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

[pemerton]

I assume practically everyone that has DMed D&D, even those who think the DM who said no to the Odin request "missed an opportunity", have a line they would not cross. An extreme example of course would be something like the player that says they call up their buddy an ancient dragon who just happens to be invincible and immune to all spells to destroy the enemy city.

I think we have to assume a certain amount of good faith on the part of the player, right?

Yes. I think I posted the same point upthread, though I didn't use the phrase "good faith".

The real issue here seems to be fictional position. Under what circumstances does the players' fictional position include that their PC is friends with an ancient dragon? The default assumption of FRPGing is that they're not, unless this has been expressly established in play or via some distinct mechanic.

Straight away that distinguishes it from the Odin example - because the default assumption for a cleric of a god is that they are in some sort of communion with or relationship with their deity.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure exactly what the confusion (if any) is. When I play D&D, I want to inhabit a character. See the world through their eyes interact with the game world through what the character says and does. As a player I only want to interact with the world via my character. Obviously I get information about the world as a player, but even then I try to decide how my character would see the world. If I have a BDF (big dumb fighter) and the DM describes a scene, the way my character perceives the scene may well not be my best understanding of the scene. For me emotions are a bit of a fuzzy area, a DM saying I'm surprised or something unexpected happens is okay but telling me I'm feeling some other emotion? Well, there are some situations where other people would be frightened but I would not be. Heights don't really bother me, my wife can't go near the edge of a drop-off. So some characters will be frightened by specific situations, others will not. I want it to be up to me what my emotional response will be.

As a player I don't want to describe what the tavern looks like. As an individual, I can't just imagine a tavern and it appears. So if I talk about something being more realistic it's in the sense that I realistically can only alter the world around me through my actions.

Hypothetical.

Let's say you're playing a half-elf character. During the first session, another player asks, in character, if your father (you being the half-elf character) is a full-blooded elf. Do you answer, or do you check with the DM?

(Let's assume for the hypothetical this is a fairly breezy game and you didn't do a deep backstory for your character beforehand.)

 

[pemerton]

Not to ignore the rest of your excellent post, but to address just this: If a player's goal method/process to create immersion is to inhabit a character mind to the best of their ability (or, say, play a character who is similar to yourself, where your personal reactions can hew as close to 1-to-1 to their reactions as possible), forcing the character to experience something that the player is not can be a harsh disconnect for that person. For the sort of immersion that player is seeking, that presents a sudden and large problem.

Speaking just for myself, the idea that how my character responds to being charged by a huge fire-breathing dragon is something that I get to decide is not very immersive. As per @Manbearcat's post, it might be satisfying, because I get to make decisions about setting my spear against the charge, and I get to vicariously feel like a heroic warrior confronting a dragon. But the play itself is predominantly in author stance, not actor stance (to use that terminology as I understand it: The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 3). As a player, what I am experiencing is an opportunity to indulge my interest in portraying a heroic warrior facing down a dragon; whereas what my PC is experiencing, presumably, is the threat of imminent death, the pumping of adrenaline, the need to react immediately and not be frozen in terror, etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The real issue here seems to be fictional position.

Sure.

Under what circumstances does the players' fictional position include that their PC is friends with an ancient dragon? The default assumption of FRPGing is that they're not, unless this has been expressly established in play or via some distinct mechanic.

I'm a draconic sorcerer and the dragon is my loving ancestor?

Straight away that distinguishes it from the Odin example - because the default assumption for a cleric of a god is that they are in some sort of communion with or relationship with their deity.

To me it seems highly questionable to grant a character this sort of highly influential fictional positioning just due their class choice. Especially as the game already has mechanics for representing such divine favour that the character certainly has access to. Tårta på tårta, like we might say here.

 

[pemerton]

This is hyperbole sitting at the top of a slippery slope!

Why? Where do you draw the line? Either the god can aid or not.

Well, that last sentence is literally a tautology.

But if what you mean is there is no in-principle limit, discernible within the shared fiction, as to the aid that a god might provide a follower then that is not true.

And in my experience, players who care about fiction and setting will have their own ideas about where those limits lie, and they will reflect those ideas in their action declarations.

but it you're bypassing the rules you then have to figure out what level of assistance can they get.

Having a god provide aid, in D&D, is not "bypassing the rules". Gygax's DMG has a whole discussion of it!

 

[TwoSix]

Tårta på tårta, like we might say here.

What a wonderful phrase!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But if what you mean is there is no in-principle limit, discernible within the shared fiction, as to the aid that a god might provide a follower then that is not true.

Yet when @Oofta said what such limit would be in their setting, it was not good enough for a few people here.

 

[pemerton]

But if we were playing a game where the players could introduce beneficial setting elements, coincidences and plot twists by paying plot points, and the player paid 12 plot points they had saved over several sessions for "major deus ex machina," then Little Boy, the ancient fission dragon swooping in to help would be fair and a perfectly legit gameplay.

But D&D does not have any sort of system for this

Does any RPG have any sort of system for this? I don't know of one. But obviously I don't know all RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

Yet when @Oofta said what such limit would be in their setting, it was not good enough for a few people here.

The issue being discussed, as I understood it, was the difference between the GM setting limits, the player setting limits, the interaction of the GM and player in setting limits, the use of mechanics to establish where limits might lie, etc.

Furthermore, @Oofta has not articulated any limits by reference to the shared fiction. He has articulated them by reference to the rules of the game (as he sees them - I don't agree with him as to what those rules are), by reference to what is fair and balanced, etc. None of that is about the fiction at all!

 

[soviet]

To me it seems highly questionable to grant a character this sort of highly influential fictional positioning just due their class choice.

It isn't just due to their class choice though.

EDIT: The same principles could apply to eg a thief and the thieves guild, a fighter and a local baron, etc. The point being that they have a relationship to a powerful entity but that relationship comes with costs, dangers, etc.