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

[TwoSix]

Sisyphus is unavailable; he is currently having a get-together with D&D enthusiasts, and he has been promised release from his tasks if he can get all of them to agree on what exactly happened with 4e.

Unfortunately, rolling that boulder is a daily martial power that can only be attempted once per day.

 

[Mort]

I guess being a heavy world builder it's never going to be the case I didn't think about that race. In rare instances, I have allowed a one off unique race but there were conditions. As a unique being we had to have a reasonable origin story. In my example it was a warforged that a wizard had crafted and then died. So the warforged started out into the world.

Playing a unique race is always going to be harder. The world is very suspicious of outsiders and unique outsiders are often objects of fear. The whole group needs to commit because this is going to be at least some aspect of the ongoing campaign.

As long as there is player buy in (as opposed to letting the player have the race and then piling on them) then I certainly wouldn't have an issue.

As for the objects of fear - it can go both ways, sometimes people LIKE difference, especially if it somehow fits into their belief system. The first time I let a Dragonborn in (because they hadn't existed as a race before that) I had a discussion with the player that reactions to the character will be different, sometimes better sometimes worse, but different. He loved that idea, and it actually worked rather well from there (even had a plotline about him being an object of worship which was awesome, right until it wasn't - a bit cliche but sometimes those make the best situations).

 

[dave2008]

I'm suggesting rules decisions should be group decisions, not unitary GM decisions, and that fact itself shouldn't be just decided by the GM. It should be taken as a given.

I agree.

(And before someone wants to wave around "but what about on the fly decisions, we can't be taking time to hash them out!", it takes all of five seconds to have everyone sign off on a decision or not, and if you can't get at least half of them to do so, they obviously don't think time is as important as you do).

It is also OK, IMO, for the group to say: Bob (whomever Bob is) you make the final / quick ruling in any disputes. We can always come back to it after the session.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree.

It is also OK, IMO, for the group to say: Bob (whomever Bob is) you make the final / quick ruling in any disputes. We can always come back to it after the session.

Sure. I mean, the great truth of this discussion is that which way this is done is almost irrelevant to some groups (at least regarding the on-the-fly decisions) because none of them will care enough for disagreement to actually emerge. The difference comes up when it does matter to people. I think in my current 13th Age game its some up--twice?--in the 12 sessions to date, and its not like 13th Age doesn't require you to make judgment calls...

 

[Greg K]

One guy who is by definition as a PC is a super special weirdo, in a world of mad wizards and portals, will apparently destroy all of a setting's integrity somehow.

And this where are preferences of fantasy differ. The settings I DM have no mad wizards with portals to other worlds- generally, there is a "heaven", "hell", "non/dead spirit" realm and not necessarily all three at once.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Other than for me to say that I think that's a problem? Which I've said all along? But apparently that's offensive, so you kept going back to this.

But, obviously, the two of you simply aren't going to agree, so further discussions is likely to go nowhere. He's given you an out so you can say that you, too, agree to to disagree.

As @Snarf Zagyg has said, this has already been argued out countless times, and the two sides are simply not going to agree.

 

[Greg K]

And for the record, I do not accept that PCs are super special weirdos. The only thing special about them is that our camera happens to be pointed at them. There's nothing they can do that a similarly talented and skilled NPC couldn't.

Yep, to me they are special for being PCs with the camera pointed at them. Anyone thinking PCs are super special wierdos and I are, probably, not going to be a good match for gaming together (at least with regards to fantasy rpgs). There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Oofta]

But, obviously, the two of you simply aren't going to agree, so further discussions is likely to go nowhere. He's given you an out so you can say that you, too, agree to to disagree.

As @Snarf Zagyg has said, this has already been argued out countless times, and the two sides are simply not going to agree.

I have no issue with people playing the game differently than I do. I think one of the reasons D&D is so popular is that different groups can run the game quite differently. I don't think any one style is inherently better than any other even if I do have strong preferences for games I want to be involved in.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep, to me they are special for being PCs with the camera pointed at them. Anyone thinking PCs are super special wierdos and I are, probably, not going to be a good match for gaming together (at least with regards to fantasy rpgs). There is nothing wrong with that.

Of course you can argue that D&D sets some of that expectation, and has for a very long time. Its not like its not extremely "busy" as fantasy games go (though there are others that are moreso, but most are D&D offshoots) and that well predates the modern racial options. Just the level of magic and weird monsters sets a lot of that expectation.

 

[KYRON45]

It sounds like a lot of people have been hurt by their DM.