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

[DEFCON 1]

If I'm running a Mexican restaurant I'm not going to suddenly start serving moo goo gai pan just because someone suddenly has a craving for Americanized Chinese food. If you want that go to a shopping mall food court and eat what you want! Now get off my lawn!

Wait, why am I on your lawn? Do you sell Americanized Chinese food from your lawn? Can I get some boneless spare ribs from your lawn while I'm here?

Hey! Put down that shotgun! All right, I'm going! I'm going!

Sheesh... open up a PF Changs on your front lawn and then get all mad when someone shows up to get some take-out. Rude! RUDE, I TELLS YA!!!

 

[Oofta]

Well, per the example and as I’ve pointed out, it wasn’t a get out of jail free card. The request, such as it was, was for the location of the maguffin.

Did you guys eventually find the maguffin? I don’t think you’ve come right out and said so, but it’s certainly seemed like it from what you said.




For the cost, I said something meaningful. I don’t know why you’d suggest things you clearly feel aren’t meaningful. The only suggestion I made was comparing it to Odin sacrificing his eye. I was imagining the character having to potentially sacrifice something significant. Not to be sent on a fetch quest.

Did the character have any family or friends? Did they have anything they valued? That’d have been a good starting point.



I didn’t envision your Odin as a “good god”. Hel is one of the key figures in Ragnarok… that’s why I made the connection between Hel and the lich and why that might bother a paranoid and Ragnarok-obsessed Odin.




I’m not saying that it is a railroad. There are far too many unknown factors to say. What I did was ask if someone can see how it may be classified as such.



Yes, I know. That discretion can include going with the player’s idea. Choosing not to do so is a choice.



Except flying cars aren’t a thing in our world. But deities granting spells and miracles are in the typical D&D setting.



No it doesn’t. See above.



If you mean my reply to @Paul Farquhar and his “Hard Stare tm” stuff… then no. That deserves snark.

Otherwise, I’ve not really been snarky.

I explained why I would have had the same response and the same issue. First, the player didn't just say "I ask Odin for knowledge". He said something like "I pray to Odin and he tells me where the phylactery* is because he sees all." It was a declaration of action and result with zero cost for that result. The player assumed they could invent the power that their cleric could just go to their god said "Pretty please" and get what they wanted.

I can think of no significant cost that would have mattered to the player. Disfiguring the character (taking their eye or similar) wouldn't really matter. He had a previous character in a campaign I ran where he asked to lose an eye for story reasons. There is no way the DM was going to involve human sacrifice of a loved one if that's the other option you were implying. Short of some mechanical penalty such as removing spell slots or somehow reducing the character capabilities for a significant period of time any RP penalty would not have really made a difference to the player.

We're just rehashing the same ground, aren't we? It feels like you dismiss what I say because we could have run the game like you would. Because to you it would have been a cool story moment. Sure, we could have. The DM didn't for the reasons I gave. There was no reason to consider it a railroad because we still had plenty of options without the player making a declaration of an action and result. The DM simply didn't let the player make an end run around the rules and spirit of the game. It wouldn't have been a cool story for us to have 1 person just ignore the rules and restrictions of the game, it would have smacked of DM favoritism or the DM giving into bullying.

*Not that it really matters but we were looking for the lich's phylactery which of course was well hidden and protected from all divination (even divination by a god, which the player never accepted). We did eventually find it but instead of destroying it which would have destroyed the soul we ended up figuring out a way to convince the lich to go on to their final resting place instead of reforming and wreaking havoc once more. Being able to turn vengeance into redemption was a cool way for us to resolve the story line. The PC levels were in the teens IIRC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I explained why I would have had the same response and the same issue. First, the player didn't just say "I ask Odin for knowledge". He said something like "I pray to Odin and he tells me where the phylactery* is because he sees all." It was a declaration of action and result with zero cost for that result. The player assumed they could invent the power that their cleric could just go to their god said "Pretty please" and get what they wanted.

Right, and I said how I'd take that and use it as an opportunity. I wouldn't just shut it down... I'd explain that Odin doesn't just tell him because, as it did for Odin, knowledge has a price.

As I've said... the DM doesn't need to just give in to a player suggestion. But they also don't need to deny everything.

I can think of no significant cost that would have mattered to the player. Disfiguring the character (taking their eye or similar) wouldn't really matter. He had a previous character in a campaign I ran where he asked to lose an eye for story reasons. There is no way the DM was going to involve human sacrifice of a loved one if that's the other option you were implying.

I mean, I'd probably categorize this as a problem of its own.

Short of some mechanical penalty such as removing spell slots or somehow reducing the character capabilities for a significant period of time any RP penalty would not have really made a difference to the player.

