[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.

[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.

[wiseowise]

You can buy fancy sports car for looks and status.

[nine_k]

A sports car could be bought just for the looks.

[delaminator]

"and my successors will all do the same"

[dgfitz]

Nobody does that.