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

[EzekielRaiden]

The last sentence in the brackets also stands out for me.

"You don't get to have an opinion unless you're a DM yourself" is not, and has never been, a valid argument.

More importantly? Becoming a DM has made me less sympathetic with the Viking Hat, not more. I have become even more convinced than I ever was before that the first and foremost obligation of the DM is to earn their players' enthusiasm, and that the one and only way to successfully do that in the long term is to genuinely, deeply care about what your players want, to work together so that you collectively bring about things they value, and to always, always be humble and circumspect about what you're contributing to the experience.

The Viking Hat couldn't be further from my thoughts when I'm DMing. It would 100% guaranteed lead to disaster.

 

[Emerikol]

Not a surprise that it's hard to convince people we as a community have been teaching that they're better and more deserving than everyone else at the table and should be viewed as infallible for the past 50 years to share even the tiniest sliver of control and power.

No one thinks they are infallible. The role though does not function well without that power. Players if given exactly what they claim to want will destroy the game. The DM's job is to make the getting there hard which will be fulfilling when they do actually get there. There is nothing to be had by a DM tormenting his players. It doesn't lead to a bad game. I would expect such a DM to lose players.

 

[Emerikol]

"You don't get to have an opinion unless you're a DM yourself" is not, and has never been, a valid argument.

More importantly? Becoming a DM has made me less sympathetic with the Viking Hat, not more. I have become even more convinced than I ever was before that the first and foremost obligation of the DM is to earn their players' enthusiasm, and that the one and only way to successfully do that in the long term is to genuinely, deeply care about what your players want, to work together so that you collectively bring about things they value, and to always, always be humble and circumspect about what you're contributing to the experience.

The Viking Hat couldn't be further from my thoughts when I'm DMing. It would 100% guaranteed lead to disaster.

I agree and the Viking Hat is a straw man. Anyone can have an opinion and there are times and places to express it. During a session is not one of them. The final decision on the campaign setting is the DMs. Because if I hate the idea the game will never succeed. It will be defeated on day one.

My approach though since I can get players for what I like pretty easily is to just be very clear up front about the type of game I want to run. I don't need to play a game that is less fun and which I'd be less good at running when I have all the people and more that are on board with my approach. I think communication is the thing but earlier is better.

When I run into a player, and I'm sure there are a few here like this as there are everywhere, who will agree to the session 0 intro but then try to undermine everything your doing every step of the way. Those players get bounced hard right out of the game.

 

[Emerikol]

The only criticism I have with WOTC rule 0 in the current book is that it is not rule 0 that has existed in D&D for 5 editions prior. I think it is a fine sentiment. Propose all the rules changes you like and many may become the rule. For his particular campaign, not the game, the DM though is final arbiter and that is the real rule 0. A good DM will tend to accept a lot but if he knows it will either ruin the game, because he has a lot of experience with such things, or that he will hate it then he can veto it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No one thinks they are infallible.

Really? Because that absolutely seems to be what people are laying claim to. DM is absolute authority, don't you dare question them.

The role though does not function well without that power.

As noted above, I disagree heartily. Consensus and collaboration works quite well, when you treat your players as fellow human beings trying their best to produce a good time for everyone involved. And if any of the players is participating in bad faith, the exercise is already doomed from the start. No amount of DM authority can make a bad-faith participant behave themselves.

Players if given exactly what they claim to want will destroy the game.

Yet this argument never applies to DMs? Something fishy about that.

There is nothing to be had by a DM tormenting his players. It doesn't lead to a bad game. I would expect such a DM to lose players.

The DMs who do it get jollies from it. And I've seen real, specific people on this forum talk about exactly that. One example was a DM who said that they'd allow players to play dragonborn at their tables...but every shopkeeper they ever met would act like any dragonborn PCs weren't even people and would completely ignore anything dragonborn PCs said. That, eventually, the players would either wise up or depart the table.

This was directly said, to me, in an actual thread on this forum. I don't like naming names, so I won't name who did it. If you really care to read the original post, I can dig up a link for you, but I'd send it to you privately.

There are DMs practically popping out of the woodwork to ban this, ban that. To crap on player preferences. To nail down everything they possibly can about the setting and allow absolutely no deviation or variation--to the point that it literally isn't even possible for someone to say, "Well, couldn't I come from a faraway land unknown to these people?" because the DM already knows every possible land and every possible people on those lands and every possible political faction in all of those places. (And, yes, I am again thinking of an actual, specific person on this forum when I say these things.)

 

[dave2008]

The DMs who do it get jollies from it. And I've seen real, specific people on this forum talk about exactly that. One example was a DM who said that they'd allow players to play dragonborn at their tables...but every shopkeeper they ever met would act like any dragonborn PCs weren't even people and would completely ignore anything dragonborn PCs said. That, eventually, the players would either wise up or depart the table.

This was directly said, to me, in an actual thread on this forum. I don't like naming names, so I won't name who did it. If you really care to read the original post, I can dig up a link for you, but I'd send it to you privately.

I don't know who you are specifically talking a about, but I know of one poster here that repeatedly talks in that vein and about how they are "educating" players in the "correct" way to play.

However, they way those posts stand out (and the frequency with which they get called to task) suggest to me that such behavior really is in the minority (at least at my tables and around here).

 

[cranberry]

I think Rule 0 should be defined at Session 0.

If everyone at the table agrees to the rules at session 0, rule zero will come naturally.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know who you are specifically talking a about, but I know of one poster here that repeatedly talks in that vein and about how they are "educating" players in the "correct" way to play.

However, they way those posts stand out (and the frequency with which they get called to task) suggest to me that such behavior really is in the minority (at least at my tables and around here).

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I see it from several sources, and not all of them get quite the response you're speaking of.

 

[dave2008]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I see it from several sources, and not all of them get quite the response you're speaking of.

We also interpret the same comments differently. You seem to assume a lot more DM hostility than I do. We all have our biases. I tend to assume people are playing the game in good faith unless it is very explicit. What I deem "very explicit" is probably a lot more severe than you do for instance. Doesn't mean either of us are correct or incorrect, just different.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I see it from several sources, and not all of them get quite the response you're speaking of.

Personally I think the GM "avenging" to the player build choices they do not approve in the game in the manner you describe is jerk behaviour.* I always try to be as upfront as possible about my limitations and houserules before the game begins, so that the players can make informed decisions. If I don't want some things to be part of the game, then they aren't and that's that, but it also means that the options that are available you're able to utilise fully and you will not be "punished" for choosing them. I think this sort of transparency is important so that everyone knows what they're signing up for and there won't be hard feelings later.

* There could be an exception if the GM was upfront about a certain species being likely to face discrimination in the setting and the player intentionally choosing to play it because they wanted to explore such a dynamic. But then it really isn't about punishing the player for wrong choices anymore, but about letting them to play the storyline they wanted.