D&D General A Novel Take on Rule 0 ((Forked from the Power of Creation Thread))

[Quickleaf]

Rule zero for me as a GM is, "Be the GM you would want to have if you were a player."

Yeah, empathy / listening / thinking-of-others / mindfulness is a pretty foundational human guideline. That's my default in pretty much every arena of life, including gaming.

I'd say gamers, at least the majority I've had the pleasure of interacting with, are more likely to sway towards this sort of empathic reciprocal thinking (at least compared to the general American public). Maybe because there's a bit of imagination involved in thinking about another person's experience.

 

[delericho]

Rule zero for me as a GM is, "Be the GM you would want to have if you were a player."

And, I do think there's a corollary here. Which would be:

Be the player you would want to have if you were the DM​

Yep, I like both of these. Wise words!

Like @Hussar, I largely came to DMing after several experiences with fairly poor DMs. Though I'm probably over-estimating my own performance in the early days - my best guess is that my players had to endure "slightly better" on a long, slow journey to "okay-ish"!

 

[DND_Reborn]

What editions have done, however, is make it so unwise DM choices have obvious consequences, and players now have a much greater ability to critique those choices.

It seems, to me, that what a lot of DMs mean when they say they want to "return" to "DM empowerment" is that they want to be able to have consequence-free DMing. That's never going to happen.

The consequences are the same as they have always been as well-- players get upset and can leave, or whatever.

I agree DM's have all the power they ever had--nothing has changed any of that--but I don't see how the consequences have changed, either.

FWIW, I am an "iron-fisted DM" when I run my games. There is no questioning my rulings DURING the game. I don't put up with it. If a player doesn't like how I run things, I will point them to the door. Period.

Now, after the session (because actual playing time is too precious to waste), I am more than willing to listen to discussions, arguments, or whatever. Sometimes I will change things for the future, other times I won't. Regardless of which I do, if the player can't abide with my decision, they are free to not return.

DMing was never consequence free IMO.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The consequences are the same as they have always been as well-- players get upset and can leave, or whatever.

I agree DM's have all the power they ever had--nothing has changed any of that--but I don't see how the consequences have changed, either.

FWIW, I am an "iron-fisted DM" when I run my games. There is no questioning my rulings DURING the game. I don't put up with it. If a player doesn't like how I run things, I will point them to the door. Period.

Now, after the session (because actual playing time is too precious to waste), I am more than willing to listen to discussions, arguments, or whatever. Sometimes I will change things for the future, other times I won't. Regardless of which I do, if the player can't abide with my decision, they are free to not return.

DMing was never consequence free IMO.

I don't really think the consequences have changed. I think the rate at which consequences occur, and the vehemence and volume of those consequences, has changed. That is, players are better-informed, better equipped to identify DM behaviors (good, bad, or indifferent), and less willing to tolerate undesirable or uncomfortable practices.

Some of this comes from the higher system transparency (even in 5e, despite the fact that it goes out of its way to be opaque at times.) Some of it comes from the Internet enabling far greater discussion and analysis and outside ideas: when all you know is the one game run by your friend who is your age, and you don't know anyone else who plays outside your friend group, you have no standard of comparison, but now we have legions of people to talk to and examples to compare against (for better and for worse.) Some of it, I'm sure, is a culture difference between the players of the 2010s and 2020s and the players of the 1970s and 1980s.

As with any social phenomenon, there are a host of reasons. But the ultimate fact is, the consequences for less-appreciated techniques in DMing come a lot faster and, usually, a lot more vocally than they did in ye olden dayse. I find DMs mistake "players actually criticize DM techniques and don't meekly accept ones they dislike" for "players are entitled jerks who refuse to let me show them the grand masterpiece they COULD have had if they weren't UNGRATEFUL DONKEYS."

I assume my phrasing makes it quite clear which position I think is the more reasonable one.