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

[Micah Sweet]

Not every roleplaying game, not even every campaign of D&D, is about overcoming external deadly challenges.

Maybe not, but every D&D-style game I know about, no matter the specifics of their rules, is mechanically built in large part around overcoming external deadly challenges. Making the game about something else is of course possible, but you are to some degree fighting the system to do so in a major way.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So a rogue that's not particularly religious can get divine intervention?

I was just curious because it felt like this was just an exception for clerics.

This thread mushrooms much faster than I have the opportunity to get through the posts so this is likely answered, but for my 5e game, I would very much look at what has been established during play for the character and the TIBF (Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws) to determine the strength of a character's faith.

A rogue such as the one you described would generally outright fail, however if the character made a plea to a greater power in a certain desperate moment (which can easily be understood), then I could see the use of incorporating a SC.

The cost for someone not-particularly religious though would be tremendous, something that would not encourage powergamers to exploit this avenue.
And I'm talking along the lines of permanent losses, not things undone via Greater Restoration or Downtime.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat whilst I totally agree that how one approaches immersion is highly personal I don’t think it is useless to think these things on population level. If one would want to write a game that is immersive to most people it is pretty useful to know how most people achieve immersion!

And your comment on social/emotion mechanics certainly is illustrative of the great variation that exists in how people feel about these things. To me mechanics that tell me how my character acts or feels are the worst. It is not that my characters are emotionless, always-in-control Vulcans, far from it. But to me their reactions stem from my mental model of the character and situations where my mental model says one thing but the mechanics say another are literally the worst immersion killer I know. In fact, I feel that running this mental model is the main thing for my role as a player, so my reaction to systems that routinely override it is that I am not really needed and the GM can use these rules to determine how my character acts and I can leave and go to do something that’s worth my time. To me such mechanics butcher the core of what I seek from roleplaying, and kill the sort of agency I care about the most.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What kind of problem do we have?

Kick-down the door dungeon crawls exist and are a valid way to play the game.

If neither the DM or the player want to create a lot of setting elements, that is what you would get, and for DMs/players who don’t want to create a lot of setting elements, it seems that they would be happy.

Not if any of them want a game with a lot of setting elements!

 

[Oofta]

This thread mushrooms much faster than I have the opportunity to get through the posts so this is likely answered, but for my 5e game, I would very much look at what has been established during play for the character and the TIBF (Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws) to determine the strength of a character's faith.

A rogue such as the one you described would generally outright fail, however if the character made a plea to a greater power in a certain desperate moment (which can easily be understood), then I could see the use of incorporating a SC.

The cost for someone not-particularly religious though would be tremendous, something that would not encourage powergamers to exploit this avenue.
And I'm talking along the lines of permanent losses, not things undone via Greater Restoration or Downtime.

It just feels like something that could imbalance the game if it was limited to clerics (or warlocks I suppose) which is why I was curious. If a cleric can always be calling in favors, why have a spell list? How does it not make them the go-to for a power player, especially one that has the ability to influence the DM into agreeing?

I'm also not certain I could come up with penalties that really mattered that would be appropriate. I'm sure some games handle this, just don't see it for D&D games I run. In any case, if you think it makes sense for your game go for it. There's a lot of things people do I wouldn't want in my game, doesn't make them wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. It doesn't matter from whom this tactic came from. Were it GM introduced I would equally feel it was a bad idea. And I literally said this ages ago already.

So you’re for players contributing setting details? To say “there’s a tavern I know of down the street here”? You don’t have concerns about that?

for some people it is simply more work to have to adapt around and incorporate other people's 'help' than it is to just have control of the whole thing themselves, after all players who make suggestions often do not have the whole picture, just what is immediately presented before them-if that, so it is not an 'expectation' for a GM to labour under it is a 'advantage' to be allowed to do it all themselves, to know where everything is and how it functions.

Overall, I absolutely get this, and this is what I’ve been trying to get at… the issue that the individual has with the style, not some unfounded criticism of the style itself. A quality of the person rather than the style.

My only question is what do you mean by players not “seeing the whole picture”?

But, AFAIK, no one has said that.

See the quote from Lanefan below, which you liked.

we have never said that the style itself cannot work, and it is not the mark of a 'more skilled GM' to run a game that way, we simply just do not prefer to run games that way, and that is in no way a flaw in our style of GMing.

See the quite from Lanefan below, which you also liked.

And just to clarify… I didn’t say “more” skilled. I said that running a game that way is a skill, and someone may not be good at it or comfortable with it.

It will.

As a player, if I'm given the ability to do something in the game and don't then at least try to use it to the limit, I'm not doing my job.

Giving players an ability or permission and then asking them to self-restrain or self-police their use of that ability is stupid. It's black and white: they either have an ability or they don't, and if they have it they can use it to the full.

Which means, don't give out an ability until you're sure you're willing to live with it no matter what uses the players see fit to put it to.

This depends on the goal of play. I disagree with you entirely about the practice “being stupid”. I think the idea that players will immediately jump on any possible advantage and seek to exploit it to win, while it may be relevant to you and your game, isn’t a concern for many.

Now, having said that… when I go with player ideas in play, I do consider possible impact in the future. The examples I’ve shared from my own game that involve divine relationships and support have worked out fine. Nothing bad has happened. The setting is intact, I’ve not struggled with the resultant player ideas. The players are satisfied and so am I.

This is why I push back against the idea that this cannot work. It works just fine. If you don’t think it will, then it’s more a case of you not being able to make it work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you’re for players contributing setting details? To say “there’s a tavern I know of down the street here”? You don’t have concerns about that?



Overall, I absolutely get this, and this is what I’ve been trying to get at… the issue that the individual has with the style, not some unfounded criticism of the style itself. A quality of the person rather than the style.

My only question is what do you mean by players not “seeing the whole picture”?




See the quote from Lanefan below, which you liked.



See the quite from Lanefan below, which you also liked.

And just to clarify… I didn’t say “more” skilled. I said that running a game that way is a skill, and someone may not be good at it or comfortable with it.



This depends on the goal of play. I disagree with you entirely about the practice “being stupid”. I think the idea that players will immediately jump on any possible advantage and seek to exploit it to win, while it may be relevant to you and your game, isn’t a concern for many.

Now, having said that… when I go with player ideas in play, I do consider possible impact in the future. The examples I’ve shared from my own game that involve divine relationships and support have worked out fine. Nothing bad has happened. The setting is intact, I’ve not struggled with the resultant player ideas. The players are satisfied and so am I.

This is why I push back against the idea that this cannot work. It works just fine. If you don’t think it will, then it’s more a case of you not being able to make it work.

Are you actually saying, "if my methods don't work for you, it's your fault"?

 

[Mort]

This is why I push back against the idea that this cannot work. It works just fine. If you don’t think it will, then it’s more a case of you not being able to make it work.

So I agree with much of what you have been saying on player input etc.

But I think this is a bit much. What people are saying is not that they CANNOT make it work, but that they do not wish to make it work, because it is not their preference.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Not if any of them want a game with a lot of setting elements!

This seems like a contradiction in terms: a GM that wants a game with a lot of setting elements but doesn’t want to create setting elements.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My only question is what do you mean by players not “seeing the whole picture”?

Not knowing all the details, there being unrevealed information that would influence the things they’re trying to create