D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Hussar]

I do agree that the most significant difference between a wizard and a sorcerer is from flavor, but without a mechanic to back up that flavor, it becomes meaningless, useless and dispossable fluff. -The same way than in 4e the music instruments listed were worthless, because they were only fluff without any mechanic to back them up like the perform skill, or allowing them to work as normal implements for bards, heck they couldn't even be used as a focuss for bard rituals-. I want sorcerers to have a mechanic that goes along with their flavor, not one that is dissociated from it. I'm against the mechanical dilution of what a sorcerer is, specially if it is to please wizard players who hate vancian, I don't care if they make it possible to make a wizard that cast in the same way a sorcerer would, I only care that sorcerers are sorcerers instead of empty fluff because of needless simmetry.

But, in my system, you absolutely have that. If you want a slot based sorcerer, you get that. You pick the class and pick the casting style that you want. So, you are not losing anything. OTOH, I'm gaining the ability to play the flavour of a sorcerer with the mechanics of a wizard (for example) because maybe I like that. Because the systems are balanced against each other, our two sorcerers could play in the same group and neither would be stronger or weaker than the other.

I'm not seeing the loss here, nor am I see how the sorcerer is in any way being diluted. You get exactly what you want. So do I. Where's the problem?

If you force defaults, then I lose but you're happy. If you divorce mechanics from class, then we get a more flexible system where we both get what we want. How is your way better?

Again, still not seeing the added complexity. The only difference here is that the casting mechanics would be listed separately from a specific class. The mechanics are still pretty much the same - just listed on a different page. Sorry, but I think that's a pretty small price to pay for the added flexiblity. And, never mind just wizards, you can do this for all casters. So, I can have a spontaneous Cleric, a Vancian Warlock and a slot based bard in the same group and know that they won't overpower the group (because the mechanics are balanced) and everyone is happy.

 

[MoonSong]

But, in my system, you absolutely have that. If you want a slot based sorcerer, you get that. You pick the class and pick the casting style that you want. So, you are not losing anything. OTOH, I'm gaining the ability to play the flavour of a sorcerer with the mechanics of a wizard (for example) because maybe I like that. Because the systems are balanced against each other, our two sorcerers could play in the same group and neither would be stronger or weaker than the other.

I'm not seeing the loss here, nor am I see how the sorcerer is in any way being diluted. You get exactly what you want. So do I. Where's the problem?

If you force defaults, then I lose but you're happy. If you divorce mechanics from class, then we get a more flexible system where we both get what we want. How is your way better?

Again, still not seeing the added complexity. The only difference here is that the casting mechanics would be listed separately from a specific class. The mechanics are still pretty much the same - just listed on a different page. Sorry, but I think that's a pretty small price to pay for the added flexiblity. And, never mind just wizards, you can do this for all casters. So, I can have a spontaneous Cleric, a Vancian Warlock and a slot based bard in the same group and know that they won't overpower the group (because the mechanics are balanced) and everyone is happy.

You are misunderstood, I'm not asking for all sorcerers to be spontaneous slot based as a default, I'm asking for them to get a simple default that captures the essence of the class and be balanced acording to it's strengths and weaknesses. Note that all of it has to interact appropriately with bloodlines or the choice not to have an explicit bloodline. As long as it is simple and supports the flavor of the class (hint not vancian on a million years) I will like it. But in order to amuse you a little let's assume I want spontaneous slots as a default and that different casting systems can be cleanly balanced using the same numbers (in reality I'm almost completely sure than it will need a complex cross-refferencing process or full write-ups for each class-system). Even then:

On "my system" (there is a default, rules to swap are somewhere else):

I get what I want (a simple default that goes hand in hand with the class)
You have to flip back and fort in the book to get what you want, but hey, you were eager to do it from the beginning, all you lose is some weird sense of legitimacy.
I still get the following benefits from a default:
-There is a baseline, a common ground on what a sorcerer means and can do that allows for a better communication with other people.
-I get the confidence that if an online DM makes no statement about the class is an implicit aceptance, and that any mention to the dial or default set-up beign changed is trully meant and not a guess.
-It get's easy to teach to new players, "this is what a sorcerer means, after you get some experience you can change it if you want to experiment, but for now all you have to care about is the bloodline"

On "your system" (no default):

You get what you want
I get to play a slot vancian caster by flipping back and fort.
I lose the baseline that allowed me to do all of those things above:
-The common ground for the community is lost
-Back to erratic DM behavior (it is not their fault)
-What the hell do I teach to a new player? that many dials are just a run away novice waiting to happen.
-Additionally the sorcerer is back to feeling like empty flavor.

