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

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, suppose we're playing 4e D&D and the PC is upper paragon tier, this sort of thing hardly seems out-of-bounds . . .

Perhaps not, in the right game as you say.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I mean, suppose we're playing 4e D&D and the PC is upper paragon tier, this sort of thing hardly seems out-of-bounds . . .

We are however, not playing/discussing upper paragon 4e, are we?

 

[Vaalingrade]

We are however, not playing/discussing upper paragon 4e, are we?

We are not so lucky, no.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, there are rules that interact with this kind of thing. Spells and such. But I have no info on what level the PCs are or any of that, so no way of knowing if these are relevant. But the cost of a spell that comes back when you rest seems pretty insignificant. That’s why I’d happily take the idea and run with it.

Also, I like when divine beings and warlock patrons are more than just a “fill in this blank on your character sheet”. This is a chance for me to roleplay Odin. And everyone’s on board! Why dismiss that opportunity out of hand?



I didn’t say the player invented Odin. Pretty sure the Norse did that!



So no way to connect this maguffin to Ragnarok to explain Odin’s interest? This is the first you’ve mentioned of a lich, but I don’t see how that must be a mortal only concern. “Hel’s touch is upon the world. The natural order of things is upended.” Seems like more ways to connect this to Ragnarok.



To me this reads as “Go away… the DM has already determined how this problem of yours may be addressed and I have nothing to do with it.”

Which is perfectly fine if that’s the case. But of there’s more to it, it’d be good to get to that. If there’s not, it’d be cool if we could acknowledge that it’s the case.



I think you’re ignoring the cost involved. As I said, I’d want and expect it to be meaningful. That’s not the same as the divine intervention ability or any other spell.

Also… we talked about Odin telling them the location of the item. How is that “solving all problems”?

“Here it is. It’s in the caldera of a volcano, surrounded by effreet and fire elementals and salamanders. Have fun, kid!”

All he’s doing is telling them where it is… which is something I imagine the DM expects to happen at some point, right? So what’s the problem?



You responded to post 1570. That led us here.

I’m not asking why your car isn’t like a motorcycle, I’m asking you why you prefer cars to motorcycles.

You don’t have to be so hostile toward the discussion.




Is it omnipotence to break through a divination ward? I mean… PCs become capable of that at some point, no?

And if there was such a ward that blocked Odin… wouldn’t he likely take an interest? Wouldn’t his paranoia about Ragnarok make him worry that something was going on that was being hidden specifically from him?



Except that’s not what I suggested. I suggested some information… the location of the maguffin… in exchange for a meaningful cost.

I didn’t suggest that Odin hand over the maguffin at no cost.

All I suggested was providing something that I expect was going to be provided at some point in play… or was this maguffin never meant to be found?



Yeah… make sure these uppity players know who’s the boss!!

And people wonder why there’s push back against this!

From a game balance perspective, clerics have been given spells and abilities roughly on par with the other classes. Having them be able to ring up their god and to receive a get out of jail card breaks that balance for me. I know there could be a cost but what kind? Find a different McGuffin? Well apparently Odin knows where that one is to so why does he need any help? Kill some other mortal? Well if Odin is all powerful and ready to intervene in mortal affairs why doesn't he just point Gungnir at the mortal and declare him dead? That and any "price" the cleric had to pay would realistically have been paid by the whole group. We would have just been substituting one story arc for another.

From a game world perspective, Odin is not a "good" god, at least not any more. He's obsessed with Ragnarok and punishing Loki. He's more concerned with stirring up wars so that he has more Einherjar for the final battle. Besides, if the cleric dies in battle trying to hunt down the lich, the cleric becomes another soldier in Odin's army. Win for Odin! The fact that they were hunting down a lich doesn't really make a difference, avoiding death is Hel's problem, not his.

Final thought? I don't see saying "No you can't do that" now and then, especially for something like asking for divine intervention when scrying attempts had been tried and failed, as a railroad. A cleric has several powers they've gained from their god. If they want more than that, that's what divine intervention is for. Even then, it's still up to DM discretion. There were many, many other routes for us to take. It would be like asking if I can get to work with my car and gee it would be nice if my car could fly. Yes, it would be nice but while there are several routes to where I want to go, flying in my car isn't one of them. I don't see an issue with limitations on characters. Besides, if Odin had intervened, that just means one player dictated that the rest of the group must pursue whatever payment Odin demanded.

BTW stop being snarky if you want to have a discussion.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think this distinguishes you from any one else posting in this thread.

Why did you feel this response and snipping a post was necessary? What's the point? I never said anything about being special or different.

 

[hawkeyefan]

See now this is interesting. I am far more interested in setting than I am in character, both as DM and player and both in stories and games (which I see as having quite different goals). I have always been fascinated by and hungry for setting details in all media I consume, since I was a child, and appreciate TV and film others dislike simply because it has a wealth of world details, even if the acting and/or storyline wasn't amazing. My most loved supplemental products are worldbooks and fictional encyclopedias. Imaginary worlds and exactly how they work have always been a passion.

You know, I guess I do have a psychological reason for my game preferences! Huh.

I get that to an extent. I’ve found plenty of that kind of stuff interesting. Setting books and supplements. But always through the lens of the stories they’re used to tell.

Like the world of the ancient Greek myths is fascinating… the Olympians, the demigods, the monsters, the fates, all of it. But without the struggles of the characters… without the wrath of Achilles, the pains of Odysseus, the tragedy of Oedipus… it lacks vitality, to me.

But yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty key difference for us.

So when I say intentional, I don't think many people think "I will be a railroader and deny the player agency." But they will have preplanned direction to which they will intentionally push.

Well my point is that they’re not intending to thwart the players. Their intention is something else, and the railroading is more a side effect or an unintended outcome.

In that sense, it’s not really different from intending to portray the setting in a way that matches my prep.

I think there’s a different between intentional and unintentional railroading… just like there’s a difference between being intentionally rude versus unintentionally rude.

I think it is good example because I think here we see why intentions matter. If the reason for not allowing it is that you're a second level cleric and it is determined that in this setting second level clerics simply do not have this sort of access to gods it is not railroading. If the reason is that the GM has preplanned course of events they want to be played for finding the macguffin and this would short circuit that, then it starts to seem more like railroading.

And I'm sure you are already thinking, but why does it matter, from the player perspective they got denied all the same. But it will matter in the long run. If the GM decided things based setting logic, themes and plausibility irrespective of what direction it takes the game, this will not consistently push things into any specific direction of the GM's choosing, and the players can also leverage this setting logic in their favour. An on the other hand if the GM often makes decisions to intentionally push things to specific direction to blocking alternative paths, this will become apparent to the players and it will probably be frustrating to the most.

We don’t know how things turned out for the cleric of Odin… but do you really think it wasn’t per some predetermined path set by the DM? It may have been one of a few possible paths… but I’m not really seeing the distinction you’re making here as all that meaningful.

The DM said no to a player idea that had plenty of potential for play, and which simply arrived at what we have to assume was an already expected point of play (finding the maguffin) in favor of they’re prepared material.

The result’s the same as if Bill blocked it because he struggles with improvised moments, or if Mike blocked it because he had his own ideas about what Odin does or doesn’t do, or me if I just want to say no to my player because I like my idea better.

The only real difference is in the above possibilities, I’m a bit of a jerk, where as the other folks maybe lack some experience or a skill of some sort.

I hope that we can agree that the principles based on which the GM makes their decisions do matter.

Sure. What principles are you thinking of? One of the problems with a lot of modern D&D is that there are few explicit principles for DMing or playing. So most folks come up with their own. Which is fine, in and of itself, but it can make discussion challenging.

What do you have in mind?

 

[Oofta]

I get that to an extent. I’ve found plenty of that kind of stuff interesting. Setting books and supplements. But always through the lens of the stories they’re used to tell.

Like the world of the ancient Greek myths is fascinating… the Olympians, the demigods, the monsters, the fates, all of it. But without the struggles of the characters… without the wrath of Achilles, the pains of Odysseus, the tragedy of Oedipus… it lacks vitality, to me.

But yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty key difference for us.



Well my point is that they’re not intending to thwart the players. Their intention is something else, and the railroading is more a side effect or an unintended outcome.

In that sense, it’s not really different from intending to portray the setting in a way that matches my prep.

I think there’s a different between intentional and unintentional railroading… just like there’s a difference between being intentionally rude versus unintentionally rude.



We don’t know how things turned out for the cleric of Odin… but do you really think it wasn’t per some predetermined path set by the DM? It may have been one of a few possible paths… but I’m not really seeing the distinction you’re making here as all that meaningful.

The DM said no to a player idea that had plenty of potential for play, and which simply arrived at what we have to assume was an already expected point of play (finding the maguffin) in favor of they’re prepared material.

The result’s the same as if Bill blocked it because he struggles with improvised moments, or if Mike blocked it because he had his own ideas about what Odin does or doesn’t do, or me if I just want to say no to my player because I like my idea better.

The only real difference is in the above possibilities, I’m a bit of a jerk, where as the other folks maybe lack some experience or a skill of some sort.



Sure. What principles are you thinking of? One of the problems with a lot of modern D&D is that there are few explicit principles for DMing or playing. So most folks come up with their own. Which is fine, in and of itself, but it can make discussion challenging.

What do you have in mind?

So if a DM ever says no ... it's a railroad? We really disagree on what railroad means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I get that to an extent. I’ve found plenty of that kind of stuff interesting. Setting books and supplements. But always through the lens of the stories they’re used to tell.

Like the world of the ancient Greek myths is fascinating… the Olympians, the demigods, the monsters, the fates, all of it. But without the struggles of the characters… without the wrath of Achilles, the pains of Odysseus, the tragedy of Oedipus… it lacks vitality, to me.

But yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty key difference for us.

Yeah, I love stories more than games, truth be told, but of what I consider the three fundamental pillars of story (plot, character, and setting), I value setting the most. The other two are very important, but second to setting in terms of what I care about. And yes, I am aware this is not a popular opinion, but you all know how much I value the importance of popularity.

This is why more content is always better to me, and why I loved 2e's output more than that of any other edition (all those wonderful settings)! It's also why I'm more sanguine about metaplot than most other gamers I've encountered.

 

[pemerton]

We are however, not playing/discussing upper paragon 4e, are we?

Presumably 5e D&D has some similar notion for high-level PCs.

 

[pemerton]

Why did you feel this response and snipping a post was necessary? What's the point? I never said anything about being special or different.

The point is that other people share your desire, but adopt different approaches. So when you tend to frame those different approaches as serving different desires, that is not accurate.