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

[soviet]

So they say "Umm ... sure I worship Odin." They can suddenly get a god to interfere directly with the mortal world?

1. I don't play with people that would do this

2. As I remember it, this Odin thing also involved significant costs and tradeoffs. It wasn't 'Odin solves all my problems for free'

 

[TwoSix]

Then rephrase because I answered the question as I understood it.

I'm not sure how to make it more clear. I think you were saying "I would ask", but then somehow kings got dragged in?

 

[Oofta]

I wish you would stop imputing to me things that I have never said.

I mean, this post is not very far upthread:

There has been a lot of posts. I'm not sure what you actually do or not do then.

 

[pemerton]

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

Limits have not "been set". We play the game, and stuff happens. Players declare actions based on their sense of fictional position.

I've posted multiple actual play examples, so I don't really get why this seems so hard to grasp.

I also note that, in the context of this thread, the difference between the players helping shape fictional position and the GM having sole authority over fictional position is hardly an uninteresting one!

 

[Oofta]

1. I don't play with people that would do this

So you have limits that the players adhere to that the players know and understand.

2. As I remember it, this Odin thing also involved significant costs and tradeoffs. It wasn't 'Odin solves all my problems for free'

In the actual game where this occured? Nope. Player declared "I prayed to Odin and he told me where the phylactery is because he sees all." As far as cost, there's no guidance for it in the game because you're bypassing rules. The only "cost" that actually mattered was losing an eye and having disadvantage on perception checks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In play, characters in my games regularly gain loyalty and are owed favors. Enemies too, of course, but if an external power (NPC or organization) can provide a significant benefit to a PC, I want it to be as result of play. Not just because they're a cleric or because they say since they're a rogue they have deep connections with the thieve's guild.

Sometimes things happen during downtime and we kind of do high level overview instead of detailed RP, but you never get to just claim someone owes you a favor. Whether that someone is a commoner a king or a god.

Yep, exactly this.

 

[Oofta]

Limits have not "been set". We play the game, and stuff happens. Players declare actions based on their sense of fictional position.

So their fictional positioning limits their actions. You're saying the same thing I just said with different words.

I've posted multiple actual play examples, so I don't really get why this seems so hard to grasp.

I also note that, in the context of this thread, the difference between the players helping shape fictional position and the GM having sole authority over fictional position is hardly an uninteresting one!

It's not hard to grasp. I don't want to play a game that way. My only point is that the power is still limited. I prefer that we use the rules of the D&D game to set those limits when we're playing D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

1. I don't play with people that would do this

Far more than the concerns about immersion, I think there's a divide between how concerned people are about whether or not players would push the boundaries of their ability to narrate.

That's why issues get framed as "Well then, what stops them from just doing X?"

And I think @Lanefan spoke to that directly when he said several pages back that as a player, he of course will press the boundaries of any ability as far as possible.

 

[soviet]

So you have limits that the players adhere to that the players know and understand.

I'm not sure what you mean by limits. The limit I have is that it makes sense in context, for example that the character has a relationship to Odin.

In the actual game where this occured? Nope. Player declared "I prayed to Odin and he told me where the phylactery is because he sees all." As far as cost, there's no guidance for it in the game because you're bypassing rules. The only "cost" that actually mattered was losing an eye and having disadvantage on perception checks.

I was talking about the version of this that other posters ran with and made into a plausible option.

 

[pemerton]

There has been a lot of posts. I'm not sure what you actually do or not do then.

Players declare actions for their PCs. And say what their PCs think, and remember, and expect.

Those various actions rest upon an assumption about fictional position - what is "true" in the shared fiction, and how the PC relates to that "true" stuff.

The players' assumptions about fictional position will often include setting elements or ideas that have not been expressly stated by me as GM. When they declare their actions, those assumptions therefore get incorporated into the shared fiction.

Various examples have been posted by me, from 4e D&D and AD&D play.

@TwoSix also posted some examples, like "I punch the nearest guy" being declared by a player whose PC is in a tavern.

When I GM a RPG, the players are not obliged to ask me for permission or clarification before making assumptions about fictional position. And generally I don't want them to, for the same sorts of reasons as @TwoSix set out way upthread: it makes for a bad play experience.