I mean, I'd not be against a mechanical penalty if that's what matters to the player. Let's say Odin demands an eye. Okay... now the PC suffers disadvantage or a penalty on ranged attacks and Perception checks. Or perhaps if that's too harsh, their missing eye occasionally weeps blood and never fully heals, giving them disadvantage or a penalty on Charisma based checks, though it also marks them as touched by the All-Father, so they get advantage or a bonus on Charisma checks with followers of Odin.

I mean, there are a lot of ways you can go with it.

We're just rehashing the same ground, aren't we? It feels like you dismiss what I say because we could have run the game like you would. Because to you it would have been a cool story moment. Sure, we could have. The DM didn't for the reasons I gave.

I am not dismissing what you've said. I accept that it happened and that it is an incredibly common way for such things to be handled. That I personally wouldn't do it that way is not me dismissing it.

As you yourself point out ALL THE TIME... differing preferences are not dismissals. You assert your own preferences very often, and claim that you are not dismissing anyone else's when you do so. But if other people assert their preferences, you read that as a dismissal of yours. It's a bit frustrating.

There was no reason to consider it a railroad because we still had plenty of options without the player making a declaration of an action and result. The DM simply didn't let the player make an end run around the rules and spirit of the game. It wouldn't have been a cool story for us to have 1 person just ignore the rules and restrictions of the game, it would have smacked of DM favoritism or the DM giving into bullying.

*Not that it really matters but we were looking for the lich's phylactery which of course was well hidden and protected from all divination (even divination by a god, which the player never accepted). We did eventually find it but instead of destroying it which would have destroyed the soul we ended up figuring out a way to convince the lich to go on to their final resting place instead of reforming and wreaking havoc once more. Being able to turn vengeance into redemption was a cool way for us to resolve the story line. The PC levels were in the teens IIRC.

I mean, magic that can oppose a god sounds a bit like it violates the rules of the game... or at least the spirit of the setting. It smacks very much of "the DM does not want you to find this thing except how they've already decided you may." If that's not a railroad to you, cool. I personally would feel it leaned that way. That at that point, I'm trying to guess the DM's solution to the problem rather than my own.

Now, if your group was satisfied with the way it was handled, then it's all good for you and your group. I am simply offering an alternate view and why I hold that view. The topic of the discussion has been about player authority, stemming from the change in description of rule zero. So my suggestions have been more in line with the new version.

 

[Oofta]

Right, and I said how I'd take that and use it as an opportunity. I wouldn't just shut it down... I'd explain that Odin doesn't just tell him because, as it did for Odin, knowledge has a price.

As I've said... the DM doesn't need to just give in to a player suggestion. But they also don't need to deny everything.



I mean, I'd probably categorize this as a problem of its own.



I mean, I'd not be against a mechanical penalty if that's what matters to the player. Let's say Odin demands an eye. Okay... now the PC suffers disadvantage or a penalty on ranged attacks and Perception checks. Or perhaps if that's too harsh, their missing eye occasionally weeps blood and never fully heals, giving them disadvantage or a penalty on Charisma based checks, though it also marks them as touched by the All-Father, so they get advantage or a bonus on Charisma checks with followers of Odin.

I mean, there are a lot of ways you can go with it.



I am not dismissing what you've said. I accept that it happened and that it is an incredibly common way for such things to be handled. That I personally wouldn't do it that way is not me dismissing it.

As you yourself point out ALL THE TIME... differing preferences are not dismissals. You assert your own preferences very often, and claim that you are not dismissing anyone else's when you do so. But if other people assert their preferences, you read that as a dismissal of yours. It's a bit frustrating.



I mean, magic that can oppose a god sounds a bit like it violates the rules of the game... or at least the spirit of the setting. It smacks very much of "the DM does not want you to find this thing except how they've already decided you may." If that's not a railroad to you, cool. I personally would feel it leaned that way. That at that point, I'm trying to guess the DM's solution to the problem rather than my own.

Now, if your group was satisfied with the way it was handled, then it's all good for you and your group. I am simply offering an alternate view and why I hold that view. The topic of the discussion has been about player authority, stemming from the change in description of rule zero. So my suggestions have been more in line with the new version.

We just have different approaches. There's nothing wrong with that, I just don't see much value in continuing the endless "This is how I would do it" vs "This is how I would do it".

I would just note that gods are not truly all knowing and omniscient in most D&D campaigns. They certainly aren't in any I've played from what I've seen but that's a separate topic.

I also don't think there really is a new direction, the advice was for a beginner set that doesn't come anywhere close to implementing all the rules of D&D. In the core books there's plenty of advice for players to think of the fun of others, respecting the DM. There's advice for the DM to think of the fun of the players and respect the words and deeds of their characters. Even if this was a new direction "If all the people agree" that includes the DM, right?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Regarding the whole god thing, in D&D the favour the gods show to their clerics is already mechanised. They give clerics spells and channel divinity, the cleric has a codified ability to call for divine intervention. Whilst I want to represent the personal connection the cleric has with their deity, and would be willing to bend the rules here an there a little bit if the fiction so demanded, I would not entirely sidestep this structure by letting the cleric to directly petition the god to do things for them outside these mechanics.

