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

[Micah Sweet]

That is fair, but D&D is full of tables - always has been.

I think a combination of the two is ideal.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Unless the sequence of posts is flipped, at the time you posted this I don't remember seeing anything that he had suggested.

It was post #1570

Or did he say that “Odin knows all. Long ago when the worlds were young Odin gave his eye to Mimir’s well for knowledge of secret things. Odin knows the cost of knowledge. Do you? What will you sacrifice to know what you seek?”

This provides the opportunity to setup up a cost other than a spell which is recovered after a long rest.
When you asked in your follow up post how do other systems handle it - they have better cost systems, better checks and balances as you said, IMO of course. I absolutely hate the ease of so many things in D&D.

Also "there are elegant ways of handling it" may be well meant but is also meaningless.

It wasn't an attack, just that some great DMs out there are able to with experience shutdown what some of us may consider broken issues in D&D (easily exploited) without the hammer of no it can't be done, or it doesn't work that way, I'm changing the rule...etc
I'm not proclaiming to be one of those great DMs (yet).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It wasn't an attack, just that some great DMs out there are able to with experience shutdown what some of us may consider broken issues in D&D (easily exploited) without the hammer of no it can't be done, or it doesn't work that way, I'm changing the rule...etc

The Hard Stare (tm) is pretty effective for dealing with exploits.

 

[Oofta]

It was post #1570


This provides the opportunity to setup up a cost other than a spell which is recovered after a long rest.
When you asked in your follow up post how do other systems handle it - they have better cost systems, better checks and balances as you said, IMO of course. I absolutely hate the ease of so many things in D&D.

I may have missed post 1570. In any case, other games simply have different approaches so at a certain point it's like asking why my car isn't more like a motorcycle.

It wasn't an attack, just that some great DMs out there are able to with experience shutdown what some of us may consider broken issues in D&D (easily exploited) without the hammer of no it can't be done, or it doesn't work that way, I'm changing the rule...etc
I'm not proclaiming to be one of those great DMs (yet).

Gods, and Odin, may have vast knowledge but they are not assumed to be omnipotent in any D&D campaign I've played. They're also almost always quite distant and take a pretty hands off approach and indirect approach to the mortal realm. Which makes sense, if you can just ask your god to fix all your problems because you're a cleric then there wouldn't be any need to adventure. Just ask for the miracle du jour.

When it comes to limiting exploits I only ban or limit a couple of spells (and most of that is for thematic reasons). In other cases I just use one of the several spells that stop scrying, teleportation and the types of things that really make it difficult to create an interesting challenge. But that's another topic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is good stuff, but one thing I would consider here that there are spells, such as Commune, for this sort of thing, so I would be somewhat cautious about letting a character to do this without the spell. Now if they were using the spell to do this in the first place, then it obviously would be perfectly fine. (And I would definitely be willing to expand somewhat from super limited communication the spell allows, especially for a cost.)

It is feature/flaw of more detailed and codified systems that it might limit how much you can/need to wing it.

Sure, there are rules that interact with this kind of thing. Spells and such. But I have no info on what level the PCs are or any of that, so no way of knowing if these are relevant. But the cost of a spell that comes back when you rest seems pretty insignificant. That’s why I’d happily take the idea and run with it.

Also, I like when divine beings and warlock patrons are more than just a “fill in this blank on your character sheet”. This is a chance for me to roleplay Odin. And everyone’s on board! Why dismiss that opportunity out of hand?

The player didn't invent Odin. He didn't tell the DM he was asking for help. He declared that he asked and gave the result of asking for Odin's help.

I didn’t say the player invented Odin. Pretty sure the Norse did that!

The DM chose to not give them information at a cost for several reasons, primarily because Odin in that campaign (my wife was DMing, it's our shared world) is obsessed with Ragnarok. Hunting down a powerful Lich? That's a mortal concern. Also, the gods rarely interact with the material world. If they do it's through Valkyries or Einherjar.

So no way to connect this maguffin to Ragnarok to explain Odin’s interest? This is the first you’ve mentioned of a lich, but I don’t see how that must be a mortal only concern. “Hel’s touch is upon the world. The natural order of things is upended.” Seems like more ways to connect this to Ragnarok.

But the DM responding with Odin being willing to assisting at a cost would have been following the standard D&D play loop. The player states that they ask their god for assistance and the DM decides what happens. In this case? It was basically "Go away kid, solve your own problems. I'm dealing with more important stuff."

To me this reads as “Go away… the DM has already determined how this problem of yours may be addressed and I have nothing to do with it.”

Which is perfectly fine if that’s the case. But of there’s more to it, it’d be good to get to that. If there’s not, it’d be cool if we could acknowledge that it’s the case.

There's also a % chance based on cleric level to get this kind of thing or other spells.

EDIT: The % chance is divine intervention, something a cleric gets at 10th level. Also things like commune. The default assumption in D&D is that you can't just declare you have tea and crumpets with your deity and ask them about the weather and oh, by the way, can you give me omnipotence to solve my problems.

