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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Both of us have a basis; our own experiences and what we've heard of from others. Whether that's sufficient can be argued, but I don't feel a need to not develop an opinion just because it can't be proven in a court.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Well, randomness is always involved in a game with dice, but the player choices could and should be affecting whether the odds are in their favour or against them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

There's a certain size of sample that I'm going to assume is going to be at least vaguely representative, I'm afraid, barring reasons to assume otherwise.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Is it really that hard to parse? I mean, Isle is clearly a person

Isle means an island. It isn’t any personal name that I’ve ever heard.

The meaning of "visiting grief" is pretty obvious, I think.

You can visit a person, place or thing. Ergo I deduced that grief is a personal name.

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

Why? Is this a game about pretending to be a jerk? Jerks&Jackasses? Whatever, childish revenge makes for a crap story.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would prefer my PCs make choice based on what they have reason to know, not on what I want from the story narratively or what I know outside of the PC.

And how does the DM fit into this? What about what they want?

I think you at this point should see the relevance, given that it has been explained to you countless times over the years by several people. But in case you have forgotten, it is the goal for some people create an impression of being a person living in a fantasy world like we live in the real world.

I think you maybe missed the point being made. Game worlds don't work like the real world.

Looking at the restaurant example that was mentioned not far upthread... the idea that a player could decide who was there was cited as odd. But if not the player, then it's the DM, right?

The real world doesn't have one person who's deciding everything about the world. There's a collection of phenomena and individual decisions and countless other factors that lead to any given situation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And how does the DM fit into this? What about what they want?

The DM enjoys watching the players exploring and interacting with the world they have created. The DM wants the players to have fun.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I don't think it has actually changed in the books. And don't recall saying it is vital, though I think it is beneficial to inform newer GMs that they can change and hack the game, as I feel that is more essential to RPGs than many other sorts of games. I also think it is good idea to outline the who is assumed to be in charge of what. People of course can figure out things by themselves, but for a beginner friendly mass market game in particular, spelling things out is a good idea.

But regarding the "common species" language in the old PHB, is it still present in the new one? I never liked it, but thankfully the DMG had better advice on the matter.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Just to explain the beekeeping thing, during a session a few years back we encountered a magical apiary. When we saw the value of the magical honey the bees made, we spent a considerable portion of the session investigating whether taking over the apiary (we had a druid in the party) was worthwhile, and just hiding out from the undead king we had upset.

(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).

I was talking more about a situation where the party decides to just say "Nah, we don't like this quest" and go somewhere new. My group has definitely done this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Isle means an island. It isn’t any personal name that I’ve ever heard.

The context of the passage makes it very clear that Isle is a person.

You can visit a person, place or thing. Ergo I deduced that grief is a personal name.

The word grief was not capitalized or used in any way that would indicate it was the name of an individual.

To visit can also mean to inflict. It's a very common definition.

I believe in the past you've said you're an educator, yes? I'm surprised you wouldn't know this.

Why? Is this a game about pretending to be a jerk? Jerks&Jackasses? Whatever, childish revenge makes for a crap story.

It's about the struggles of people in a post-apocalypse world. We don't know the specifics, but clearly Maria has beef with Isle.

Childish revenge? Crap story? It's a snippet of play. You seem to draw a lot of conclusions from a passage you claim to not have understood.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The real world doesn't have one person who's deciding everything about the world

Who knows? A person can’t see inside anyone else’s head and know they are real. I think therefore I am, but I can’t know that you are. There is hard science being done in investigating if the universe is a simulation. From the point of view of the player it makes no difference if the world is created by a single person or any anything else.