Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8995926" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Temple of Elemental Evil is a pre-written adventure. It's an AD&D module but the one we're playing is the 5e version put out by Goodman Games. I say that the GM is the primary source because that's how I see it. Yes, he's starting with prepared material, but I imagine he has tweaked it here and there, and the way in which he conveys the material to us and how things are described, are probably the biggest creative elements of the game. Yeah, absolutely. I'd say the biggest factors here is who decides the characters' goals, how specific the goals are, and how unique they may be to the characters. Could there be? I suppose. But the game is about the Temple. That's the point of the whole scenario. If I'm a player and I don't accept that going in, then there will be a high chance that I'm gonna struggle with it. If there is anything about my character going on in the game, it's because we took the existing scenario and found a way to connect my character to it. We did that, but it's minimal. The play is not about my character.The other game I'm talking about also has a goal that is predetermined prior to play beginning, but it's far more broad than "end the threat of the Temple of Elemental Evil". And the play is very much about the characters. My character in that game is a man of faith, and it has greatly helped his companions and their people. But it may also be a bad thing... is he a fanatic? Will his faith and pride ultimately prove to be destructive? I don't know the answer to that. We have to play for me to find out. It's a different experience. Neither is better than the other, except as they relate to my personal preference, or those of others. I'm not talking about deception so much as assumption. Every game is going to have some variances in how it's played from one table to the next. But I think with many games, those variances tend to be pretty minor... or if they are major, then they're significantly altering the play experience. With 5e D&D there's so much room for significant variance that people play it how they choose to do... filling in gaps with knowledge from previous editions or just with their preference... and then the end result is considered "official". But there is no official... there are basically hundreds of ways to play 5e D&D that don't contradict what's written. So basically everyone is playing as written, and yet still somehow playing in potentially significantly different ways. And that extends to discussion. D&D and how it does things is almost always the default starting point for discussion. Which at times is fine, and other times is not. But with 5e in particular, even when it makes sense as a starting point, it's still not really sufficient because even something as fundamental as how to disclose DCs to the players is not stated openly and clearly by the rules. See my bit above about 5e, I think that addresses most of it. I think a session zero is always good. I think D&D would be smart to formalize it. And I think they'd also be smart to tell both players and GMs not to commit too strongly to anything before session zero.</blockquote>

Verification