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

[Umbran]

You seem very concerned about defaults. What does that have to do with your play?

Defaults speak to broader expectations than what is found at a single table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I said that I barely understand it, and that I don't prefer it (or even enjoy it really). I never said it wasn't functional, or that such play isn't worthwhile for some people.

First, it's kind of hard to accept that you barely understand it after it's been explained to you over and over again. I mean, I can understand not liking it... that's preference, as you say. But to continue to frame it as things it's not?

Second, there are plenty of others who have said they don't understand it at all. I didn't attribute any of those views to you specifically, I responded to your post where you said no one had said them and that this was merely preference. That's not the case... plenty have said that such games cannot work, that they don't understand how they could possibly work, or that DM's who allow players to have input are not worthwhile.

Case in point:

Who is grief, and which Isle? And why does Marie want to visit them? What is the purpose of this? This all sounds rather pointless, like a bad soap opera. What is the challenge? Where is the adventure?

Is it really that hard to parse? I mean, Isle is clearly a person. The meaning of "visiting grief" is pretty obvious, I think.

Marie wants Isle to suffer and sets out to make it so.

That you consider this a bad soap opera is, I think, more a failure on your part to imagine a greater context for such a scene. Clearly there's a personal motivation on Marie's part that we don't know, but we can infer from the example.

That you need this explained to you is more on your side of things then on the example itself.

Once again, all of this is nothing more than preference, and I think we should respect each other's feelings and try not to frame the preferences of others as objectively of less worth. That goes for both "sides" of this discussion.

I don't think there are two sides to this discussion. Or maybe not only two sides. There are a variety of opinions. Most of this came from the sentiment... clearly and overtly expressed by several folks in this thread... that the DM must maintain absolute control of everything beyond the PCs.

If you don't think that's true, then cool. You can proceed with the understanding that people are not pushing back against you. There has been little, if any, actual criticism of more traditional modes of play in this thread.

It seems to me that you're leaping to the defense of trad play and that's putting you on the same side of folks who are saying that only a trad authority structure can function. When people criticize that idea, you're taking offense.

There's a lot here I just wanted to note that

I think it's safe to assume that I personally find FR kind of boring and less compelling than a lot of homebrew creations and I would say the same thing about a Star Trek, Star Wars or whatever other property you want to throw out. Those established settings may have interesting lore (or are just a garbage pail of ideas), but if I read up on it or watch the series then I already know a ton of stuff. I'm not surprised when there's Jedi and Sith in Star Wars, if I was a real geek I'm sure I could name different styles of ships, who made them and on what planet.

That's fine. Your personal assessment of existing settings aside, I think it's probably best to approach play as if the DM probably isn't coming up with the next Star Wars.

I've made several settings myself, and played in many homebrew settings of others, along with many published settings. In most cases (not all, but most) what I remember about play is the characters and what they do, and not just the setting.

That doesn't make the campaign any more compelling, it just means there's less potential for surprising reveals. What makes a game compelling are the obstacles we face, the RP during the session, how the group interacts with each other and the world around them.

Yes, all of which is almost entirely independent of setting. It's like one of the least important things when it comes to D&D, and it's treated as such a vital thing. DMs spend months on creating things when enough can be accomplished in an afternoon to do what the setting is supposed to do... facilitate play.

The rest of it? It just comes down to preference.

EDIT: I've never said other styles of play can't work for other people. Just that they don't work for me.

Okay, then you're not actually disagreeing with me. My responses in this thread have been to the sentiment... again, overtly said... that games cannot function any other way.

Just like with @Micah Sweet if you disagree with that, then you're not in disagreement with me.

Indeed. The books say all sort of silly things. They're just dead words on a paper, ignore them if they go against what you want to do.

It's an interesting sentiment to express about rule zero now that it seems to have changed, when for so many years rule zero was cited as vital.

 

[Oofta]

Sure I do. See my note about the Paizo published adventure paths. If free-roaming games were still the default, they'd have been out of business years ago.

Did anyone say free-roaming games were the default? But if they're 25% of all games, they're still fairly common. All I've stated is that I don't think they're extremely rare and that neither one of us has any basis for indicating how common they are.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So I'm assuming you're anti-beekeeping campaign.

Not if it started out that way. If nothing else, I'd presume the GM would have had a bit of time there to figure out how he wanted to handle the various elements of beekeeping.

(Seriously, I've on at least a couple occasions put together campaign frameworks for doing things like running post-apocalyptic quasi-cyberpunk enclaves including mecha. They might have had some combat elements, but there was a lot of stuff about expanding resource management, negotiating with neighbors and investigating hidden history. I'm all in on that sort of thing--but I don't want to find out I'll be doing so in the middle of a campaign, since among other things, I might prefer to use a different system than if I'd set up the campaign with people running around being high-tech ronin).

 

[Greg K]

I would be more concerned if it were actually true.

I thought he was talking about 5.24. Just noticed the reference to 5.0- stupid vision issues.

 

[Umbran]

In a system where PCs can die, the campaign can end via TPK just due random circumstances. That's a baked in assumption. Sometimes (or even often) the situation that lead to that was due player choices. That is part of having agency and having choices to matter.

If TPK happens due to "random circumstance", it is happening regardless of agency or choices, rather than as a part of them. The potential of random TPK is thus a game element that reduces agency, and decreases how much choices matter.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Adventure paths are not my preference, and I don't see any correlation between popularity and creative value, or indeed any value beyond profit.

And when I'm talking about what works for people, popularity absolutely does have a lot to do with my point. If that annoys you, feel free to skip along.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You seem very concerned about defaults. What does that have to do with your play?

What makes you think I'm talking about primarily, or even at all, my own personal play? I rarely am.

 

[Greg K]

Sure I do. See my note about the Paizo published adventure paths. If free-roaming games were still the default, they'd have been out of business years ago.

or there could just be a large enough minority of gamers that prefer adventure paths to sustain Paizo. I have no idea which is true, but noting the possibility.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Defaults speak to broader expectations than what is found at a single table.

Yup. I don't actually see much point in just talking about my own wants and processes for the most part.