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

[Mort]

Honestly, that whole idea is the sort of passive-aggressive "let it happen but punish them" approach that was all too common early on in the hobby; all it really teaches players is that the GM is an adversary, not a partner, and its fortunately less common now (but still rears its head in a way that shows it hasn't entirely faded).

IMO, any DMing approach that involves "teaching the players a lesson.." needs to be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They can choose to not show up to the next game though.

Or, honestly, if they're stubborn and view the GM is being a jerk, show up and try to ruin his experience the same way he's ruined theirs. This is particularly possible if there's more than one person in the group he feels that way about it. There are a lot of different ways people can deal with annoyance.

 

[Mort]

Or, honestly, if they're stubborn and view the GM is being a jerk, show up and try to ruin his experience the same way he's ruined theirs. This is particularly possible if there's more than one person in the group he feels that way about it. There are a lot of different ways people can deal with annoyance.

Sure, but that's a BAD way. Perpetuating the cycle is never good!

MANY, many years ago in a game I was running, One PC caused the death of another PC. The player of the killed PC then made a character specifically to kill the character that caused his PCs death. When that happened then THAT player did the same thing. Completely derailed the game for everyone else. We (the other players and I) had to kick out both players, because they would not quite it. Only positive was it was a good learning experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but that is one of my points. I don't through milder attitudes in the same boat, it seems to me that @EzekielRaiden does. This could be wrong of course, by they come of that way to me.

Milder versions still have the same basic problems, they're just less severe. It still makes the assumption that the GM's perspective is automatically the one that will best serve the game.

(I think the whole "what does and doesn't belong in the game" branch kind of distracts from the fundamentals here, because it turns entirely on what priorities are being served; its not really the same as "does this particular decision serve any discernible need that serves the group as a whole". Naturally, there are a lot of other side issues you can run into there too (as I noted, its much easier for a GM and even some other players to be blasé about house rules or ad-hoc decisions about stealth than the group's rogue).

 

[Belen]

Milder versions still have the same basic problems, they're just less severe. It still makes the assumption that the GM's perspective is automatically the one that will best serve the game.

(I think the whole "what does and doesn't belong in the game" branch kind of distracts from the fundamentals here, because it turns entirely on what priorities are being served; its not really the same as "does this particular decision serve any discernible need that serves the group as a whole". Naturally, there are a lot of other side issues you can run into there too (as I noted, its much easier for a GM and even some other players to be blasé about house rules or ad-hoc decisions about stealth than the group's rogue).

So are you saying that a DM should not build a campaign setting that limits or omits certain species, monsters, classes, or spells?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but that's a BAD way. Perpetuating the cycle is never good!

Yeah, but you never want to assume someone won't have a "what goes around comes around" attitude. Because plenty of people do.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So are you saying that a DM should not build a campaign setting that limits or omits certain species, monsters, classes, or spells?

I'm saying my feelings on that are complex, need serious unpacking, and are a distraction from the more general case about rules decisions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I do not subscribed to DM as a dictator that doe not listen or seek consensus but the title is Dungeon Master or Game Master which implies the idea behind the role in the name.

Yeah, I'm not calling anyone 'master'.

I've got six centuries of ancestors saying 'no'.

 

[Belen]

Yeah, I'm not calling anyone 'master'.

I've got six centuries of ancestors saying 'no'.

Fair.

I did not make up the terms though and most people just use DM or GM.

 

[Oofta]

It can be exactly the proper time to express it, when the matter is at hand and not addressing it will potentially change outcomes in a serious way. One should have some sense of how long one wants to express it and how disruptive it is, but frankly, the idea that game flow is so sacred that no interruption to address a problem is acceptable is bafflingly rigid to me.

During a game I'll typically listen to a disagreement but move on quickly. On the other hand if it's something new, something I haven't recently reviewed and this comes at a critical juncture like a PC dying or the BBEG getting away? Then maybe we'll talk about it some more, but I don't remember the last time that we felt like it was necessary.

That doesn't mean I ignore player input, just that as a DM I have a responsibility to the entire group to keep things moving along.