I think you’re ignoring the cost involved. As I said, I’d want and expect it to be meaningful. That’s not the same as the divine intervention ability or any other spell.

Also… we talked about Odin telling them the location of the item. How is that “solving all problems”?

“Here it is. It’s in the caldera of a volcano, surrounded by effreet and fire elementals and salamanders. Have fun, kid!”

All he’s doing is telling them where it is… which is something I imagine the DM expects to happen at some point, right? So what’s the problem?

I may have missed post 1570. In any case, other games simply have different approaches so at a certain point it's like asking why my car isn't more like a motorcycle.

You responded to post 1570. That led us here.

I’m not asking why your car isn’t like a motorcycle, I’m asking you why you prefer cars to motorcycles.

You don’t have to be so hostile toward the discussion.

Gods, and Odin, may have vast knowledge but they are not assumed to be omnipotent in any D&D campaign I've played.

Is it omnipotence to break through a divination ward? I mean… PCs become capable of that at some point, no?

And if there was such a ward that blocked Odin… wouldn’t he likely take an interest? Wouldn’t his paranoia about Ragnarok make him worry that something was going on that was being hidden specifically from him?

They're also almost always quite distant and take a pretty hands off approach and indirect approach to the mortal realm. Which makes sense, if you can just ask your god to fix all your problems because you're a cleric then there wouldn't be any need to adventure. Just ask for the miracle du jour.

Except that’s not what I suggested. I suggested some information… the location of the maguffin… in exchange for a meaningful cost.

I didn’t suggest that Odin hand over the maguffin at no cost.

All I suggested was providing something that I expect was going to be provided at some point in play… or was this maguffin never meant to be found?

The Hard Stare (tm) is pretty effective for dealing with exploits.

Yeah… make sure these uppity players know who’s the boss!!

And people wonder why there’s push back against this!

 

[hawkeyefan]

This provides the opportunity to setup up a cost other than a spell which is recovered after a long rest.
When you asked in your follow up post how do other systems handle it - they have better cost systems, better checks and balances as you said, IMO of course. I absolutely hate the ease of so many things in D&D.

Right. It’s one of those unexpected moments that can totally shift play in an interesting way. As a GM, I love when players hand me these kinds of things.

Now, you’re right that other games are designed with this kind of expectation built in and so may make it more seamless. But I find the idea that players must have no such authority or else the DM won’t be able to handle it to be a bit weak. Like, the 90% authority the DM has is somehow totally trumped by the 10% allowed to players.

A DM can still set limits. They can still constrain. They can still have so much input.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also, I like when divine beings and warlock patrons are more than just a “fill in this blank on your character sheet”. This is a chance for me to roleplay Odin. And everyone’s on board! Why dismiss that opportunity out of hand?

Sure, I totally agree. Though I also feel it is fine to take the character level and features into account when determining what level of communication they have with their deity, so that not every novice has casual chats with the Allfather, and we have more of a story of this connection growing over the levels.

I didn’t say the player invented Odin. Pretty sure the Norse did that!

Careful now! I once got a warning and a thread ban for implying that in our real world the gods might be a human invention!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, there are rules that interact with this kind of thing. Spells and such. But I have no info on what level the PCs are or any of that, so no way of knowing if these are relevant. But the cost of a spell that comes back when you rest seems pretty insignificant. That’s why I’d happily take the idea and run with it.

Also, I like when divine beings and warlock patrons are more than just a “fill in this blank on your character sheet”. This is a chance for me to roleplay Odin. And everyone’s on board! Why dismiss that opportunity out of hand?



I didn’t say the player invented Odin. Pretty sure the Norse did that!



So no way to connect this maguffin to Ragnarok to explain Odin’s interest? This is the first you’ve mentioned of a lich, but I don’t see how that must be a mortal only concern. “Hel’s touch is upon the world. The natural order of things is upended.” Seems like more ways to connect this to Ragnarok.



To me this reads as “Go away… the DM has already determined how this problem of yours may be addressed and I have nothing to do with it.”

Which is perfectly fine if that’s the case. But of there’s more to it, it’d be good to get to that. If there’s not, it’d be cool if we could acknowledge that it’s the case.



I think you’re ignoring the cost involved. As I said, I’d want and expect it to be meaningful. That’s not the same as the divine intervention ability or any other spell.

Also… we talked about Odin telling them the location of the item. How is that “solving all problems”?

“Here it is. It’s in the caldera of a volcano, surrounded by effreet and fire elementals and salamanders. Have fun, kid!”

All he’s doing is telling them where it is… which is something I imagine the DM expects to happen at some point, right? So what’s the problem?



You responded to post 1570. That led us here.

I’m not asking why your car isn’t like a motorcycle, I’m asking you why you prefer cars to motorcycles.

You don’t have to be so hostile toward the discussion.




Is it omnipotence to break through a divination ward? I mean… PCs become capable of that at some point, no?

And if there was such a ward that blocked Odin… wouldn’t he likely take an interest? Wouldn’t his paranoia about Ragnarok make him worry that something was going on that was being hidden specifically from him?



