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

[Emerikol]

If I sign up to play Star Trek, there are no Wookies but I would expect Vulcans. If sign up to play LotR/MERP, there are no Dragonborn but I would expect Dwarves. If I sign up to play D&D, I would expect Elves and Dragonborn, both of which are right there in the rulebook.

Now maybe Artra is sufficiently compelling, despite its lack of Elves, that I can get on board. But speaking at least for myself, I wouldn't have the sort of independent interest in an Artra game that I might have in a Star Trek or LotR/MERP game.

I think this is a reasonable position UNTIL you receive the session 0 information in advance. If you never receive any session 0 information, a big mistake by the DM, then assuming the PHB is available should be a given. I wouldn't assume anything beyond the PHB without contacting the DM.

I find the number of races in D&D to be way too numerous for my tastes. Even if I liked them all, I wouldn't like them all at once. I do like some newer races and I dislike others. If I really really dislike a race then of course I will ban it. Why DM a game when something you hate is front and center??

The key here is not forcing people who wouldn't enjoy gaming together to game together. They key here is figuring out in advance whether you want to game together and gaming with people who share your interests play style wise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have not used such negative language. But that is the sort of behaviour you by my understanding seem to be espousing. Except you say you are not... But then I don't understand what you actually mean and you refuse to clarify.

What I said was my attempt to clarify.

I have not used such negative language. This is again your antagonistic attitude reading an offence that is not there. Like I don't get what you even actually mean. If you would not insist on playing a wookiee in Star Trek, dragonborn on Middle-Earth or an elf in explicitly elfless Artra, then what do you mean? Why are these strawmen? These are examples of what you been talking about, the player requesting the character concept the GM has not considered to be part of the game due the setting.

The fact that you are using such an outlandish example IS why it is a strawman. You are quite clearly equating "I would like to play a race present in the PHB" with "I would like to play something that explicitly doesn't exist in this system at all." How is it possible you can be using this example and not see how that would indicate an equivalence between "a dragonborn played in a D&D game" and "a wookiee jedi played in Star Trek"?

There is a vast difference between these two examples, and pretending that they're the same IS the very strawman I'm talking about. It presupposes that the players are actively trying to be bad, actively pursuing something so radically unfit that no one could possibly see it as reasonable. That is simply not the case with, as said, an option listed in the PHB. It's not even like we're talking about an official but obscure choice, like a Plasmoid Artificer or the like. We're talking about content as core as content can be. To pretend there is any similarity between "an elf on explicitly elfless Artra" and a dragonborn in any random D&D campaign is, as stated, to conflate the two in a hostile way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How I see this is that if a GM says "Hey, I'd like to run a thing, anyone wanna play?" And the player says "sure," but then comes up a character idea not suited for the thing, then they don't actually want to play the thing. And this is something I faintly recall happened when I played as a kid. But these days I expect people to have awareness and communication ability to just say "sorry, mate, never really liked the thing, I'll pass," instead of trying to force the thing to be not the thing via their character choice. And of course if enough people are not interested playing the game GM wants to run, then the game doesn't happen and the GM needs to come up with another idea.

So. What happens if the idea is almost good, but not quite?

Because what you've presented here is that either the players accept the idea exactly as it is, or they refuse and never participate.

That is an absence of discussion or negotiation. Exactly what I've talked about, several times.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I explained it was an analogy and yet you still did exactly as I feared. I did not call them animals. I did use an example to illustrate that not always do players do what is in the best interest of the game. In fact on rules and rulings, they rarely do. But that may be again play style. Ours is a skill game. I would never ask either team in the NFL to referee. Why? They are biased for their team. They want to win. The DM's job is to be a neutral arbiter.

Edit:
And whatever you think about my example, it was not a straw man.

How can the DM be the neutral arbiter when they are--using your own NFL analogy--the coach for the opposing team?

Also, if you didn't want people to think you were comparing your players' intelligence to that of animals...which is precisely the thing that makes an animal overeat when it shouldn't...then you probably shouldn't have compared your players to animals that lack the intelligence to avoid overeating.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And if that ruling turns out to be wrong - and I can with trivial ease envision situations* where it would be - now you're hosed, as you're stuck with that ruling for the rest of the campaign.

But that’s equally true if the DM makes the ruling without the players’ input.

The problem is being stuck with the ruling, not that it originated with the DM or players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think this is a reasonable position UNTIL you receive the session 0 information in advance. If you never receive any session 0 information, a big mistake by the DM, then assuming the PHB is available should be a given. I wouldn't assume anything beyond the PHB without contacting the DM.

And what happens if you're pitched the campaign, say yes, and start coming up with character concepts before Session Zero and its attendant information?

Because I can tell you right now, essentially zero experienced gamers I've played with (meaning, those who had had at least one reasonably ongoing campaign previously) went into Session Zero without some idea of what they would prefer to play. It of course starts out loose and tightens over time, but IMO Session Zero is already far, FAR too late for handing out ban after ban after ban.

If you're going to be slicing off large sections of the PHB, it's on you as DM to specify that in the pitch.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Unfortunately, lost the reference, but it’s a cool story.

In « the Wilds beyond the Witchlight », in the early carnival portion, there is a minor character, a surly clown named Thaco who guards a gate.

Certain grogs on enworld hated this, posting about how WotC was being divisive, how this showed that WotC didn’t respect the true fans, etc.

I was agreeing with you.

Found the thread.

D&D General - Thaco the angry clown... really?

WotC has a new NPC in it's latest book, Witchlight. Thaco the CN retired clown who doesn't want people touching his stuff and hates kids. Very subtle. Like a brick through a window.

www.enworld.org

 

[Oofta]

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


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:

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.

The strawman, at least to me, is that because there could be Viking hat DMs out there (and nobody is saying there aren't bad DMs), that all DMs that don't run the game the way you want are Viking hat DMs.

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

Talk about Strawman arguments! I politely explain that when I DM I make the final call. If I make a quick ruling during the game you disagree with we can discuss it after the session. You know, deal with it like mature adults not infants overdosing on caffeine. If someone absolutely refused to accept my ruling I'd ask them to leave. That has never happened.

 

[Emerikol]

And what happens if you're pitched the campaign, say yes, and start coming up with character concepts before Session Zero and its attendant information?

Because I can tell you right now, essentially zero experienced gamers I've played with (meaning, those who had had at least one reasonably ongoing campaign previously) went into Session Zero without some idea of what they would prefer to play. It of course starts out loose and tightens over time, but IMO Session Zero is already far, FAR too late for handing out ban after ban after ban.

If you're going to be slicing off large sections of the PHB, it's on you as DM to specify that in the pitch.

I think maybe I've misused session 0. I would send out a packet when someone shows interest in the campaign. I realize session 0 is where everyone comes together to roll up characters. I am hoping my packet will encourage the right player for my game and discourage the wrong player. I call that the session 0 packet but it goes out early.

 

[Emerikol]

How can the DM be the neutral arbiter when they are--using your own NFL analogy--the coach for the opposing team?

They are not the coach for the opposing team. I go to great lengths to make sure I play the NPCs fairly. I let the dice fall where they fall. But I have nothing invested in the NPCs the way the players are invested in their characters.

Also, if you didn't want people to think you were comparing your players' intelligence to that of animals...which is precisely the thing that makes an animal overeat when it shouldn't...then you probably shouldn't have compared your players to animals that lack the intelligence to avoid overeating.

The example was simply that people don't do what is in their best interest long term. They often do the short term thing and it goes bad in the long term. How many people dying of type 2 diabetes perhaps regret their decisions years before? In the moment their decisions seemed good. That cake tastes great. In the long run it was bad.