And more realistically I've got the feeling things won't get to be as simple and clean cut as you seem to think, so just by having no simple default any chance of getting soemthing simple are gone through the window. The only way I can think of them having a way to balance this is by making different casting mechanics not so different from each other, the sorcerer can be slot based, spell point based or even some kind of AED based, but in the end of the day can only cast spontaneously from a limited known spell list. Wizards can cast form spell points, slots, or even recharge, but at the en of the day still have to preppare a limited set from a potentially unlimited pool of spells known. That is the only way I can think they could do it, because spontaneous is fundamentally weaker than vancian, and vancian-spontaneous is way more powerfull than they think, it just keeps the strengths of both approaches while negating their downsides, an spontaneous vancian wizard gets the power to learn potentially every single spell in the universe and be able to fix things with enough time, and to top it off he no longer fears running out of ammo by prepparing utilities or not prepparing enough of each spell. Fear the unstoppable recharge-spellpoint-spontaneous-vancian wizard of doom!

 

[Tovec]

On "my system" (there is a default, rules to swap are somewhere else):

I get what I want (a simple default that goes hand in hand with the class)
You have to flip back and fort in the book to get what you want, but hey, you were eager to do it from the beginning, all you lose is some weird sense of legitimacy.

On "your system" (no default):

You get what you want
I get to play a slot vancian caster by flipping back and fort.

This is where I saw your argument boil down to KaiiLurker. If he gets what he wants everyone has to choose the system (or more realistically the DM decides and people all have to build according to that), if you get what you want then only some people do. But if a greater percentage of people dislike the default you like then basically what you advocate for is for a minority to get exactly what they want and to inconvenience everyone else.

all you lose is some weird sense of legitimacy

I had to requote this for emphasis.

You somehow doubt this "weird sense of legitimacy" but that is kind of the topic we are discussing at large. You are saying there is nothing differentiating classes except their mechanics (which I and others have rebutted). You can't call it a weird sense of legitimacy and then say that the only thing that makes a class 'legit' is a certain mechanic.

Also, that is why allowing these options is so key. And why they can't just be relegated to the back sections of the book.

I still get the following benefits from a default:
-There is a baseline, a common ground on what a sorcerer means and can do that allows for a better communication with other people.
-I get the confidence that if an online DM makes no statement about the class is an implicit aceptance, and that any mention to the dial or default set-up beign changed is trully meant and not a guess.
-It get's easy to teach to new players, "this is what a sorcerer means, after you get some experience you can change it if you want to experiment, but for now all you have to care about is the bloodline"

On "your system" (no default):

You get what you want
I get to play a slot vancian caster by flipping back and fort.
I lose the baseline that allowed me to do all of those things above:
-The common ground for the community is lost
-Back to erratic DM behavior (it is not their fault)
-What the hell do I teach to a new player? that many dials are just a run away novice waiting to happen.
-Additionally the sorcerer is back to feeling like empty flavor.

Because it is so difficult to for the DM to say "backgrounds are in, all wizards use spell points, all sorcerers use spell slots and there are no warlocks," or whatever his houserules are? You already said it is not unusual to see huge pages of notes to digest before getting into a game. (It would be for me but that isn't the point, I don't do pbp.) If so, how is one minor change going to drastically change how that game is played? We are talking about a relatively minor change, if done correctly. That baseline you want so badly doesn't even exist between games. I defy you to find anything but a completely newbie (DM, not necessarily players) game and have it work EXACTLY like the game is designed and how another group will work it. Let me give an example, have you ever played the classic monopoly? What happened when you landed on free parking? Did you just get a square you were allowed to rest on, or did you get money? Almost all games I've played have had the latter option as default, though we realized after many years of playing and enjoying the game that this was never in the rules. In this way, the default may be wrong to most gamers and you want it that way. Whereas Hussar and myself want it to be in the rules, but optionally for everyone. Instead of instituting a way it should be for all games, by default.