Now one can think that this is not the best possible way to represent god/worshipper relationship, and that's fair, but that is what the game has and expects us to use.

But having some predefined structure is part of the principles I think work well for D&D. And the same applies to the fiction. There are certain predefined things that are immutable, and even absence of such at least general ideas which help the GM to extrapolate consistently.

Some people mentioned it being sometimes hard to come up with meaningful consequences, especially negative ones if you're a big softie like me. And at least here having this sort of predefined structure helps me a lot. I have predefined fiction, and robust fiction to rules connectivity. So this helps to adjudicate consequences fairly and consistently. It would be far harder for me if I was no-mything and had attitude to the rules that they can represent whatever.

 

[Oofta]

Regarding the whole god thing, in D&D the favour the gods show to their clerics is already mechanised. They give clerics spells and channel divinity, the cleric has a codified ability to call for divine intervention. Whilst I want to represent the personal connection the cleric has with their deity, and would be willing to bend the rules here an there a little bit if the fiction so demanded, I would not entirely sidestep this structure by letting the cleric to directly petition the god to do things for them outside these mechanics.

Now one can think that this is not the best possible way to represent god/worshipper relationship, and that's fair, but that is what the game has and expects us to use.

But having some predefined structure is part of the principles I think work well for D&D. And the same applies to the fiction. There are certain predefined things that are immutable, and even absence of such at least general ideas which help the GM to extrapolate consistently.

Some people mentioned it being sometimes hard to come up with meaningful consequences, especially negative ones if you're a big softie like me. And at least here having this sort of predefined structure helps me a lot. I have predefined fiction, and robust fiction to rules connectivity. So this helps to adjudicate consequences fairly and consistently. It would be far harder for me if I was no-mything and had attitude to the rules that they can represent whatever.

Back in 3E there was a spell called "Miracle" which could potentially exceed the granted powers of a cleric. That's now been replaced by Greater Divine Intervention, the 20th level cleric ability that lets you cast Wish. But even wish has limitations if you use it for something other than casting a spell and it comes with a risk of never being able to use Wish again.

Beyond that though, I've never run deities as being 100% omniscient because in a pantheon with such divergent goals and opposing deities I don't see how they could be. Odin should know that the giants are about to invade, or that Svaðilfari had a magic steed that could help him build Asgard's wall in time to complete the contract. But there are all sorts of stories of enemies being disguised, surprises happening and so on. That just doesn't jive with an omnipotent all knowing being to me.

So yes, even Odin can't see something that's been protected because while he has no limit on how often he can scry, even his knowledge is limited. You don't have to run it that way, but it seems to leave plot holes on a regular basis to me if you don't.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would just note that gods are not truly all knowing and omniscient in most D&D campaigns. They certainly aren't in any I've played from what I've seen but that's a separate topic.

I don’t think omniscience has anything to do with what I was talking about.

If you’re saying to me that there’s magic that can defy the gods, okay… but how does that work? Is there another god involved? Are there ways that mortal magic can defy the gods? And so on.

Now, for many people, they may already have those answers. All this stuff may be written down or otherwise decided before hand.

I find that this is a restrictive approach as it relates to player authority. I think it is necessarily so by nature.

There's advice for the DM to think of the fun of the players and respect the words and deeds of their characters. Even if this was a new direction "If all the people agree" that includes the DM, right?

Well, look no further than earlier in this thread for plenty of outrage about this new take on rule zero. Whether or not it matters to a given group will vary.

And yes, the DM is included in that. In all this back and forth, we’ve been talking about a player who had an idea and it was one where the DM didn’t agree. So there seemed to be conflict there.

Now in your game, it seems to have been worked out to everyone’s satisfaction… so that’s cool. But what if the player wasn’t satisfied with the DM shutting it down? There are a whole bunch of possibilities on how to reconcile this conflict. It isn’t a binary “give the player everything” or “don’t give them anything”.

Regarding the whole god thing, in D&D the favour the gods show to their clerics is already mechanised. They give clerics spells and channel divinity, the cleric has a codified ability to call for divine intervention. Whilst I want to represent the personal connection the cleric has with their deity, and would be willing to bend the rules here an there a little bit if the fiction so demanded, I would not entirely sidestep this structure by letting the cleric to directly petition the god to do things for them outside these mechanics.

Now one can think that this is not the best possible way to represent god/worshipper relationship, and that's fair, but that is what the game has and expects us to use.

Sure, but this is a discussion related to Rule Zero. To changing the rules of the game to try and deliver an enjoyable experience for all. So how the rules are written only carries so much weight, right? Especially since if the idea of a deity sharing information with a cleric came from the DM, no one would have a problem with it.

