WotC WotC Winter 2026 D&D Community Survey

[BenjaminPey]

I'd say it's not a case of badly conveyed intent. The intent is clear, it is to give players a tiny bit of agency in a super restricted, limited part of the DM's infinite world, to add some player-driven choices for character-driven stories. (A kind of thing which already existed in some previous editions, like BECMI for instance, where player-driven ad libitum campaigns were the norm rather than the exception.)

One could not like the result and even judge the rules are badly designed, of course. One could even not like this intent and prefer when the DMs control absolutely everything, down to the characters' houses. But to say it's inherently bad to aim for this is misguided, IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

I would argue that every design is bad if saddled with the responsibility of preventing bad players from derailing a game.

And I would argue that the ruleset has nothing to do with preventing bad players from derailing a game. That sort of behavior and curtailing it is a social issue that is handled outside of the game. The same with bad DMs. You can't make rules that take care of or prevent either problem.

 

[Remathilis]

I would argue that bad design is the design that empowers bad players. Especially when its a design that feels added because someone was afraid a bad DM can destroy the bastion...and a bad dm still will do it because they don't give a rats bottocks what the rules say to begin with. It solves no problem but generates more problems for good DM who was unlucky to have a bad player.

You know, I heard the same damn thing about Mother May I DMs who use deities/patrons to micromanage players for daring to play in ways the DM doesn't approve of and was told that rules can't stop an abusive DM from being abusive, only a good DM who was unlucky to have a bad player. Funny how any ounce of player autonomy is viewed as bad design...

 

[Not a Decepticon]

So you have seen this actually happen in practice...?

I was a player in a game where one player exploits and abuses the rules and GM let him roll over everyone and that player made me in particular his punching bag. One of worst games I was in, and that was just an one-shot.

Your wish is my command, my DM.

So do you have a point to make now that you cannot twist my words?

But this is my point - if a bad player (or DM) is going to ignore the rule or play counter to what is considered fair play by the table, how could any ruleset possibly compete with that? I definitely agree that rules can become torturous in their language because they’re trying to solve a problem with the way people communicate and interact. My preferred solution to that though is for the rules to not even attempt to handle that problem.

My prefered solution would be a sidebar on good and bad behavior regarding the rule being discussed, like inform DM that just taking away cool Bastion is a poor etiquete but also that player should not expect there to be a way to avoid consequences of their actions with this mechanic.

 

[BenjaminPey]

So do you have a point to make now that you cannot twist my words?

My case is already made two posts up. Giving a modest ounce of player agency in an ocean of DM's fiat is not inherently bad and can even be good. And it's close to the stuff you get in BECMI when you get to named levels, with which many tables liked to play.

 

[Parmandur]

I was a player in a game where one player exploits and abuses the rules and GM let him roll over everyone and that player made me in particular his punching bag. One of worst games I was in, and that was just an one-shot.

That is an interpersonal issue, not a rules issue.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

My case is already made two posts up. Giving a modest ounce of player agency in an ocean of DM's fiat is not inherently bad and can even be good. And it's close to the stuff you get in BECMI when you get to named levels, with which many tables liked to play.

An ounce of player agency and "here is a thing DM CANNOT EVER INTERACT WITH IN ANY WAY" are two different things. I played with games that give an actual player agency and this isn't it.

You know, I heard the same damn thing about Mother May I DMs who use deities/patrons to micromanage players for daring to play in ways the DM doesn't approve of and was told that rules can't stop an abusive DM from being abusive, only a good DM who was unlucky to have a bad player. Funny how any ounce of player autonomy is viewed as bad design...

As I have said, the rules attempting to prevent abusive DM behavior do not work because abusive DM will ignore these rules. Bastion rules do not give player agency, you can look how agency-based games look if you compare d&d to Blades in the Dark. This set of rules pretends to be player agency and instead are opening door to heaping abuse on DM who try to respect both the rules and player agency.

That is an interpersonal issue, not a rules issue.

Why do I have a feeling that if I have said "no", you would claim the problem is entierly nonexistent and made in my head and/or that I am not allowed to talk about it on behalf of other players? This was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" question and I do not find your argument to be in good faith.

 

[Marc17]

You know, I heard the same damn thing about Mother May I DMs who use deities/patrons to micromanage players for daring to play in ways the DM doesn't approve of and was told that rules can't stop an abusive DM from being abusive, only a good DM who was unlucky to have a bad player. Funny how any ounce of player autonomy is viewed as bad design...

Hrrm. Going off of discussions of heroics on other site, that seems like a good way to structure a game. After all, angering the gods tends to result in decades of epic adventures rather than a soft, sedentary life nobody will remember.

As for players avoiding consequences of their actions by running back to their bastions, sieges are a thing. Nobody is attacking the bastion, just sitting out side waiting.

 

[BenjaminPey]

An ounce of player agency and "here is a thing DM CANNOT EVER INTERACT WITH IN ANY WAY" are two different things. I played with games that give an actual player agency and this isn't it.

Ok, cool. They are not, though. DM can interact with them just fine. "Oh, dude, something happened in your bastion, BTW." Just like that. I mean, they are in a book called the Dungeon Master's Guide, for starters.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Ok, cool. They are not, though. DM can interact with them just fine. "Oh, dude, something happened in your bastion, BTW." Just like that. I mean, they are in a book called the Dungeon Master's Guide, for starters.

No, the book makes it very clear and specific that DM is ONLY allowed to interact with Bastions:
a) when a player has not visited it or sent to it a message with instructions for set amount of time, a week I think, something that stops being an issue if any PC has a 3rd-level spell Sending
b) through very rigid and specific list of random event tables.