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

[TwoSix]

To certain extent true, but I personally would respect the GM's creation in the same way I would respect an existing IP (or more in fact, as it was something my friend had put thought and time into,) and the fact that I already do not know everything about this world would be a feature rather than a bug to me, as then I would have the joy of genuine exploration.

I generally defer to the DM's concept, as I've mentioned. But DMs who spend lots of time on really detailed settings are always a bit of a red flag to me.

I like the act of creation in detailed world-building. I like reading about detailed world-building. But unless it's being used to inform the act of play rather than constrain it, I'm not a huge fan of detailed world-building mixing with roleplaying.

 

[Emerikol]

And if the player says no? We're already talking about someone knowingly engaging in bad faith. There's a lot a person can do to be extremely socially disruptive and to prevent or significantly delay getting booted from a group, especially if they're knowingly engaging in bad faith.

Well so you are saying that a player won't agree and is being disruptive but won't leave? I find that a bit hard to believe. In high school we'd have gang tackled him and beat him and then forcibly thrown him out. Nowadays, I call the police? I just can't imagine a player defiantly refusing to leave.

Of course if it is that players house, the group just gets up and leaves.

And despite how strongly I'd not want you in my campaign, I do find it incredible that you would have any trouble finding a game that suits your tastes. There are a lot of diverse views within the hobby on all of this stuff.

 

[Emerikol]

Because there is this thing called the PHB, which is the default set of assumptions for what people can play.

But you have to see that it is such a big set of options that not every campaign will include everything. I do think they should warn you ahead of time of course but if they didn't I don't see any way to fix the issue. Give you some gas money? I don't expect a DM to change their entire campaign because of one mistake.

 

[Emerikol]

I generally defer to the DM's concept, as I've mentioned. But DMs who spend lots of time on really detailed settings are always a bit of a red flag to me.

I like the act of creation in detailed world-building. I like reading about detailed world-building. But unless it's being used to inform the act of play rather than constrain it, I'm not a huge fan of detailed world-building mixing with roleplaying.

I find it almost essential so we just have different tastes there. As soon as I realize the DM doesn't really have a decently detailed world I don't have much hope for the campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't know any DMs that would phrase the statement the way you are here, and I also don't think a conversation has to end with the DM changing their mind or allowing things they don't want to allow. It can, however, and if a player wants something I didn't think of or don't want I would certainly listen. They may change my mind, but it's still my call to make.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.


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!

I think most DMs will listen to your arguments; I know I would, for example. But listening does not equal doing what you want. Sometimes you listen and the answer is still no.

 

[Oofta]

For my part, there are three categories relevant here (that is, DMs I would not call "good DMs"):

1. Harmful DMs. These are people that are actively doing things I consider to be outright bad to and/or for their players, such as the aforementioned active un-personing of a player's character if they don't play the "correct" races, which mostly meant the core four plus a couple old familiar ones like gnomes. And, unfortunately, a significant chunk of advice for DMs in early D&D books really does advocate for stuff like this.

I think it's hubris(?) to claim that you can declare every DM that runs their game with slightly different style than what you want as "bad". There are plenty of DMs out there that run games I'm not interested in. They would be bad DMs for me, they are not bad DMs.

Is a DM "bad" because they're running a campaign in Dark Sun and don't allow gnomes?

2. Inexperienced/Inept DMs. These are people who mean well, but through inexperience or having developed wrongheaded beliefs or some other thing, they make poor choices with significant negative consequences when sincerely trying to make good ones. The line between this category and the previous can be fuzzy, as the preceding group may feel what they are doing is actually good when it isn't, but in general this group is still possible to reach with somecriticisms, while the preceding group is not.

3. Mediocre DMs. This is where I think a majority of DMs fall. Unfortunately, being a mediocre DM often means folks still make a lot of poor, harmful choices. They just aren't as committed, and the balance of their choices is middling rather than distinctly bad like the previous two.

We were all inexperienced at one time or other. No DM is perfect and not all DMs run games you want to play. Once again "they don't run the game I want it run so they're bad".

Well-constructed rules and procedures are extremely helpful for #3 and usually helpful with #2. Even with #1, though, well-constructed rules and procedures still provide some benefit. Firstly, most outright harmful DMs still feel a need to cement their legitimacy, and thus will work to undermine effective, well-constructed rules that would get in their way in advance. This can act as an extremely effective early warning sign. Secondly, most if not all outright harmful DMs will take steps to insert greater ambiguity, confusion, deception, or deniability, especially if they can do so while avoiding accountability for the insertion. Well-constructed rules make this significantly harder by promoting clarity, transparency, and accountability.

More or less, well-made rules make for an environment that outright harmful DMs will constantly chafe against, and thus provide a subtle but powerful pressure against their participation, while supporting player ability to see, ID, and call out harmful DM behaviors. Poor rules, on the other hand, create a climate where harmful DMs thrive, and where players can be powerless to do anything about it except "voting with their feet" (which is a significantly bigger ask than many, many proponents claim it is, as they ignore the social cost of doing so.)

Inexperienced or inept DMs and mediocre are helped immensely by well-made rules, and hampered by poor ones. In some cases, poor rules may even help grow the pool of harmful DMs.

What can I say. I disagree with pretty much everything you've stated. But it's insulting to say that just because a DM runs a game you don't like that they will fall back on undermining, deception and deniability. Whether you intend it or not you come off as a toxic player because every description of a DM that does something you don't like is bad, harmful, avoiding accountability.

Different DMs will have different preferences and styles. No DM can be for everyone and I will never, ever, call a DM bad simply because they run a game I don't want to be part of.

 

[dave2008]

I mean, I try to, in the sense of embracing allies in these discussions. And I also tried to, in the sense of looking for games, as I've said in several other places. I failed.

Sorry to hear that. My suggestion - keep looking! Today's failure is tomorrow's success!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 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.

There are quite a few folks here who are strong proponents of 4e. I'm pretty sure you know of them. And there are a lot more who, even if they don't personally like that game, respect it and what it stood for. I fall into that category. I really respect that 4e took a stand on assumed playstyle, even if I don't agree with that stand.

On the other hand, I don't assume anything in any PH has to be in the game, although some heritages are more likely to get a pass than others. That's what happens when a game element is comparatively newer: you get less buy-in.

I'm not the biggest fan of dragonborn, and I didn't care for warlords when I first saw them in 4e (for the usual reasons), but the versions of both in Level Up really work for me, and now I can honestly say I'm on-board with both concepts. Even created a whole origin story for dragonborn in my homebrew.

 

[Oofta]

Because there is this thing called the PHB, which is the default set of assumptions for what people can play.

No. The PHB has species that may be allowed in any given setting. Many published campaigns give a list of species in their worlds. It also explains what evil alignments are, do I need to allow evil PCs in my game over the objection of other players because the PHB includes the alignment?