And more realistically I've got the feeling things won't get to be as simple and clean cut as you seem to think, so just by having no simple default any chance of getting soemthing simple are gone through the window. The only way I can think of them having a way to balance this is by making different casting mechanics not so different from each other, the sorcerer can be slot based, spell point based or even some kind of AED based, but in the end of the day can only cast spontaneously from a limited known spell list. Wizards can cast form spell points, slots, or even recharge, but at the en of the day still have to preppare a limited set from a potentially unlimited pool of spells known. That is the only way I can think they could do it, because spontaneous is fundamentally weaker than vancian, and vancian-spontaneous is way more powerfull than they think, it just keeps the strengths of both approaches while negating their downsides, an spontaneous vancian wizard gets the power to learn potentially every single spell in the universe and be able to fix things with enough time, and to top it off he no longer fears running out of ammo by prepparing utilities or not prepparing enough of each spell. Fear the unstoppable recharge-spellpoint-spontaneous-vancian wizard of doom!

This may be exactly right, to some extent. Maybe not all sorcerers work with all systems perfectly, and maybe not all wizards can be easily converted to all systems either. However, if the options are presented there at the beginning and with big glowing letters to inform you that the 'default' version is just one option and there are others if you XYZ then that will be a win. Most of the time DMs will like or dislike a system for a class more than the players will probably care. In that case the DM will specify all characters of that class will have a certain system in his games. You'll know that if you are in his games that you'll have to be a 'vancian' warlock or what have you.
It also hard-codes the player to try and play something else, if they like the flavour of a class and the characteristics of that class but dislike the system. If you want to play a wizard and dislike spell-slots, talk to the DM and even if they've said all wizards must be that way; they will still realize that all other systems can work equally well if the DM is willing to let the player play it. I know I probably would, if it is done correctly.

The obvious flaw, as you pointed out, is if things are (A) not balanced between systems, (B) if certain flaws or limits of certain systems can be easily weeded out, or (C) if spontaneous sucks compared to memorization.

For A: That is a real concern, but not undoable. It means that WotC has to do their job correctly so that a wizard with any system is as powerful, in the same ways, as any other wizard. If all wizards use memorization then there should be some kind of limits on that memorization, fire and forget or something, or else the power level should be lower. Those are relatively easy to fix given a variety of fixes and using a variety of systems. This is the part I'm significantly less skeptical about WotC being able to do, as they already partially did it for a previous packet.
For B: In some cases those flaws or limits being weeded out is the whole point. You hate vancian, okay fine then pick from these other systems. They don't have X component you dislike. They may also lack Y you dislike but introduce Z that you are neutral on. I don't think it is a good idea to remote other limits, such as cost, foci, certain material components, verbal, somatic, or any other requirement of casting spells. And if they do then there should be some other balancing aspect to fix that, right out of the box. But lots of times that is the point of switching systems, it isn't a flaw it is the purposeful boon.
For C: I think there are a lot of times where spontaneity makes more sense, should be more powerful, and in general works out better than with memorization. As I've already said, assuming you have a spellbook doesn't mean you get unlimited access to spells. Maybe in a wizard with 3e warlock powers has a harder time learning new spells. Maybe they get less spells per day in that case, ones they have to choose at the beginning of the day, but can cast them far more frequently. These kinds of issues are harder to predict outside of playtesting. But fortunately WotC has a handy playtest going on where they can try and figure some of these power levels out. Worst case scenario they end up giving the wizard too many spells or the sorcerer too few (or something like these of course), in which case you can fairly simply increase the sorcerer's slots (again adjusting for mechanics) and/or decrease the wizard. If this is happening at large that is a flaw by WotC that shouldn't get into the final product. But if it is something only happening in your game then maybe you have different expectations and realities than WotC does and need to adjust accordingly. That does sometimes happens, but hopefully with a superior product where everyone can get the system they want everyone can be equally happy. Instead of making one person happy and not allowing anyone else that level of legitimacy.

 

[Agamon]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I hope some made the obvious Monte and Zeb joke somewhere in it.

 

[Hussar]

It's kinda funny when you think about it.

In 4e, WOTC decided to have strong default classes. Each class is a pretty specific archetype and there's no secret about it.

In doing so, they lost half their audience.

Now, we apparently should go back to having strong archetypes, but, apparently 3e archetypes, because that will win back those that were lost. But, it's still a fail because now you lose the other half of the audience.

4e proved one thing to me. If WOTC comes down strongly on ANYTHING, they will be castigated for it. They cannot afford to have any opinion because, the second that they do, someone's going to get a wild hair up their nose. So, no, I don't think tying mechanics to flavor is a good idea. Particularly not as a default. 4e proved what an amazingly bad idea this is.

