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

[Aldarc]

Too bad you feel that way! The reality is they were being all those things. Just calling a spade a spade. If you want to look at that as talking down to someone... what are you going to do. I have no control over how you choose to look at things.

As am I with you. But please notice your framing of what I said as how I "feel" versus what you see as the "reality" of how they were being.

@hawkeyefan @Aldarc @grankless @TwoSix ... how about looking for a discussion instead of a fight?

Then how about not making it personal with grankless? Just calling a spade a spade and all that.

 

[TwoSix]

@hawkeyefan @Aldarc @grankless @TwoSix ... how about looking for a discussion instead of a fight?

You do know that your rhetorical ploys might be somewhat more effective if you weren't telegraphing your intentions via your username?

 

[Oofta]

Yes, I know. The DM shut it down. My suggestion was about what could have been… another way to handle it. In that imagined scenario, the DM would not simply shut things down, but nor would they just grant the player the entirety of their request. They’d work with the player to see if they could find a way to get the idea to work.

Then I suggested some ways to do that. My suggestions were based on a very brief description of the situation, with a lot of relevant details missing. As more details were provided, I attempted to incorporate those into my suggestions.

So the end result is not a perfect example. But it’s the idea that matters.

It's fine that you want to add a house rule to the game. I don't and it wouldn't have fit the campaign.

I made several suggestions and hinted at others. You pointed out there was almost nothing that your player cared about that would be a meaningful loss. Which I said was another problem entirely.

You made one suggestion that I remember that would have actually mattered to the player. They lose an eye and have disadvantage on perception checks. Losing an eye? Been there, done that. Bleeding eye? Cool. Something else that you hinted at but never actually stated? I can't read your mind.

Honestly, I think it’s kind of interesting how the conversation has progressed… it’s kind of indicative of the problem. An idea was proposed… it’s shot down. It gets changed a bit, other ideas are added… it gets shot down. Every attempt to find a way to make it work… shot down.

An idea that did not follow the rules of the game nor the established lore of the world deserves to be shot down. Also, again ... it was not a proposal by the player. It was a proclamation.

I don’t. It’s a suggestion about another way to do things.

Via house rule. Which is fine.

I’d think that on a discussion forum, most folks would be interested in sharing ideas. In actually considering them.

Like… just for the sake of discussion, could you examine the Odin example and imagine ways to make it work?

Could I? Sure. I could imagine Odin zooming in on a Harley Davidson named Sleipnir and just handing us the phylactery. I've explained why I wouldn't do it, it gives that cleric a superpower nobody else has along with totally violating world lore. Players can ask, sometimes the DM is going to say no. If they always say no that's different. Unless of course the player is just repeatedly asking for the same thing.

By this I don’t mean that you have to think this is a better way… but just as like a mental exercise. You know all the details of the setting and so on… I’d expect you could come up with a scenario that could make the player’s idea work in a way acceptable to all.

Give it a try.



It absolutey has been. It’s been called both pandora’s box and a can of worms. Concern over what the players will request next. And so on.

It’s kind of hard to miss.

There's a massive difference between not giving a player everything and anything they want, limiting the capabilities of characters to the rules and spirit of the game most of the time and the imaginary power hungry DMs lording their control over the players.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

@hawkeyefan @Aldarc @grankless @TwoSix ... how about looking for a discussion instead of a fight?

Ah... mocking laugh emojis. I'm sure you are very proud of yourselves. Let me know when you want to be better than that. I won't hold this sort of petty behaviour against you.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You do know that your rhetorical ploys might be somewhat more effective if you weren't telegraphing your intentions via your username?

I'm sure you find yourself very amusing. I am not holding anything against you.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

As am I with you. But please notice your framing of what I said as how I "feel" versus what you see as the "reality" of how they were being.

Sure. You're right actually. I feel that the post in question was an extension of that person's feelings rather than an accurate assessment of reality.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It absolutey has been. It’s been called both pandora’s box and a can of worms. Concern over what the players will request next. And so on.

It’s kind of hard to miss.

To be clear, (and you know this) the Pandora’s box I referred to was not granting any player request, it was granting this specific request of a mechanics bypass lane via a deity.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure. You're right actually.

I always am. The sooner you accept that, the better.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

To be clear, (and you know this) the Pandora’s box I referred to was not granting any player request, it was granting this specific request of a mechanics bypass lane via a deity.

Which is exactly what I am talking about. Thank you for posting this. I have no horse in this race, but reading these threads is painful. Other side, be better. Stop taking things to extremes and listen to what people are actually saying.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I always am. The sooner you accept that, the better.

Dude, that was a pretty pathetic response. Try again. I'll give you a mulligan. I'm giving you every respect, which is not a courtesy you're extending towards me.