Except that’s not what I suggested. I suggested some information… the location of the maguffin… in exchange for a meaningful cost.

I didn’t suggest that Odin hand over the maguffin at no cost.

All I suggested was providing something that I expect was going to be provided at some point in play… or was this maguffin never meant to be found?



Yeah… make sure these uppity players know who’s the boss!!

And people wonder why there’s push back against this!

For my part, I get the most joy from the hobby in worldbuilding. As a DM, I want to create a fun, detailed, interesting setting that makes logical sense and has consistency, and most importantly does not feel like it exists as a necessary backdrop to PC action. I want it to feel like a real place where things happen that have nothing to do with my PC, but where my PCs actions (and only their actions, not the player's alone) can affect change. As a player, I want the same thing, but for me I don't get that from inventing details about the setting or acting in the game outside of the capabilities and knowledge of the character I'm playing.

I think it's obvious that this is a principle and an ideal that can never be completely realized. But I still strive for it as much as my tables allows and as much as is practical in play. I also know that there are many other playstyles out there, that work very well for other gamers, in many cases far better for them than mine would. I have nothing against proponents of those playstyles, or indeed the playstyles themselves. I just don't enjoy them as much as I do my playstyle.

I'm happy to answer further questions about it, but that's the best analysis I can give you right now.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Now, you’re right that other games are designed with this kind of expectation built in and so may make it more seamless. But I find the idea that players must have no such authority or else the DM won’t be able to handle it to be a bit weak. Like, the 90% authority the DM has is somehow totally trumped by the 10% allowed to players.

A DM can still set limits. They can still constrain. They can still have so much input.

Not no authority, but more world-building sense/consistency. Example - Cantrips.
Magic in D&D in general is my personal issue and that is not 10% because it affects the setting, not just the PCs.
I have to make sense of it all to make it make sense for the table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For my part, I get the most joy from the hobby in worldbuilding. As a DM, I want to create a fun, detailed, interesting setting that makes logical sense and has consistency, and most importantly does not feel like it exists as a necessary backdrop to PC action. I want it to feel like a real place where things happen that have nothing to do with my PC, but where my PCs actions (and only their actions, not the player's alone) can affect change. As a player, I want the same thing, but for me I don't get that from inventing details about the setting or acting in the game outside of the capabilities and knowledge of the character I'm playing.

I think it's obvious that this is a principle and an ideal that can never be completely realized. But I still strive for it as much as my tables allows and as much as is practical in play. I also know that there are many other playstyles out there, that work very well for other gamers, in many cases far better for them than mine would. I have nothing against proponents of those playstyles, or indeed the playstyles themselves. I just don't enjoy them as much as I do my playstyle.

I'm happy to answer further questions about it, but that's the best analysis I can give you right now.

I think that's all clear. And I understand most of those preferences in and of themselves. As I said, I used to share some of them. All I'm curious about is why you have those preferences. Like, consider your games and think about the actual reasons that you prefer things that way.

For example, I used to run games with high levels of GM authority because I was far more comfortable with preparing things ahead of time than I was with responding to things at the table during play. That was one of the reasons for me... but I don't want to assume you or anyone else shares that reason, or any other that I may have.

Now, my experience is that allowing players to have more authority here in no way interferes with portraying a "real" and consistent world. You've expressed that as a concern... why? Is it a matter of there being some potential conflict between your worldbuilding and something the players try to introduce? Is there more to it? Something else?

Not no authority, but more world-building sense/consistency. Example - Cantrips.
Magic in D&D in general is my personal issue and that is not 10% because it affects the setting, not just the PCs.
I have to make sense of it all to make it make sense for the table.

Okay... but does that need to be a one-person job?

Some games... even ones with a very traditional take on participant authority... split that up a bit. So let's say I'm playing an elf in such a game... then when it comes to matters of elven culture and society, I'm the go to. So if someone says "why don't we seek out the elven king for some help?" the GM may say "Good question... let's ask Mike, he's the one playing an elf. Mike, would this be something the elven king would help with? How accessible is the king? Is there even a king or any kind of monarch in elven society?"

And then Mike shares his thoughts, maybe takes some suggestions from the GM or other players, and then decides what elven society is like, etc. The same can be true of characters of faith, like clerics. Let the player describe the faith and its practices and holidays and even the deity they worship. The idea here is to help invest the player in the elements of the game that are closely associated with his character.

Now... there are some people who won't like this approach, of course. I think "why not?" is a valid and worthwhile question to ask. Or "why?" to those who do like this kind of approach.

I think that given how much players are expected to just go with it... to be told truths about the game world at any and all times by the GM, and then to onboard that to their ideas about the game and what it means for their character and the setting overall... it requires some flexibility. Some ability to quickly absorb information and apply it to the game. I think that GMs... often cited as the source for the bulk of the creative energy of the game... would benefit from this kind of flexibility. I think most games, barring some strong preference of some kind, would benefit from this kind of approach... to more collaboration.