5 ms·

I actually think that a role playing game is exactly the soft of situation where this is in fact reasonable. There is a lot of mythology about gods walking amo

I actually think that a role playing game is exactly the soft of situation where this is in fact reasonable. There is a lot of mythology about gods walking among men, hiding their true nature, etc. And more recent examples include the TV show Lucifer. Someone wanting to roleplay that sort of being is entirely plausible. Without knowing the person's personality (which you presumably did) it's hard to say whether they would have genuinely wanted to do that or if it was an excuse.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
Yeah, if you have a huge amount of trust between player and DM that can work. There are both in-game and out-of-game ways to manage issues if they arise: in-game a DM can always limit or restrict something after the fact, out-of-game a problem can spark a conversation and ultimately a D&D game is a set of people who voluntarily get together and play. (That said, another approach is to have a conversation about "what are you trying to achieve", and find a way for everyone to have the fun they'd like to have without risking something game-breaking.)
joe_the_user 1y ago
As GM, I strongly disagree. Any player who wants a character with "I can overrule the GM but I will do that only occasionally" power is a very big red flag. A D&D game isn't a mythological story or TV show. It's a community told story where one character having an "OP" (over powered) character basically destroys the balance between player and GM as well as between player and player, both of which are extremely important. To make it clearer, the players and the GM will be struggling against each - in a controlled way, yes, but also a meaningful way. I'm not a super deadly GM but players will be risking death in at least low-key way and so everyone will sooner or later be "using everything they have". Edit: basically, saying "this rule/power/etc exists but won't have an impact" is more or less saying that the "rules aren't serious", in either the 'Chat Control' or the DM situation. But the very nature of rules is that we wouldn't have them if they weren't serious.
- biotinker 1y ago
  I of course agree that the player should not be able to overrule the GM. I don't think that was the situation here. If you're playing an off-the-shelf campaign this is problematic. If the GM is creating the game as you go, then a good GM should be able work with the player to make this reasonable. The GM can always use GM-power to prevent a player from doing something, even if it involves a literal hand of God reaching down to stop them. A conversation with the player beforehand to make sure you're on the same page about this sort of thing would go a long way. Let them know under what circumstances you're willing to allow them to use whatever the power is. Let them know the consequences if they don't follow those rules. Unlike with ChatControl, a D&D game is a situation where the necessary trust is able to exist. An example: agree the player character is some trickster djinn sent from another plane to learn to be a human and how to trick people. They have immense cosmic powers of life and death, but as part of being sent over, they can only use the power for immediate comedy. Violations result in the djinn getting yanked back to their plane and disincorporated. Boom done. Now you have a massively OP character that can only use their power in humorous situations that don't affect the storyline, and if they try to abuse that then that's instant-death.
  - joe_the_user 1y ago
    I personally, as GM, don't like to be the one that kills a character. I want to set up a situation where the situation-and/or-the-rules kills the character. I've played in games with "the GM kills you" mechanics and it felt juvenile/arbitrary/abusive. Remember, this is a game where every players' character needs to "shine" and similarly needs to know they're being judged with fairness and compassion by the GM (compassion especially along the lines of "understand what I say my character does as something reasonable").
    - biotinker 1y ago
      Isn't that what I proposed in my example though? Where a rule is made in advance that if the player abuses their power, they die. due to the canon situation in which that player's character existed? A player that in good faith wanted to role play such a character, would work with the DM in advance to structure rules well-understood by all parties about exactly what would happen if they abuse their situation. All the DnD situations can be trivially resolved by good-faith and communication on all sides. Unlike Chat Control, where good faith cannot be assumed.

JoshTriplett 1y ago

Yeah, if you have a huge amount of trust between player and DM that can work. There are both in-game and out-of-game ways to manage issues if they arise: in-game a DM can always limit or restrict something after the fact, out-of-game a problem can spark a conversation and ultimately a D&D game is a set of people who voluntarily get together and play. (That said, another approach is to have a conversation about "what are you trying to achieve", and find a way for everyone to have the fun they'd like to have without risking something game-breaking.)

joe_the_user 1y ago

As GM, I strongly disagree. Any player who wants a character with "I can overrule the GM but I will do that only occasionally" power is a very big red flag. A D&D game isn't a mythological story or TV show. It's a community told story where one character having an "OP" (over powered) character basically destroys the balance between player and GM as well as between player and player, both of which are extremely important. To make it clearer, the players and the GM will be struggling against each - in a controlled way, yes, but also a meaningful way. I'm not a super deadly GM but players will be risking death in at least low-key way and so everyone will sooner or later be "using everything they have". Edit: basically, saying "this rule/power/etc exists but won't have an impact" is more or less saying that the "rules aren't serious", in either the 'Chat Control' or the DM situation. But the very nature of rules is that we wouldn't have them if they weren't serious.

biotinker 1y ago
I of course agree that the player should not be able to overrule the GM. I don't think that was the situation here. If you're playing an off-the-shelf campaign this is problematic. If the GM is creating the game as you go, then a good GM should be able work with the player to make this reasonable. The GM can always use GM-power to prevent a player from doing something, even if it involves a literal hand of God reaching down to stop them. A conversation with the player beforehand to make sure you're on the same page about this sort of thing would go a long way. Let them know under what circumstances you're willing to allow them to use whatever the power is. Let them know the consequences if they don't follow those rules. Unlike with ChatControl, a D&D game is a situation where the necessary trust is able to exist. An example: agree the player character is some trickster djinn sent from another plane to learn to be a human and how to trick people. They have immense cosmic powers of life and death, but as part of being sent over, they can only use the power for immediate comedy. Violations result in the djinn getting yanked back to their plane and disincorporated. Boom done. Now you have a massively OP character that can only use their power in humorous situations that don't affect the storyline, and if they try to abuse that then that's instant-death.
- joe_the_user 1y ago
  I personally, as GM, don't like to be the one that kills a character. I want to set up a situation where the situation-and/or-the-rules kills the character. I've played in games with "the GM kills you" mechanics and it felt juvenile/arbitrary/abusive. Remember, this is a game where every players' character needs to "shine" and similarly needs to know they're being judged with fairness and compassion by the GM (compassion especially along the lines of "understand what I say my character does as something reasonable").
  - biotinker 1y ago
    Isn't that what I proposed in my example though? Where a rule is made in advance that if the player abuses their power, they die. due to the canon situation in which that player's character existed? A player that in good faith wanted to role play such a character, would work with the DM in advance to structure rules well-understood by all parties about exactly what would happen if they abuse their situation. All the DnD situations can be trivially resolved by good-faith and communication on all sides. Unlike Chat Control, where good faith cannot be assumed.