Make mechanics as flexible as possible and everyone gets what they want. No one can bitch about how they're being left out when everything's left on the table.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

No one can bitch about how they're being left out when everything's left on the table.

Not that I disagree with your main reasoning, but I think the last year has proven that nothing will stop people determined to complain. It's somewhat like that thing where they said a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters would eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Then the internet came along and proved that false.

 

[MoonSong]

This is where I saw your argument boil down to KaiiLurker. If he gets what he wants everyone has to choose the system (or more realistically the DM decides and people all have to build according to that), if you get what you want then only some people do. But if a greater percentage of people dislike the default you like then basically what you advocate for is for a minority to get exactly what they want and to inconvenience everyone else.

Emphasis mine, you are still thinking on terms of wizards, sorcerer players are less picky about casting mechanics, IME the only people who don't like how sorcerers cast are the people who don't like sorcerers at all and don't play them. It is ok for WotC to pick a default for sorcerers that many people will dislike, as long as it is liked for all of the sorcerer players instead of failling to provide a default that will satisfy sorcerer players just to make sorcerer haters happy.

I had to requote this for emphasis.

You somehow doubt this "weird sense of legitimacy" but that is kind of the topic we are discussing at large. You are saying there is nothing differentiating classes except their mechanics (which I and others have rebutted). You can't call it a weird sense of legitimacy and then say that the only thing that makes a class 'legit' is a certain mechanic.

Also, that is why allowing these options is so key. And why they can't just be relegated to the back sections of the book.

I'm not saying that the only difference between classes are their mechanics, the difference between one class and another is the whole package: Flavor+Mechanics, if the mechanics are at odds with the flavour then the flavour is meaningless and the best of mechanics are pointless number-crunching without a good flavor to back them out. Change the sorcerer mechancis and you shift the way they play even in ways that can potentially go counter-intuitive to the flavor of the class. I'm not against options, what I'm against is to dissociate a default that almost everybody will want to use from the class in order to make room for options practically nobody will.

Because it is so difficult to for the DM to say "backgrounds are in, all wizards use spell points, all sorcerers use spell slots and there are no warlocks," or whatever his houserules are? You already said it is not unusual to see huge pages of notes to digest before getting into a game. (It would be for me but that isn't the point, I don't do pbp.) If so, how is one minor change going to drastically change how that game is played? We are talking about a relatively minor change, if done correctly. That baseline you want so badly doesn't even exist between games. I defy you to find anything but a completely newbie (DM, not necessarily players) game and have it work EXACTLY like the game is designed and how another group will work it. Let me give an example, have you ever played the classic monopoly? What happened when you landed on free parking? Did you just get a square you were allowed to rest on, or did you get money? Almost all games I've played have had the latter option as default, though we realized after many years of playing and enjoying the game that this was never in the rules. In this way, the default may be wrong to most gamers and you want it that way. Whereas Hussar and myself want it to be in the rules, but optionally for everyone. Instead of instituting a way it should be for all games, by default.

Never, never underestimate the power of a shared set of conceptions about a game. Having a shared, consistent framework was the reason behind Ad&D, and 2nd edition, and more strongly 3rd and 4th. Such framework necessitates defaults. It may look like soemthing completely superfluous to you, but would you be forced to relly on pbp as the sole source of gaming you'd understnad things from my POV. Let me tell you one thing about pbp, it's not pretty, basically is the same as jumping groups all the time, having to constantly shift and adapt to wildly different DMing styles and tables, but somehow having a shared framework makes the constant transition easier: most DM's don't change the default and when they do it, it is very easy to spot.

Yes I have mentioned that it isn't uncommon to have to read pages and pages of text before joining a game, but those usually come form DM's focussed on the setting, the mood, what they expect from the prospective players, what to write to filter out the exact kind of players they want, they rarely bother to make a stand about classes unless they have a good reason not to. (again a benefit of a baseline) remove the defaults and you force them to make a stand about every single class when before they at most had to say: "no warlocks, no psionics" and those only came after years of gainning some system mastery and understanding how those interact, being forced to make a stand about all classes when they before didn't had to and when they don't know nothing yet about them and overnight is no small task.

