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

[Crimson Longinus]

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

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.

 

[soviet]

Other classes and characters might also have relationships to powerful entities that fulfil the same role. It's not something that only clerics get.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Fate does. I think Cortex has it too. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Other classes and characters might also have relationships to powerful entities that fulfil the same role. It's not something that only clerics get.

Same than a god? I'm sure Three-Fingers Sal, my rogue's old drinking buddy will be just as useful than Odin!

In any case, if you assume that starting characters routinely have god tier allies, you have pretty significantly altered the dynamics of the game. In most situations the logical course of action will be to petition you allies for aid, and the gameplay becomes about that, instead of the characters actually using their class features and ingenuity to do stuff.

 

[pemerton]

As I've said, 4e is the least traditional version of D&D, and many people do not view it as especially representative of D&D in general.

Well, I'm a person who has been playing D&D (on-and-off) since 1982. You don't own D&D, or what it is, or what it permits by way of RPGing. I don't understand where you think you get the authority to tell me that my experiences of D&D are deviant; or that the way I was playing D&D in the second-half of the 1980s (as per my post 1986 just upthread) is deviant.

do you believe your play was as the designers of 4e intended, or simply allowed by the text and extrapolated on your part?

I don't feel the force of your contrast: the intent of a rule is, generally, encoded in the rules text.

4e D&D has a whole discussion of "actions the rules don't cover" - found on p 42 of the DMG. It has a rich set of keywords, whose main function is to anchor mechanics onto fiction. It has a clear action economy, and - as well as the damage-by-level charts on p 42 - it has a reasonably intuitive set of conditions and buffs for expressing mechanical consequences.

So when the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen, confronting his former ally (from a previous session) now raised as a wight (? I think it was?), declared that his PC speaks a prayer against the undead, it wasn't hard to resolve: a minor action, resolved as a Religion check, with combat advantage on a success and psychic damage (due to the Raven Queen's refusal to hear the prayer) on a failure.

This sort of thing seemed to me at the time, and still seems to me now, to be exactly the sort of thing that 4e is built to support: high action FRPGing, with colourful (even gonzo) cosmologically-oriented fantasy. After all, the PHB is replete with accounts of how various character build elements relate a character to the cosmology of the setting. The Monster Manual is replete with descriptions of how various creatures relate to the cosmology of the setting. The example artefacts in the DMG, in continuity with the original D&D, are all about cosmology and its interplay with the ancient and legendary history of the setting. Etc

You wouldn't include all this stuff in a book if you didn't mean it, would you?

 

[pemerton]

Fate does. [/quote}Fate has Fate points. I don't think there's any such thing, in Fate point, as paying 12 points for a big effect. At least not in the core rules that I've read.

I think Cortex has it too.

Marvel Heroic RP, which is the version of Cortex+ that I'm familiar with, does not having anything like what you described in your post.

 

[Oofta]

Given that in my game a Bag of Holding costs 10,000 g.p. and a Portable Hole costs 30,000 g.p., I'd say that if someone wants to blow 40K g.p.* to generate a 20' diameter kaboom then more power to 'em.

* - plus whatever costs arise in shrinking the two items to the approiriate size and in the construction of the special arrowhead...

If it was the US military 40k GP would be a bargain.

 

[Oofta]

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.

But there are dragons, correct? On the other hand there is no assumption that Odin directly interacts with mortals, it's quite the opposite in that specific campaign world; the gods to not directly influence the mortal realm.

But it's the same. We're just setting different limits. You might allow someone to describe a tavern, but presumably they couldn't describe a sack with 1,000 GP sitting unattended at the bar with no downside of taking the sack.

 

[Oofta]

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.)

I would have already established my heritage with the DM. If I had any questions about origin I'd probably verify some broad details with my DM. I wouldn't suddenly declare that my father is the high king or anything consequential such as the lead diplomat to the city we're currently visiting without checking first.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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

So again, limits have been set. They may be enforced by the player but there are still agreed upon limits.