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

[Micah Sweet]

It isn't about the gameplay being light and casual. The line in the movie was uttered by a drill sergeant, for goodness sakes. He was neither light, nor casual. But, he knew that people had to work together.

It is about the players not being personally so tightly wound or concerned that they can admit no change or variation, and are not willing to make room for anyone else.

Never seen Stripes, so I took the phrase, "lighten up" in the commonly understood way.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your post was about people not agreeing on the initial rules change, not about not compromising.

Where did I say initial? If they compromise, they’re necessarily agreeing to whatever compromise they reach, and therefore it is not an example of people playing with rules they didn’t agree to. The thing I asked for was an example of people playing with rules they didn’t agree to.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Where did I say initial? If they compromise, they’re necessarily agreeing to whatever compromise they reach, and therefore it is not an example of people playing with rules they didn’t agree to, which is the thing I asked for.

Okay. Whatever. it's done.

 

[MGibster]

Never seen Stripes, so I took the phrase, "lighten up" in the commonly understood way.

From the movie.

Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everyone calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.

Leon: Oooooooohh!

Pshyco: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep meat hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you [redacted] touch me, and I'll kill you.

Sgt. Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

 

[Composer99]

Indeed.

And yet whenever one brings up the idea of adding level drain, forced aging, and other similar major mechanical setbacks back into the game as possible "loss conditions" alongside death the responding chorus of "Noes, noes, that's not fun, not ever!" is loud, long, and persistent.

I would consider "level drain" as it is classically implemented to be extremely un-fun and will unequivocally refuse to play in a system that uses it. If the next time I'm DMing for my playgroup, they want me to run an OSR game (I have offered to run Dolmenwood), I will probably propose an alternative mechanic.

I'm not opposed to long-lasting changes for a character, but I have no patience for the busywork involved in determining the effects of losing levels - indeed, as a practical matter I detest even the 5e approach to undead energy drain of reducing a character's hit point maximum. I'd much rather use exhaustion.

All that is to say that it can both be true that your player had a great time playing in a game where level drain is "a thing" and that the same mechanic would be a hard no-sell for a vast majority of D&D players.

 

[Azzy]

Indeed.

And yet whenever one brings up the idea of adding level drain, forced aging, and other similar major mechanical setbacks back into the game as possible "loss conditions" alongside death the responding chorus of "Noes, noes, that's not fun, not ever!" is loud, long, and persistent.

If your group is enjoying themselves with all of that, then it doesn't matter what some randos on the internet have to say. ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not opposed to long-lasting changes for a character, but I have no patience for the busywork involved in determining the effects of losing levels

Four years in and our Pathfinder Kingmaker custom map still has unexplored regions because wetlands are full of undead and things that cause poison and disease. The DM was really excited about the monsters (Paizo does cool monsters regardless of edition or product) but we had no desire to play Dead Spirals & Unnecessary Math.

 

[KYRON45]

No. When I play M:tG, I'm trying to win. That's the point. It doesn't mean I can't have fun unless I win. Normally I lose!

Likewise in RPGing: if I'm playing (say) White Plume Mountain, of course I'm trying to beat the dungeon. That's the whole point of play. But that doesn't mean I can't have fun unless I actually win.

I've never played a published adventure so I'll accept that we have different play experiences.
In my experience people wo optimize and argue about rules are trying to win the game like you would a board game or a sport. For me and mine the game is about character growth and engaging with whatever the plot is at any time. At any given moment I don't know what most of the rules are so either as a player or a DM I'm never truly in a position to declare my technical acumen. Roll low bad roll high good.

I've been playing and DMing most of my life to varying degrees and we have lost players to scheduling and personality conflicts, but never to rules arguments or the role of the DM.

 

[MichaelSomething]

How should it be written? How about...

The book is nothing compared to the judgment of an empowered Dungeon Master. Don't let the rules stand between you and the game! You are the one in control.

 

[Lanefan]

I see this as a criticism of modern D&D. A lot. "Kids these days...in my day we had to fight orcs uphill. In the snow. Both ways!"

I think contemporary D&D makes it harder for an inexperienced D&D to wipe out a party by accident, and I think that's a good thing. I don't think it makes it harder for an experienced DM to challenge a party. I can build a challenging encounter no problem. So I think that contemporary D&D gives the DM more control over the difficulty level, and that's a good thing.

That said, I had the same main character for all of my AD&D years, as did most of my friends, so I also think the lethality of the game "back in the day" is overstated. Modern parties aren't festooned with 10' poles and disposable hirelings.

I too have had - and still have - long-lasting 1e characters but every one of them has died more than once and most of them have lost a level or two at some point. One of them has also been aged twice, once by a ghost and once by something I forget now; his age has gone up and down like a yo-yo through his career.

It ain't snakes and ladders when there's no snakes on the board.

Also, I don't see level drain as making the game particularly harder, I just see it as making the game more annoying while adding a mechanism that makes no narrative sense.

"After facing that [level-drainer] you're just not the [insert class name here] you used to be" doesn't make narrative sense?

How about sudden aging, such as that which happens when you get on the wrong side of a 1e ghost. In a system where age category directly affects one's stats (which IMO is a good and realistic mechanic), sudden massive aging can really wreck your day, and it's straight out of real-world folklore.

I'm pretty sure 5e (and 4e?) don't have aging as an effect any more.