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

[pemerton]

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

That was more interesting, though less informative, when my tired old eyes were misreading it as Sisyphus harpy.

I thought that was another of your homebrew peoples of complex descent.

 

[pemerton]

the ruling you're making - though correct - is not in the players' favour and 4 out of 5 players would rather it be in their favour because it's their job as players to advocate for just that.

This has never been my experience. I expect players to suggest readings of the rules that are coherent, balanced, sensible and playable. And generally they do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is one way to interpret it, and not one I share.

Okay. Maybe instead of just saying "nuh-uh!" you could say....literally anything else about what interpretation you do share?

Apparently Viking Hat wearers are defined thusly

• Not humble;
• Not circumspect about their contribution to the experience;
• Don't deeply care about what their players want;
• Tend not to work together with their players to bring about things they (players) value; and
• 100% guarantee that its (Viking Hat) wearing leads to disaster.

I hope I have done justice in outlining your strawman.

It's not a strawman. It's literally what the source defined "viking hat" to be. Consistently, it is exactly that. DMs who think being circumspect and humble in their influence over a campaign is outright disastrous. Who think collaboration with the players poisons games, often with the openly insulting phrase "design by committee". Who think that if the players are upset about something they should "vote with their feet". Etc., etc., etc. This has been demonstrated over and over from users on this forum. Several of whom are current respondents to this very thread.

And you'll notice YOU did a strawman of MY statements here, which makes your argument extremely weak. I had explicitly said, quoted so no one can question whether I am playing sillybuggers:

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

WHEN I'M DMING, IT WOULD LEAD TO DISASTER.

If you're going to accuse someone of a thing in order to dismiss their argument without any engagement or meaningful response, you'd really better not commit that very error in the accusation itself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes you can. If the DM is the one with final say established in Rule 0. Because the DM can rule against the bad player to keep them in line, but players can't rule against a bad DM.

How do you get a person to obey when they refuse to obey, solely by shouting at them "My game my rules!"?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We did. There were. Remember Thaco the clown?

I have never even heard of Thaco the clown. Not once in over 20 years of online discussions, many of which specifically went into the problems of THAC0 with folks who were major boosters thereof.

Do you have a citation or a reference? Because I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Player choice in that case would be choosing what to play from the choices available in that setting, presented by the DM. Does choice not count for you unless it includes options the DM didn't think of or doesn't want in the setting?

Is the DM willing to have a sincere conversation about "the choices available in that setting"? Because if not, I don't feel I am being respected as a player. It's okay if we walk away realizing that the game just won't work for one reason or another. But a DM who flatly says, "You WILL play X, Y, or Z, and you WILL like it, or you WILL leave" is a butthole.

That DM-flatly-says thing is what is always presented as an utterly necessary element of a campaign to even exist by the adoring fans of "absolute" DM power.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First of all, if you won't play in a setting without dragonborn, wouldn't it be better for everyone to just get that out of the way in session 0 by making sure your DM knows this? Seems like it would save everyone a lot if trouble.

I mean, I have and possibly will in the future. But a DM that won't even hear me out is a DM who doesn't respect my presence at her table and who has already shown that my participation doesn't matter to them. That's already a serious black mark.

Secondly, I don't recall anyone but you claiming the DM must have zero accountability. I agree with @dave2008 . I think you assume high levels of DM hostility as a given.

I assume high levels of DM hostility when they demand absolute power.

I've never once seen any proponent of the absolute-power DM, of "DM Empowerment," spend more than the briefest "oh yeah I guess consistency matters" side of things. DM accountability never comes up. Period. Try to discuss it? "Why don't you TRUST your DM, huh?" Or the hilarious one-two punch of "Oh, if you don't like it, just leave!" followed by getting upset about examples where players left because they didn't like it!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is the DM willing to have a sincere conversation about "the choices available in that setting"? Because if not, I don't feel I am being respected as a player. It's okay if we walk away realizing that the game just won't work for one reason or another. But a DM who flatly says, "You WILL play X, Y, or Z, and you WILL like it, or you WILL leave" is a butthole.

That DM-flatly-says thing is what is always presented as an utterly necessary element of a campaign to even exist by the adoring fans of "absolute" DM power.

So you are the person who insists playing a wookiee jedi in a Star Trek game then?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On the other hand, do you only see the hostility? Do you see all the inclusivity and support here (on these forums) and in RPG forums and play spaces in general?

Inclusivity--unless you like 4e. Inclusivity--unless you like those icky dragonborn and tieflings. Inclusivity--unless you like Warlords.

Etc., etc., etc. Time and again I see such friendly spaces, except for people like me. Which, not gonna lie, really makes the "inclusivity" seem pretty hollow and disingenuous.

I think sometimes, it appears to me, you make the assumption of the bold statement rather than of that be 100% true. There are, IMO and IME, large gradations of DMs on that spectrum. From the outside, it appears that if someone is not 100% in agreement with your approach, you seem to believe they are 100% against it. My belief is that a lot of the hostility you see could be mostly a misunderstanding (from both sides). Of course I can't be sure of any of this, but our experiences and worries seem so divergent it feels like (to me) there must be a misunderstanding in there somewhere.

I mean, when I have seen time and again people doggedly insisting on specific terms like "absolute power" despite my every effort to persuade them to consider literally anything else...I'm not really sure what else I could go for.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So you are the person who insists playing a wookiee jedi in a Star Trek game then?

Nope. Great strawman, though. Lovely when one side can mischaracterize and be incredibly hostile and it's totally fine--using openly insulting terms and vapid non-arguments--but if I put even one toe out of line I'm the problem, I'm an active saboteur (yes, something I've actually been called on this very forum), I'm doing something incredibly disrespectful and hostile.

But no, never DMs. Never the infallible DMs. How could they ever do wrong? Why can't I just trust them?