[silicon5]

A metaphor: I once played in a D&D campaign where a player tried to create an extremely overpowered but technically legal character. His justification was that he would only use the extreme powers in moderation, so it would not be unfair or unbalanced. But why would he ask for such unprecedented powers if he didn't intend to use them?

[biotinker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[LordDragonfang]

While I agree it's a red flag in many cases (power gaming is an issue), I think you already provided an adequate justification for it yourself: ttrpg play is a community told story. While you may want to play a type of game where the DM is always fully in control, I've played at tables where the DM intentionally gives up some of their control to the more experienced players, sharing the load of creating the world. There are even whole systems where this is an intentionally encouraged mechanic! Even giving overpowered stuff isn't fundamentally different from a DM dropping in an overpowered DMPC to help step in when the players need something.

D&D is intentionally a collaborative story, and it shouldn't be out of the question for players to collaborate with the DM. Focusing on "the balance between player and GM" is great for a dungeon-crawl style game (which I would argue is the only thing 5e is actually designed for, and is poor for what most people try to use it for, but that's a whole other rant), but putting too much focus on it in a more roleplay-centered campaign can lead to a very adversarial relationship between players and the DM. If you have great players, you should trust them to collaborate with you, not just opposed to you.

[joe_the_user]

Oh, giving the player power to make a world and otherwise help in GMing process is fine, something I do sometimes. The thing is, a reasonably skilled player can do that without it involving adding power to their character. Indeed, I've seen this device make players less "power-gamey" because it makes them think of the larger picture, they want to interest the other players in their story etc.

But I don't think this really relates to "my character has excess-or-god-like powers but I won't use them" situation. The point isn't the characters can't have more free-form powers that GM interprets sympathetically. The point is if the player has to say their character has special over-the-top-powers, they are creating a rule, not leaving things for free collaboration. I remember in a FATE game in which one player specified has character's aspect that "world's greatest thief" and this both abuse of the FATE system and actual harassment/psychological abuse of another players. I learned the lesson that aspects never should superlatives to them.

[sharken]

I understand the metaphor, but there is a huge difference between a D&D player and an entity such as a government.

For starters the government is not in the habit of releasing these new powers, once it's established it will stay for a very, very long time.

And you can be sure the new powers will be used in unintended ways, which the citizens will have a hard time blocking.

So it's actually very simple: No to Chatcontrol, now and forever.

[DelightOne]

The threat already silences the opposition. You don't have to use it to silence people.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

I actually did that for a campaign. It wasn't extremely overpowered but I did have some abilities that could have been extremely OP if abused. I don't even think it was really legal as far as RAW was concerned. In the end I was probably one of the least effective characters, but I was able to do some cool things with those powers and we had fun roleplaying it.

[varispeed]

Another one: someone buys a sports car and promises to drive within legal speed limits at all times.

[Integrape]

A better one: the large number of individuals who drive super-duty pickup trucks only for commuting to their office jobs.

[Terr_]

IMO that's a little different since many of them also buying the utility of appearances, which be flaunted at entirely legal speeds or even while parked.

In contrast, an expensive speedy car disguised as a cheap slow one would be much more suspicious.

[collingreen]

There are also ways to drive fast legally

[westmeal]

Allow me to introduce you to sleepers which are somewhat expensive cars disguised as cheap pieces of shit. Most I've been in are absolutely terrifying but seem like lots of fun.

[wiseowise]

You can buy fancy sports car for looks and status.

[nine_k]

A sports car could be bought just for the looks.

[potato3732842]

Based on how often I find myself watching laden work vans pass vehicles that can easily "do better" this, or something like it, is likely a common reason for purchase

[delaminator]

"and my successors will all do the same"

[dgfitz]

Nobody does that.

[Kim_Bruning]

Except in Germany!

(Technically correct is the best kind of correct)

[wizzwizz4]

I believe the Autobahn still carries the legal requirement to drive at a safe speed at all times. Pedal to the floor racing is not often safe speeds for a public road.

[criemen]

Yes, yet [1] happened where someone took precautions to drive safely at >400 km/h speed.

[1] https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/no-charges-laid-on-bug...

[pxc]

It sounds like an investigation was quite reasonable, and then it cleared him before charges were pressed. Seems pretty good!

[swiftcoder]

I mean, every person who purchases a car does so, at least implicitly. The very act of obtaining a driving license contains an (often explicit) promise to abide by the rules of the road.

[dgfitz]

You’re conflating two things and ignoring the thrust of the point: nobody buys a fast car to drive it slowly. Maybe some people do, the vast majority do not.

If promises about licenses meant a damn, we wouldn’t have speeding cameras.

[swiftcoder]

The promise is still made, regardless of whether one plans to keep it

[dgfitz]

No, the “promise” is forced. It’s like an arranged marriage.