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

[Oofta]

Well, that's why I said mentor and not god.

But this could absolutely happen (with a god)in a high power (or maybe even lower) campaign. Baddies manipulate the group (which has been shown to or worse flaunting) their connection to some god, into calling the god. Baddies then use a prepared ritual/some other means to trap the god. PCs run for their lives and now have a whole new set of problems and a lot of adventures ahead to solve them.

I don't ever want a single player to have the kind of power to call in external reinforcement "just because". The classes as written aren't perfectly balanced but at least they're reasonably close. The only exception would be if every player had one "chit" they could turn in to solve problems or something similar. Other games may work that way, D&D isn't one of them.

 

[Oofta]

I didn't say this at all. I said that continually shutting down player ideas is likely to make them less proactive.

But you associated "shutting down player ideas" with being able to making and acting upon assumptions of the current scene. If you don't mean that a player is being shut down because they can't just assume setting details don't say it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I didn't say this at all. I said that continually shutting down player ideas is likely to make them less proactive.

But given that no one has suggested continually shutting down player ideas it seems like a strange thing to bring up.

 

[soviet]

But you associated "shutting down player ideas" with being able to making and acting upon assumptions of the current scene. If you don't mean that a player is being shut down because they can't just assume setting details don't say it.

That's twice you've misread the same simple statement. I do think that automatically saying no when a player assumes minor setting details like there might be a band or a fellow patron in the bar is shutting down their ideas. I do think this will reduce player proactivity. That is not the same as 'player proactivity is now impossible'.

 

[soviet]

But given that no one has suggested continually shutting down player ideas it seems like a strange thing to bring up.

Yes they have

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes they have

No they have not. People have reserved the right to shut down some player ideas and some people have expressed preference for the players to express their ideas in form of questions.

 

[Oofta]

That's twice you've misread the same simple statement. I do think that automatically saying no when a player assumes minor setting details like there might be a band or a fellow patron in the bar is shutting down their ideas. I do think this will reduce player proactivity. That is not the same as 'player proactivity is now impossible'.

Meanwhile I think that the character interacts with the world through their words and deeds just like the books tell us has worked fine for me and the people I've played with for decades. It's not shutting down ideas to have limitations, there will always be limitations of one sort or other. If there weren't limitations we'd just have shared story time.

How did I misread this:

Presumably, those GMs who continually say no when players suggest there might be someone else in the bar, music in the bar, food in the bar, etc.

I don't know how to interpret the following other than the DM is doing it wrong and shutting down players being proactive if they don't say yes to the suggestion that there's someone else in the bar.

 

[pemerton]

A DM who insists on the standard D&D play loop

The play loop is itself something that can be interpreted differently.

Namely, what guides or constrains the GM when the GM describes what happens? It's not the only reading of the play loop that the GM has an unfettered liberty at this point. Someone, for instance, who takes it that the GM describes what happens having regard to the players' aspirations for what their PCs are able to do and achieve, is not departing from the play loop.

the whole point of my story was not how the DM ran gods. It was that the player declared an action and a result.

I took it to be a case of the player expressing an intended or desired result. I'm not focusing there on their precise wording, but rather on how what they said fits into a well-understood process of play, namely, one where resolution of a declared action has regard to what a player intends to achieve by way of that action.

 

[Mort]

I don't ever want a single player to have the kind of power to call in external reinforcement "just because". The classes as written aren't perfectly balanced but at least they're reasonably close. The only exception would be if every player had one "chit" they could turn in to solve problems or something similar. Other games may work that way, D&D isn't one of them.

D&D does not have rules for this, no. But it is highly likely that as the party rises in level they will pile up both obligations and favors from small and powerful alike. By the time they get to TRULY high level a one time "get out of x free..." chit of some sort isn't all that unlikely.

 

[Oofta]

D&D does not have rules for this no. But it is highly likely that as the party rises in level they will pile up both obligations and favors from small and powerful alike. By the time they get to TRULY high level a one time "get out of x free..." chit of some sort isn't all that unlikely.

I guess I think there's a difference here. You may gain allies as you level up but this all spawned off of the discussion of gods and particularly powerful allies. Allies may have different types of powers but in most ways the relative power levels will be different ... and I'm not explaining my thoughts clearly.

A low level group is not, for example, going to have an ancient dragon at their beck and call. Later on? When they're high level and might be able to take on that ancient dragon and they need help fighting a war or need a distraction while they go fight the BBEG? Sure. But in many ways the ally has similar levels of power even if it is different type of power.

In other words, I don't think it's a good idea to just have allies that can come in to save the day on a regular basis. Help fight the good fight while the PCs still have to take risks to achieve their goal? Sure. Call in daddy's army to take out the goblins because the PCs can't be bothered? No. Sometimes there can be a situation where the ally's help is vital but I don't want that to trivialize challenges* or make allies a crutch.

*There are exceptions to every rule of course, including this one.