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

[TwoSix]

PC idea: this guy, but he's continually summoned to different realities as a go-to hypothetical, so he's been to every world and plane of existence and knows every language and culture

EDIT: also, he has the Toughness feat, on account of all the punching

"Race: Yes Class: Yes Alignment: Yes"

 

[Oofta]

I'm asking you to read your own mind. Use your imagination and see if you can come up with something.

Why would I? I'm never going to allow a cleric to bypass the rules of the game simply by asking their god for help even if they had approached it differently. How many times do I need to respond to the same question?

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.

No ... it's not. The whole point was that the player wasn't bargaining, wasn't making a plea to Odin and expecting a response. Do you really not recognize the difference? If you want to alter the scenario you can, but your repeated insistence that it was something that it wasn't is frustrating because it seems like you don't care what I state and you just have your own agenda.

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.

We disagree. As @Crimson Longinus said, it sets a precedence. If I allow something like this for 1 player then I have to allow it for any other cleric that tries something like this. I prefer we use the rules in the book unless we all think a house rule is worth having. I don't think it's worthwhile so it will never happen. Because ... as the OP's statement said ... everyone has to agree to 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.



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.

As players we were always able to make our own decisions and choose our direction. We had several options to pursue and the rest of the group had decided on a direction when the player basically declared we were wasting our time because he had already asked Odin for the answer and gotten the response. All of which I've explained before.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why would I? I'm never going to allow a cleric to bypass the rules of the game simply by asking their god for help even if they had approached it differently. How many times do I need to respond to the same question?

You haven't answered it yet. I was asking for your ideas, as an exercise in imagination. Just "hey, can you come up with a way to make it work"? I mean here in the thread. Like... come up with ideas the way I did. I would imagine you can do it.

Now, if you simply don't want to, that's fine... but please don't get mad at me for repeating because you haven't yet understood what I'm asking.

No ... it's not. The whole point was that the player wasn't bargaining, wasn't making a plea to Odin and expecting a response. Do you really not recognize the difference? If you want to alter the scenario you can, but your repeated insistence that it was something that it wasn't is frustrating because it seems like you don't care what I state and you just have your own agenda.

Yes, I know the difference.

What about the take I offered? Do you see the difference between that and the original example? How the DM in the stuff I made up as an alternative DIDN'T just give the player what he demanded? Because that's what I've been talking about.

 

[Mort]

Why would I? I'm never going to allow a cleric to bypass the rules of the game simply by asking their god for help even if they had approached it differently. How many times do I need to respond to the same question?



No ... it's not. The whole point was that the player wasn't bargaining, wasn't making a plea to Odin and expecting a response. Do you really not recognize the difference? If you want to alter the scenario you can, but your repeated insistence that it was something that it wasn't is frustrating because it seems like you don't care what I state and you just have your own agenda.



We disagree. As @Crimson Longinus said, it sets a precedence. If I allow something like this for 1 player then I have to allow it for any other cleric that tries something like this. I prefer we use the rules in the book unless we all think a house rule is worth having. I don't think it's worthwhile so it will never happen. Because ... as the OP's statement said ... everyone has to agree to a house rule.



As players we were always able to make our own decisions and choose our direction. We had several options to pursue and the rest of the group had decided on a direction when the player basically declared we were wasting our time because he had already asked Odin for the answer and gotten the response. All of which I've explained before.

I'm really curious,

What exactly did the player think was going to happen here (assuming you ever found out)? Did they just think you'd be so impressed by the gambit that you'd give him the answer?

 

[Oofta]

You haven't answered it yet. I was asking for your ideas, as an exercise in imagination. Just "hey, can you come up with a way to make it work"? I mean here in the thread. Like... come up with ideas the way I did. I would imagine you can do it.

I answered. You just don't like the answer.

Now, if you simply don't want to, that's fine... but please don't get mad at me for repeating because you haven't yet understood what I'm asking.

Repeating the same question when I've repeatedly explained why I won't answer gets old.

Yes, I know the difference.

What about the take I offered? Do you see the difference between that and the original example? How the DM in the stuff I made up as an alternative DIDN'T just give the player what he demanded? Because that's what I've been talking about.

You've never addressed the fact that it was an action and declaration of result which was the main issue.

How I would handle a request to get special boon from a god is a separate issue but one to which I have given a clear answer. The response would be "no, it doesn't work that way". It's a response I try to avoid but it does happen now and then.

 

[Oofta]

I'm really curious,

What exactly did the player think was going to happen here (assuming you ever found out)? Did they just think you'd be so impressed by the gambit that you'd give him the answer?