This may be exactly right, to some extent. Maybe not all sorcerers work with all systems perfectly, and maybe not all wizards can be easily converted to all systems either. However, if the options are presented there at the beginning and with big glowing letters to inform you that the 'default' version is just one option and there are others if you XYZ then that will be a win. Most of the time DMs will like or dislike a system for a class more than the players will probably care. In that case the DM will specify all characters of that class will have a certain system in his games. You'll know that if you are in his games that you'll have to be a 'vancian' warlock or what have you.
It also hard-codes the player to try and play something else, if they like the flavour of a class and the characteristics of that class but dislike the system. If you want to play a wizard and dislike spell-slots, talk to the DM and even if they've said all wizards must be that way; they will still realize that all other systems can work equally well if the DM is willing to let the player play it. I know I probably would, if it is done correctly.

The obvious flaw, as you pointed out, is if things are (A) not balanced between systems, (B) if certain flaws or limits of certain systems can be easily weeded out, or (C) if spontaneous sucks compared to memorization.

For A: That is a real concern, but not undoable. It means that WotC has to do their job correctly so that a wizard with any system is as powerful, in the same ways, as any other wizard. If all wizards use memorization then there should be some kind of limits on that memorization, fire and forget or something, or else the power level should be lower. Those are relatively easy to fix given a variety of fixes and using a variety of systems. This is the part I'm significantly less skeptical about WotC being able to do, as they already partially did it for a previous packet.
For B: In some cases those flaws or limits being weeded out is the whole point. You hate vancian, okay fine then pick from these other systems. They don't have X component you dislike. They may also lack Y you dislike but introduce Z that you are neutral on. I don't think it is a good idea to remote other limits, such as cost, foci, certain material components, verbal, somatic, or any other requirement of casting spells. And if they do then there should be some other balancing aspect to fix that, right out of the box. But lots of times that is the point of switching systems, it isn't a flaw it is the purposeful boon.
For C: I think there are a lot of times where spontaneity makes more sense, should be more powerful, and in general works out better than with memorization. As I've already said, assuming you have a spellbook doesn't mean you get unlimited access to spells. Maybe in a wizard with 3e warlock powers has a harder time learning new spells. Maybe they get less spells per day in that case, ones they have to choose at the beginning of the day, but can cast them far more frequently. These kinds of issues are harder to predict outside of playtesting. But fortunately WotC has a handy playtest going on where they can try and figure some of these power levels out. Worst case scenario they end up giving the wizard too many spells or the sorcerer too few (or something like these of course), in which case you can fairly simply increase the sorcerer's slots (again adjusting for mechanics) and/or decrease the wizard. If this is happening at large that is a flaw by WotC that shouldn't get into the final product. But if it is something only happening in your game then maybe you have different expectations and realities than WotC does and need to adjust accordingly. That does sometimes happens, but hopefully with a superior product where everyone can get the system they want everyone can be equally happy. Instead of making one person happy and not allowing anyone else that level of legitimacy.

I'd rather have the designers time used to fine tune a single casting system for sorcerers and do it well, the playtest being used to gauge what will be liked and what will be disliked by sorcerer players instead of taking the impossible task to balance things that are just too different -you cannot just balance casting systems, you balance the whole package- just for symmetry sake.

Despite all strifes and complaints D&D Next will get nowhere without a good (and user friendly) baseline the same way Linux didn't became popular before Ubuntu, you may have all of the customization and fiddly bits to suit your user, but unless you provide soemthing usable out-of-the-box that works for general purposes and has ease of use, you'll never get to be mainstream.

 

[Hussar]

I'd rather have the designers time used to fine tune a single casting system for sorcerers and do it well, the playtest being used to gauge what will be liked and what will be disliked by sorcerer players instead of taking the impossible task to balance things that are just too different -you cannot just balance casting systems, you balance the whole package- just for symmetry sake.

Despite all strifes and complaints D&D Next will get nowhere without a good (and user friendly) baseline the same way Linux didn't became popular before Ubuntu, you may have all of the customization and fiddly bits to suit your user, but unless you provide soemthing usable out-of-the-box that works for general purposes and has ease of use, you'll never get to be mainstream.

Whereas I think that if they have second class citizen status mechanics, they're just begging for problems. Yup, you get a single casting system for one class that only works for that class. What happens in a group that has both a sorcerer and a wizard? If the two systems are not balanced against each other, then you can't mix classes. That was the problem in 3e. Sure, warlocks looked cool on paper, but, if you had a warlock and a wizard in the same group, then the warlock looked pretty limp because the wizard player had fifteen different source books to play with and the warlock had six pages.

