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

[pemerton]

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.

I already posted an actual play example from 4e D&D. The players in my 4e game had their PCs call on the powers of the gods, or draw on their relationships to the gods, all the time. It didn't cause any problems.

I mean, from the point of view of mechanical balance, a check on (say) Religion is no more or less powerful than a check on (say) Arcana, which is in turn no more or less powerful than a check on (say) Athletics. The differences pertain to the fiction. And those differences included differences of consequence. It's to be expected that trying to perform a feat of heroic strength, and failing, is likely to have a different result from trying to invoke the power of the Raven Queen, and having her ignore or deny your plea.

my idea didn’t involve Odin simply granting the request. As I said, I’d have involved a cost to the character.

<snip>

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.

To me, you seem to be describing an approach pretty much along the lines of my 4e experience.

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!

Maybe I'm misreading, but I get the impression that you would be quite happy to live with more proactive players.

 

[Oofta]

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.



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”.



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.

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.

Hmm ... anything new here that hasn't been answered? Gods not being omniscient and all seeing was answered, no they are not. Sacrifice? Other than a quest or human sacrifice that is never going to happen I've got nothing and you didn't clarify. @Crimson Longinus also covered the whole "You're letting a player bypass the rules of the game" in addition to what I said.

So I assume you're not purposely sealioning but there's nothing new here. Just a repetition of the same questions and statements that I could have run it differently with the heavy implication that if I had done it your way it would have been better. I see no value in just repeating the same thing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, from the point of view of mechanical balance, a check on (say) Religion is no more or less powerful than a check on (say) Arcana, which is in turn no more or less powerful than a check on (say) Athletics.

Indeed. And I would not let an arcana roll to duplicate a high level spell that the character doesn't have either.

Maybe I'm misreading, but I get the impression that you would be quite happy to live with more proactive players.

I love proactive players. I don't think a mechanic where the player bargains with a GM played god for favours for which the god assigns them tasks results such. That sound more like an excellent vehicle for railroading.

 

[Oofta]

Indeed. And I would not let an arcana roll to duplicate a high level spell that the character doesn't have either.


I love proactive players. I don't think a mechanic where the player bargains with a GM played god for favours for which the god assigns them tasks results such. That sound more like an excellent vehicle for railroading.

Proactive players are awesome. They can be proactive in many ways ... in my game it's through the words and deeds of their characters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hmm ... anything new here that hasn't been answered? Gods not being omniscient and all seeing was answered, no they are not. Sacrifice? Other than a quest or human sacrifice that is never going to happen I've got nothing and you didn't clarify. @Crimson Longinus also covered the whole "You're letting a player bypass the rules of the game" in addition to what I said.

There were new elements, and a clarification, actually.

I said that godly omniscience has nothing to do with it. So pointing out that they are not omniscient doesn't move us any further along. So I'm only responding now to that so that it's clear. There have at times been moments when it seems you've been uncertain about what's being asked, so I've clarified.

Also, I asked if divine magic can be blocked and if so how? Is that codified in the rules anywhere? Or is that just a decision you've made for your setting? Or something else? You haven't commented on that.

I also touched upon prep and the role that plays, though I didn't pose any questions about that.

So I assume you're not purposely sealioning but there's nothing new here. Just a repetition of the same questions and statements that I could have run it differently with the heavy implication that if I had done it your way it would have been better. I see no value in just repeating the same thing.

Given the limited nature of what I know of the example, yes, I would have done it differently because it would have been more in line with my preferences. That doesn't mean it would have been objectively better. I've not said that. Nor have I taken offense to you saying that you think it was better your way.... why wouldn't you?

And please don't accuse me of being disingenuous. I've been respectful to your approach and preferences despite your accusations otherwise. I've taken such accusations in stride and not made any in return. I've made attempts to clarify things that I've said that were unclear to you. I've been making an effort at a good faith conversation.

So if you don't want the conversation to continue, all you have to do is not reply to this post. Especially if you think doing so will just be you repeating yourself.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Sure, that's a fair point. I think it's generally good practice to establish new rules ahead of play and get everyone's buy in.

I don't think what was being described is exactly a rule, per se... nor could it be something that would generally be anticipated.

What about NPC relationships? Do you feel the need to restrict them or limit how they can work in some way? Do PCs in your game ever have NPC allies of significant power and/or influence? How would you see this as being very different?