I wasn't the DM (it's a campaign world my wife sometimes runs campaigns in), but I really don't know.
This is the same player that just declared they had popped up to Valhalla to have a beer with Odin. Even after the she stated that it couldn't have happened and why, the player insisted that they literally did. She told the other players that the cleric was delusional, that the character may have had a dream, but it did not actually happen and we moved on.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've mentioned this before, but I got the idea from Enworld (I think @Hussar) to let the players create 5 NPCs that they had encountered in Waterdeep which their characters had built either good, bad or indifferent relationships with, since the PCs had spent a significant amount of time there.
It was interesting to see how the powergamer created 2 out of the 5 NPCs being beneficial in ways that could provide better/cheaper equipment/consumables while the rest of the players created only roleplaying opportunities.

Following up with the natural question, did the fact that the powergamer created beneficial NPCs stymie your efforts to challenge the party?

It seems to me threatening the relationships the players’ created (especially the powergamer) makes it easier rather than harder to challenge the player.

The party may not care about saving the burgomaster’s son, but if Tom the blacksmith is too depressed to finish the 1,500 gp platemail he promised you because his son is missing, you’re definitely going to find that waif.

 

[Pedantic]

I think there's an implicit (and sometimes explicit) divide here between those who assume that a player will most frequently use any power they're granted only to overcome obstacles, and those who assume the player will assist in telling a compelling narrative.

A lot of players (and DMs) are focused on "beating the scenario" play (which makes sense considering D&D's origins.) A game in that mindset makes trusting the players to make narratively compelling decisions (as opposed to "winning" decisions) difficult.

There's a substitution that happens a lot here where the goal of play and the player's goal get conflated. The goal of play in a game of Netrunner is to navigate a series of difficult choices and evaluate the participant's grasp of risk assessment in novel board states. The player's goal is to win.

The point can be to produce an interesting story, while the player's goal is to overcome obstacles. If anything, the entire purpose of rules is to transmute the one into the other.

The important thing is, I think, is establishing what the player is supposed to be doing at the outset. If they aren't supposed to care about success, they should be told that upfront and given instruction on what to maximize for.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In the interest of moving forward in some way... something I find interesting in some of these conversations is the expectations some have of the DM.

They're supposed to create an entire world. Continents, nations, governments, and so on. Groups of people with goals and hierarchies and rivals. Individuals with a place in society and a connection to others. And history for all of this stuff... how a nation came to be, why a city was founded where it was, who begat who begat who begat who, and so on. Social elements, too... migrations and movements not just for different cultures, but for entirely different beings. Elves and dwarves and orcs and so on. Each with their own narrative needs.

Add to this a cosmology... different divine beings and possible other planes of existence. A way for all these things to fit together and make some kind of coherent sense. To have each serve some kind of purpose and to provide a structure to it all. Gods and devils and so on to give the cosmology some kind of agency in the setting... representatives of ideas or concepts in the physical world. Entire religions devoted to these ideas, many often at direct conflict with one another... each with their own practices and goals and rivalries and holidays and so on.

In most cases, a magic system that flows from the cosmology in some way (or perhaps alongside or even counter to it). Ways for all the different facets of magic to work, and how they influence this world. Who can use magic and how? What can be accomplished with it? Different types of magic or different schools. Organizations related to the study of magic, or maybe the suppression of magic. And so on.

And, all of this stuff is meant to be compelling from a game perspective. A lot of it isn't relegated to mere color... if there is a prison plane such as Carceri, it serves a purpose not just for the setting, but for play as well. Perhaps the characters need to break into the prison plane. Perhaps they need to escape. Perhaps they send beings there, and those beings hold a grudge. Each of this myriad of things is not just there for flavor, but there for play.

All this is expected of the DM.

But if they let the players introduce anything... it all comes crashing down?

 

[TwoSix]

There's a substitution that happens a lot here where the goal of play and the player's goal get conflated. The goal of play in a game of Netrunner is to navigate a series of difficult choices and evaluate the participant's grasp of risk assessment in novel board states. The player's goal is to win.

The point can be to produce an interesting story, while the player's goal is to overcome obstacles. If anything, the entire purpose of rules is to transmute the one into the other.

The important thing is, I think, is establishing what the player is supposed to be doing at the outset. If they aren't supposed to care about success, they should be told that upfront and given instruction on what to maximize for.

My personal interpretation is that D&D has moved away from having any sorts of "win conditions" or "loss conditions" that impact the player, and that's been the case for a very long time.

There are some diegetic "losses" that impact the path of the story. A TPK would generally be considered a group loss, but those are rare and often viewed to be as much a failure of the DM as of the players.

Player loss via "character death" is mitigated by the common condition of creating a new character at the same level as the current party and immediately integrating the new character into the party and story.

With "playing to win" mostly obviated as a player goal, the play goals then become maximizing the entertainment value and story quality within the game framework.