I'd much, much rather we get actual parity between casting systems before going forward. Or don't bother having multiple casting systems at all. I do not want to go back to the days of tiered classes simply because it's "too difficult" to balance systems.

I also think you are greatly exaggerating the difficulties being proposed here. The only difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is where the mechanics are presented. You want Class->mechanic, class->mechanic. I want class, class, class, mechanic/mechanic/mechanic.

I mean, is it really hard to play a fighter because the feat section is in a different part of the 3e PHB? Or the combat section in a separate section from that? Yet fighter is still held up as the easiest class to play. I'm not seeing the difference here.

 

[Remathilis]

It's kinda funny when you think about it.

In 4e, WOTC decided to have strong default classes. Each class is a pretty specific archetype and there's no secret about it.

In doing so, they lost half their audience.

Now, we apparently should go back to having strong archetypes, but, apparently 3e archetypes, because that will win back those that were lost. But, it's still a fail because now you lose the other half of the audience.

4e proved one thing to me. If WOTC comes down strongly on ANYTHING, they will be castigated for it. They cannot afford to have any opinion because, the second that they do, someone's going to get a wild hair up their nose. So, no, I don't think tying mechanics to flavor is a good idea. Particularly not as a default. 4e proved what an amazingly bad idea this is.

Make mechanics as flexible as possible and everyone gets what they want. No one can bitch about how they're being left out when everything's left on the table.

Here lies the flaw in your analogy. 4e classes were built around a solid archetype, and they worked well if you stayed in the that box. However, they couldn't leave the box without massively re-writing the class (despite both being "fighters", a knight and a slayer are very different classes filling the same area). There was no mechanic to branch out of the box. If you were a rogue and you wanted to use a longsword and shortbow, you were pretty much boned (until the Thief came around). While it might be good to promote certain weapon use for a rogue, its completely another to deny rogues the ability to use their attack powers with weapons outside the 3 or 4 WotC assumed.

But my proposal doesn't do that.

My proposal still allows sorcerers to go AED, wizards to use SP, and warlocks to be Vancian if the DM wants/allows. THEY JUST HAVE A STARTING SETTING that the DM can twist as he chooses.

New players use the default settings until they feel comfortable to change it.
Those who don't care don't have to do anything but grab dice and use the default rules to start playing.
The RPGA has a default set of rules to run under.
Those DMs who care about such things (making the system fit the setting/style they chose) can move the dial around until it suits them.
The players can petition the DM to create "special snowflakes" like spell-point wizards if they want and the DM is cool with it.

Honestly, this is win-win.

The closest (though imperfect) 4e analogy is some alternate rule or feat that grants the rogue use of non-traditional rogue weapons as rogue weapons. Or some advice in the DMG on how to add new powers or change classes (something 4e sorely lacked). Its not "Let the Player pick any 7 weapons to use with all his powers" though.

Clearly defined archetypes if you want them; customizable if you want to change them. How is this still a bad thing?

 

[Hussar]

Clearly defined archetypes if you want them; customizable if you want to change them. How is this still a bad thing?

It's bad for the following reasons:

• 1. It's WOTC doing the defining. You said it yourself, you don't like WOTC defining the rogue. What happens to those who don't like how a class is defined?
• 2. It's WOTC telling everyone how the game should be played. Yeah, we've seen how well that goes over.
• 3. It disempowers DM's. Players will possibly demand default options be available. After all, they're default for a reason aren't they? So, why are you messing with the defaults?
• 4. It forces game designers to conform to those defaults. You can't start dropping supplements and modules outside the defaults without causing all sorts of problems with marketing and whatnot.
• 5. It simply adds fuel to the fire of DM's who insist that any player who wants to be, in your words, "a special snowflake" is a self-entitled, whiney git.

As far as the RPGA goes, I'd point out that the PHB defaults are NOT adhered to in organized play. Never have been. For one, RPGA play is almost always setting specific, which means different defaults right out of the gate. Additionally, rules that work in home play don't work in organized play. You only have to look at the play guides for RPGA, Pathfinder Society or the Encounters groups to realize that. So, no, having defaults actually doesn't help organized play, it actually hurts it because new players coming into organized play with default expectations are going to be in for a surprise when those defaults go out the window.