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.

Fair enough. I think it'd work fine. But I think I care more about the characters compared to the setting than a lot of folks here.

To me, you seem to be describing an approach pretty much along the lines of my 4e experience.

It's my general approach with most games where characters have connections to some kind of spiritual or divine being. It's never been a problem.

Was it an issue for your 4e game?

Maybe I'm misreading, but I get the impression that you would be quite happy to live with more proactive players.

You are not misreading!

 

[pemerton]

Was it an issue for your 4e game?

It wasn't, for the reason that I posted:

from the point of view of mechanical balance, a check on (say) Religion is no more or less powerful than a check on (say) Arcana, which is in turn no more or less powerful than a check on (say) Athletics. The differences pertain to the fiction. And those differences included differences of consequence. It's to be expected that trying to perform a feat of heroic strength, and failing, is likely to have a different result from trying to invoke the power of the Raven Queen, and having her ignore or deny your plea.

I'll say a bit more about the consequences aspect.

The fictional range of things that can be achieved via prayer is (generally) wider than the fictional range of things that can be achieved via muscular prowess. This might at least seem to raise - and possibly it does in fact raise - the possibility of prayer being an "omni"-skill. I think @Oofta is expressing this sort of concern in some posts upthread.

One thing that constrains this potential scope of prayer is the players' conception of what is consistent with their PC's faith and with the divinity to whom they pray. Eg if the PC worships the Raven Queen, then the player will pray to help with undead and souls and the like, but probably not to help get a stuck wagon out of the mud. The GM leaning into the fantasy tropes that correspond to the gods can help with this too - a mutually-reinforcing sense, shared by players and GM, of what aspects of the shared setting matter to the various gods.

But the other thing that is relevant is consequences. Once a player is invoking prayer, the scope of consequences becomes much wider, because (as we all know) the gods can be mysterious, petty and/or vengeful! In other words, by having their PC pray the player isn't just opening up the door to wider fictional scope for their PC's action -they're also opening the door to wider fictional scope for the GM's response, in terms of consequences and (especially in a skill challenge) subsequent framings.

Given all the above, I can say that no, it wasn't a problem in my 4e game. It probably has the upshot that the role of the gods loomed fairly large in play - but that seems appropriate for the sort of setting that 4e defaults to, with its gods and primordial and Dawn War and so on.

 

[pemerton]

the player bargains with a GM played god for favours for which the god assigns them tasks

I think you might have misread @hawkeyefan:

I was imagining the character having to potentially sacrifice something significant. Not to be sent on a fetch quest.

 

[Oofta]

There were new elements, and a clarification, actually.

I said that godly omniscience has nothing to do with it. So pointing out that they are not omniscient doesn't move us any further along. So I'm only responding now to that so that it's clear. There have at times been moments when it seems you've been uncertain about what's being asked, so I've clarified.

Also, I asked if divine magic can be blocked and if so how? Is that codified in the rules anywhere? Or is that just a decision you've made for your setting? Or something else? You haven't commented on that.

I also touched upon prep and the role that plays, though I didn't pose any questions about that.

I thought I made it clear that Odin cannot see all, he did not see through disguises, etc.. Obviously that means divine magic can be blocked. If it couldn't why would a god ever hold back info from their clerics?

I don't mean to be cranky about this but we're on reply 1.6k and some and the conversation hasn't changed much for a long time.

EDIT: also the whole point of my story was not how the DM ran gods. It was that the player declared an action and a result. The fact that the result was beyond what could be accomplished by the class and level while also contradicting established lore, precedence and assumptions was also part of the issue.

 

[Lanefan]

A few notes on the recent conversation:

--- I have it that some deities are omnisicent (or close enough) and others a bit less so; in any case, just because a deity knows something doesn't necessarily mean they're going to share that information freely, even if asked directly through Commune or similar, if doing so runs against that deity's own interests. Flip side: if it's in a deity's interests that certain mortals receive some info or instructions they'll probably get such whether they ask for it or not.

Deities have their own far-reaching goals, plans, and schemes; in which even the most powerful of mortals - if considered at all - are little more than pawns.

--- Is there a DM out there who doesn't want more-proactive players?

--- Changing or overwriting rules after some forethought and consideration is often good. Doing so on a whim without forethought or consideration is almost always bad, if not right at the moment then later once the long-term effects emerge.