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

[hawkeyefan]

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

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.

That’s been my experience, as well. The D&D campaign that I was running for 5e from 2014 to 2020 (on hiatus now) included a whole plethora of powerful beings as both enemies and allies. There have been three characters who had strong ties divine beings. One cleric, a bard, and a paladin.

Each of them has had visions or messages from their deity. In the paladin’s case it was always through a solar deva. These interactions were sometimes prompted by me and sometimes by the players. I don’t think I could say which occurred more… whatever difference there may have been was minimal.

One instance I can think of is when the Bard character… a poet and revolutionary, devoted to Morpheus (Lord of Dreams, aka Sandman; he’s a big fan of the comic)… beseeched his god for aid. He asked for a dangerous item, sought by enemies of the PCs, be held in the dreamworld, where it would be beyond detection.

This was all the idea of the player. Hell, Morpheus being a deity wasn’t something I’d planned at all… even that was his idea. What was my idea was the task Morpheus asked of him in return. It was to craft a play… I leaned on the comics )in case it’s not obvious) because why not? The PC had to devote his time to crafting this play for Morpheus, so the PC was unavailable for a good stretch of play until it was completed.

Did Morpheus swoop in and solve the problem? To some extent, sure. But it came at a cost, and there were rolls involved and so on. It wasn’t just an “I win” button.

And that solution could only have come from the player and his choices about and with his character. To me, this is the player using what the character has, what makes him unique, to come up with a solution to the problem. And he’s using an established element of… the setting!

It’s almost like… collaboration?

So yeah… these concerns about negative impact on play just don’t move the needle for me. They sound more like imagined concerns than ones based on actual experience.

 

[Mort]

No. Sometimes there can be a situation where the ally's help is vital but I don't want that to trivialize challenges* or make allies a crutch.

*There are exceptions to every rule of course, including this one.

Exactly, and those exceptions are likely to organically come up during play, especially on an extended campaign. And this is likely to come up in your style of DMing or a different style.

The problem I would have is with a DM that actively squashes those exceptions because "that's not the type of game," "Type of scenario" they want. That's where overuse of DM authority and railroading start to make an appearance.

 

[Oofta]

Exactly, and those exceptions are likely to organically come up during play, especially on an extended campaign. And this is likely to come up in your style of DMing or a different style.

The problem I would have is with a DM that actively squashes those exceptions because "that's not the type of game," "Type of scenario" they want. That's where overuse of DM authority and railroading start to make an appearance.

I don't care if a DM doesn't allow something like that; it's only one small part of the game. There has to be a lot of issues before I will call a campaign a railroad. Even a linear campaign is okay as long as I go into it knowing it's going to be a linear game. It's not my preference, and not one I'd ever run but I think "railroad" is thrown around much too easily.

 

[Mort]

I don't care if a DM doesn't allow something like that; it's only one small part of the game. There has to be a lot of issues before I will call a campaign a railroad. Even a linear campaign is okay as long as I go into it knowing it's going to be a linear game. It's not my preference, and not one I'd ever run but I think "railroad" is thrown around much too easily.

I have no problem with linear have seen that many, many people like or even prefer linear adventures. And if you've seen any of my past posts on the subject, then you'll see I heartily agree that the term railroad is thrown around much too easily.

But if a DM is subverting player choice, without their knowledge or buy-in (as they would presumably have in an adventure or adventure path, for example), and for their own authored ends? That's a railroad.

 

[Lanefan]

Presumably, those GMs who continually say no when players suggest there might be someone else in the bar, music in the bar, food in the bar, etc.

Suggestng is fine. Outright declaring, not always so much.

No fudging, in other words?

I'm anti-fudging, yes.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't ever want a single player to have the kind of power to call in external reinforcement "just because".

While I get the sentiment, on a smaller scale doesn't this shut down the whole idea of monster summoning (or warrior summoning) as a combat tactic?

A Horn of Valhalla, for example, gives a single character (the Horn's owner) the power to call in significant external reinforcements on a fairly regular basis.

 

[Lanefan]

That's twice you've misread the same simple statement. I do think that automatically saying no when a player assumes minor setting details like there might be a band or a fellow patron in the bar is shutting down their ideas. I do think this will reduce player proactivity.

There's a difference between "automatically saying no" (implying 'no' is the answer every time) and "retaining the right to say no" (implying 'no' will be the answer only if there's a good reason and-or if that's what some dice decide).

The former is bad. The latter, however, is fine.

 

[Oofta]

I have no problem with linear have seen that many, many people like or even prefer linear adventures. And if you've seen any of my past posts on the subject, then you'll see I heartily agree that the term railroad is thrown around much too easily.

But if a DM is subverting player choice, without their knowledge or buy-in (as they would presumably have in an adventure or adventure path, for example), and for their own authored ends? That's a railroad.

How do you define "subverting player choice"? A player can't always get their way. If there were never obstacles the game would be boring.

Obviously a DM can force a railroad for as long as the players will put up with it. But that has little or nothing to do with following the standard D&D assumptions.

 

[Oofta]

While I get the sentiment, on a smaller scale doesn't this shut down the whole idea of monster summoning (or warrior summoning) as a combat tactic?

A Horn of Valhalla, for example, gives a single character (the Horn's owner) the power to call in significant external reinforcements on a fairly regular basis.

But summoning is a class power, not really any different than casting a fireball.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

But if a DM is subverting player choice, without their knowledge or buy-in (as they would presumably have in an adventure or adventure path, for example), and for their own authored ends? That's a railroad.

It feels like there is an example you'd like to share with the class.