But having some predefined structure is part of the principles I think work well for D&D. And the same applies to the fiction. There are certain predefined things that are immutable, and even absence of such at least general ideas which help the GM to extrapolate consistently.

Some people mentioned it being sometimes hard to come up with meaningful consequences, especially negative ones if you're a big softie like me. And at least here having this sort of predefined structure helps me a lot. I have predefined fiction, and robust fiction to rules connectivity. So this helps to adjudicate consequences fairly and consistently. It would be far harder for me if I was no-mything and had attitude to the rules that they can represent whatever.

I think having a structure in place is absolutely essential to what I’m talking about. I took Oofta’s example and gave my own spin on it. Fictionally, everything I came up with was based on what he shared or general information about Odin and standard D&Disms.

And while there was a deviation from established mechanics, what I suggested carried a cost beyond what the established spells require. And, it’s important enough to repeat, if the DM suggested it, you’d all be 100% fine with it and no one would bring up the limits of Commune and so forth.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, but this is a discussion related to Rule Zero. To changing the rules of the game to try and deliver an enjoyable experience for all. So how the rules are written only carries so much weight, right? Especially since if the idea of a deity sharing information with a cleric came from the DM, no one would have a problem with it.

I think having a structure in place is absolutely essential to what I’m talking about. I took Oofta’s example and gave my own spin on it. Fictionally, everything I came up with was based on what he shared or general information about Odin and standard D&Disms.

If you're willing to change rules and bypass major rules assumptions on a whim, then you do not have a structure in place!

And while there was a deviation from established mechanics, what I suggested carried a cost beyond what the established spells require. And, it’s important enough to repeat, if the DM suggested it, you’d all be 100% fine with it and no one would bring up the limits of Commune and so forth.

Only in a sense that everyone is free to run their game how they want. But I think bypassing the codified character capabilities this way is a questionable idea. It now set a precedent that this can be done. Now bargaining with gods becomes a tool that can be used to attempt to solve any problem, easily becoming more impactful than the class features the players chose when they signed up to play the game with a specific class. And as it is the GM who is playing the god this becomes the ultimate form of "mother may I."

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you're willing to change rules and bypass major rules assumptions on a whim, then you do not have a structure in place!

So you’ve always had an issue with rule zero? In all its forms?

Only in a sense that everyone is free to run their game how they want. But I think bypassing the codified character capabilities this way is a questionable idea. It now set a precedent that this can be done. Now bargaining with gods becomes a tool that can be used to attempt to solve any problem, easily becoming more impactful than the class features the players chose when they signed up to play the game with a specific class. And as it is the GM who is playing the god this becomes the ultimate form of "mother may I."

Not really, because my idea didn’t involve Odin simply granting the request. As I said, I’d have involved a cost to the character. That the character in @Oofta’s game had nothing he cared about was a bit of a surprise to me… but I’d imagine there’s something that could be worked out.

And also, I think for clerics and warlocks and other characters who are associated by a relationship with an otherworldly entity, that relationship should be meaningful. So when there are opportunities to being that into play, I’m usually pretty happy. I don’t expect players who chose to play characters that don’t have such relationships to be mad or dissatisfied in any way.

As for the slippery slope argument… I’d not make any suggestions I wasn’t confident I could deal with. If my take on this prompted players to try and leverage their characters and existing related lore to try and solve problems, making them more proactive as a result… well I’d just have to learn to live with that!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So you’ve always had an issue with rule zero? In all its forms?

Not at all. I change the rules a lot. However, I try to do the major changes before the game begins, so that the players can make informed choices about the characters they want to build. Like if what you suggest is possible, then I think it should be known to the players at the point they choose whether to play a cleric or not.

Not really, because my idea didn’t involve Odin simply granting the request. As I said, I’d have involved a cost to the character. That the character in @Oofta’s game had nothing he cared about was a bit of a surprise to me… but I’d imagine there’s something that could be worked out.

And also, I think for clerics and warlocks and other characters who are associated by a relationship with an otherworldly entity, that relationship should be meaningful. So when there are opportunities to being that into play, I’m usually pretty happy. I don’t expect players who chose to play characters that don’t have such relationships to be mad or dissatisfied in any way.

As for the slippery slope argument… I’d not make any suggestions I wasn’t confident I could deal with. If my take on this prompted players to try and leverage their characters and existing related lore to try and solve problems, making them more proactive as a result… well I’d just have to learn to live with that!

The favour of gods in D&D is represented with the spells and other class features the cleric gains. This doesn't prevent there being a personal relationship with the divine. But effectively you're trying to craft some sort of freeform "bargain with gods" system on top of that. It is something that would be perfectly fine in some other sort of game, one that already wouldn't have a codified system for representing these things. I don't think it is a good idea for D&D.