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

[Micah Sweet]

As the saying goes, extreme claims require extreme evidence. Your statements are not extreme but they are close.

At one point WotC stated that roughly half of all campaigns were homebrew. They must think it's a pretty high percentage considering how many pages are dedicated to it in the new DMG. Even with published mods, in many cases what I've seen is the DM just mines them for ideas and scenarios but doesn't stick close to the default path. Others are designed to be played as sandboxes.

I think there's plenty of evidence for more open gameplay. You aren't just stating an opinion. This all started with you stating as a fact that open campaigns are "fringe". Now, some campaigns are going to be more true sandboxes than others but over decades of play DMs running prepared modules account for less than half the games I've played.

Virtually zero for me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, then the DM is making decisions based on what would be satisfying? Some would say that's problematic

No, the DM makes decisions based on what would logically happen under the rules of the world. The players have fun because they enjoy interacting with a fantasy world as if it where real.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

All revenge is childish. If people are struggling to survive in a pots-apocalyptic world then having a beef with someone is the hight of stupidity and jerkism. There are more important things you should be worrying about.

Perhaps, but people always behaving with optimally rational manner makes boring stories. (Not to mention highly unrealistic! People definitely are not rational all the time!)

 

[Oofta]

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



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.

TV dramas aren't real world either but most try to make them seem like real life. Why would a game be held to a different standard and why does it matter?

You may prefer cooperative story based games, you don't have to be dismissive of other approaches because they aren't "real".

 

[hawkeyefan]

They design the setting. Presumably it's full of things they want in it. Why would they fill it with things they don't want?

Well you said you wanted your actions as a player to be independent of any kind of design on your part. I was curious if the DM's design would matter in this regard?

Does it bother you that they get to decide what happens based on what would be interesting?

Yes, it is the same old tiresome point. Some people like to try to make them work as much like the real world within the limitations of the medium. (I don't fully subscribe to this idea, but it is not hard to get.)

It really is besides the point. Both the GM and the real world are external to you. You cannot decide how the world is, it is determined independently of you.

I don't think it's beside the point. Independent of me or not, there is someone guiding things in one, and not in the other. So they are different. Describing one type of play where a person decides an element as being unrealistic and another type where another person decides as realistic is pretty flawed.

Neither of them work the way the real world does.

All revenge is childish. If people are struggling to survive in a pots-apocalyptic world then having a beef with someone is the hight of stupidity and jerkism. There are more important things you should be worrying about.

So what? People are foolish. People do stupid things. People don't prioritize the right things. Usually, this is described as conflict... and it's one of the foundations of any kind of drama.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Right, and the earth might be flat.

No, we have plenty of evidence to show that the world is not flat.

Barring such a cosmic revelation, we can safely assume that there isn't one guiding hand behind everything that we experience in the real world the way there may be in an RPG.

We do not, however, have any evidence to show that the universe is not a simulation, and a little that suggests it is. Look it up.

The thing about science is we go by the evidence, not what we want to be true.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Ah. I almost always am, because I don't have the right to speak for anyone else.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So what? People are foolish. People do stupid things. People don't prioritize the right things

And that is why they don’t deserve to survive.

I prefer games where at least the player characters are not jerks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well you said you wanted your actions as a player to be independent of any kind of design on your part. I was curious if the DM's design would matter in this regard?

Does it bother you that they get to decide what happens based on what would be interesting?

No, because their role is to design the world I explore and interact with through my PC. During session 0, before I made my PC, the DM sat down with the group and described the campaign they wanted to run and how it worked. I accepted their concept and then created a character that fit into that concept, and from then on my decisions are based on what that PC can do and know.

IMO, that's how games should go. My preference of course.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

I’m an educator in England, where we speak English.