fun.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Here is a rather extreme example. A player says "I look round the inn to see if there are any clowns." I, as DM, might roll dice (yeah I do illusionism sometimes, shoot me) and say "You see a humanoid figure with their face painted white sitting in a shadowy corner", just because I want to see where the player is going with this. The DM has created the clown, but they have done so because the player asked them to by asking the question.

I doubt @Micah Sweet would do this because I believe they prefer a more grounded world in which random clowns do not exist, but they might do it for something that is less unlikely in the setting.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that's a generally accepted definition of a roguelike. In fact, roguelikes with that trait are likely to be called arcade-style or sometimes score chasers.

Seems much the same to me; given that all the rogue-likes I've played are also scored, and have high-score lists etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

man what

It seems it was and example of everyone's suggestion for rule elements being accepted, leading the game becoming incoherent. Whilst our discussion here has been mostly about setting elements rather than rules* the same applies to the setting elements.

(* Though I think "petition the gods to bypass the magic system" seems like a rule to me, albeit vaguely formulated one.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, but it doesn't need to have an unambiguous answer among the posters in this thread. All that is necessary is for the participants in the game to converge on an answer. One way for that to happen is for the player to do the sort of thing that has been discussed in this thread, and have everyone else at the table (including the GM) go along with it.

Like I said earlier, that is sort of thing that might work a group of people who happen to be on common wavelength. But one cannot rely on that and publisher of a product in particular cannot rely on that. And one way of handling possible discrepancies is that one player has the final authority on what goes. Another might be for the rules to clearly and specifically explain in detail the principles and guidelines relating to this.

I have posted about this several times, and I think you have replied to some of those posts. It's not the only possible way to incorporate players' ideas into framing and setting. But it's probably the most straightforward.

Here's what I posted in reply to @Lanefan:
The first paragraph is about the difference between describing a situation, and declaring an action. The second is reiterating another point that I've made throughout this thread, that the core play loop does not specify that a player's action declaration cannot refer to something that the GM has not expressly mentioned.

Yes. But none of this limited the things "not expressly mentioned" to things that can be reasonably inferred from the GM's description. But if you meant that, then sure, I really have not disagreed about that, albeit I would reserve the GM the right to veto the action declaration in a rare case where the inference was out of line.

(As an actual example of a veto that happened, if I would not have done it, goblins in my setting would now have tails, because the player was a bit confused about goblins and kobolds and announced they "grab the goblin by the tail." Now one might think that it is not a big deal whether goblins have tails or not, but I am pretty obsessed about things like this and I certainly have thought about the anatomy of common creatures in the setting. And in the long run I don't think it is good idea to let the possible player confusion to dictate the setting design. The character still got to grab the gobling though, just not by the tail!)

Your example takes it as a given that finding a large bag of gold is a meaningful upshot in game-play. That's why you chose a bag of gold rather than, say, a sack of coal.

It therefore raises the question of under what circumstances is a player's postulation that their PC achieves a meaningful upshot able to come true?

Yes! And it is good that we can at least recognise that there is a significant difference between postulating something that is mostly flavour and postulating something that is a clear advantage. Though I don't think the difference between these two is actually quite as clear than it might seem at a glance and there is also a third category where the postulated thing does not offer a direct advantage, but it still a bit of a big deal and changes the situation significantly.

Different RPGs answer this question differently. In 4e D&D, as in a number of other RPGs, the approach that I use - (i) because it works, and (ii) because the rulebooks tend to suggest it - is "say 'yes' or roll the dice". In applying that principle, I would also have regard to how many outstanding treasure parcels there are for the current level, which will give an idea of what sort of obstacle/skill challenge (if any) to put between the players and the gold that they desire for their PCs.

If the player (and their PC) gets what they want, then there is indeed a large bag of gold. If the roll/skill challenge (were one called for) failed, then there are obviously a host of candidate narrations possible, none of which require denying that the PC did indeed observe a large sack of something. Some don't even require denying that the PC observed a large sack of gold (eg if the upshot of failure is that the wealthy patron who dropped it comes back and thanks the PC for finding it for them).

This of course also requires that there is a commensurate cost for failure, otherwise it is optimal gameplay to constantly suggest beneficial things as the dice might favour you and you might get it.

 

[Aldarc]

In my experience the two bolded pieces above are almost always in near-perfect harmony.

Both as a party and as individual characters you play to win, sometimes crap happens when you lose, and sometimes the crap-happens effects impact others than just the one(s) who lost.

And after a loss you pick up the pieces and carry on; unless it's a true TPK which IME are exceedingly rare (DMed one, played through none, over a whole lot of years and play).

When I talk of "feces happens" in the latter instance, I am speaking more towards the consequences of roleplaying your character with integrity, which potentially means "suboptimally." IME, there is a tension between suboptimal play when roleplaying your character and the style of OSR and D&D gameplay that focuses on things like "player skill," "skilled play," "play to win," and "git g00d." There is not the same sort of emphasis on "skilled play" and "play to win" in games like Stonetop or Torchbearer or Fate because these games are more interested in dramatic story beats.

There can be that degree of "characterization fudging" (good term for it!); it's rather common, and it's something I'm not a fan of. If the PCs don't get along, let 'em fight. If splitting up is what the group would do, let it happen. If it's what the character would do, do it.

IMHO, this position mistakenly talks about a player issue as if it were a player character issue. The PCs have no will of their own. We are talking about thinking that happens at the level of the player, and this happens regardless of whether you are a fan of it or not.

Seems much the same to me; given that all the rogue-likes I've played are also scored, and have high-score lists etc.

I thought that you don't play video games.