I stated the concrete examples you gave, disadvantage on perception because of the loss of an eye was the only actual penalty. You never explained why the character having people he cared about mattered and I can't read your mind as to how that would make a difference.
I'm asking you to read your own mind. Use your imagination and see if you can come up with something.
It. Was. Not. A. Request. It was stated as fact by the player that Odin did him a solid.
Yes, but that doesn't change what I said. Feel free to sub in "demand" or "declaration" if you like. The point remains the same.
I don't think allowing a cleric to have powers above and beyond the rules is a good thing for the game. Feel free to disagree. I don't care if you house rule that they can do something like that, why do you insist on a different opinion being "problematic"?
That's not what was problematic. I was saying that the idea that the DM giving the player some authority is a pandora's box and is therefore problematic. It's going to lead to other issues later. That's the idea that's being put forth by others.
So it's a bad thing that when I play D&D, I expect people to actually play the game by the rules of the game unless we
all agree on a house rule?
I don't see how you got that from the bit this was a response to.
I was responding to
@Crimson Longinus and how his concern about the pandora's box of player authority was not limited to the one example. By its nature, a pandora's box concern is about the subsequent problems that are anticipated.
How did my response to someone else lead to you to believe that I said it's bad when you play D&D and expect people to play by the rules?
Some of your misinterpretations I understand... the one above about "problematic" is at least partially on my as my wording was a bit unclear. But I have no idea how this was your takeaway from what you quoted.
On a side note, the player was constantly pushing what was allowed both from a rules perspective, RP and narrative flavor. For example his character had the noble background so he had 2 retainers. He decided they were also clerics (a couple levels lower) that went on his initiative. The group eventually told him to get rid of them because it was annoying spotlight hogging, but it's just how he thought. Anything he could get away with to increase his capabilities as a player he would do.
Two things on this.
First, it may be that you just have a problem player. This isn't really something I've had to worry about for a while. We all have our flaws and our quirks, but I haven't seen this kind of mindset in a player since my group and I were kids. I don't think that this shows that there's a problem with the approach to play, though. It shows that it requires some discipline from players. It may not be a match for everyone.
Second, if the player isn't a problem player, it could be a sign of frustration. Like, if the DM introduces a mystery, and the player decides they're set on solving that mystery, and so they try to do everything they can to figure it out, and over and over again, nothing works. Especially when all the normal routes are tried. Divination? Blocked. Rumors? No one has any. Sages? Beyond them.
If that happened (and let's be honest, it certainly seems possible) then I can't blame a player for being frustrated. For saying something like "Okay, fine... then I ask Odin and he tells me because he sees all."
If this is more how things played out, then I don't think the player is entirely to blame.
I think an important part of player framing for something like this is stakes for failure.
If a player wants to frame something into a scene that gives a chance for a real power-up, then I think there needs to be a resolution method attached (generally a roll), as well as an actual consequence for failure of the roll.
Absolutely. In my example, I set some stakes for the actual request... I didn't for failure, though. I didn't want to overcomplicate things!
It's similar to ritual magic in Dungeon World - which is a derivation of a workshop ability in an Apocalypse World playbook - that amounts to the player saying what they want the magical ritual to do. The GM doesn't say, "Yes, here's all of it" nor does the player demand the outcome. The GM establishes the conditions or requirements that the player will need to make the ritual work as well as potential risks:
Yeah, very collaborative process. Blades has an unsurprisingly similar process for Rituals for the Whisper and Inventions for the Leech.
I very much like the back and forth of it, and that's something I tend to try to foster in my games, even D&D.
