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

[AnotherGuy]

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.

My post #556 reflects my thoughts on this and of posters within this thread.
I found your post to be unnecessarily hyperbolic in a thread where I believe all posters would consult with their fellow players.
Perhaps I'm a more tolerant player than most, and that could be my bias - I just don't think it helps coming across that others who may not adopt everything you do at your table fall that short.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My post #556 reflects my thoughts on this and of posters within this thread.
I found your post to be unnecessarily hyperbolic in a thread where I believe all posters would consult with their fellow players.
Perhaps I'm a more tolerant player than most, and that could be my bias - I just don't think it helps coming across that others who may not adopt everything you do at your table fall that short.

I emphatically do not believe that in general, and certainly not of several people who currently are posting in this thread.

If they were to explicitly say otherwise, then of course I would accept that. But I have never gotten the impression that, for several active posters in this thread, would ever consider consulting with their players even for a moment if they believed doing so could even potentially threaten their prewritten setting contents, in any way whatsoever.

Yes, I mean that exactly as strongly as I have said it there. Several people on here have made it exceedingly clear that the setting is vastly more important than anything their players like, want, or take interest in.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, but that is one of my points. I don't throw 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.

I have seen very little evidence that there are "milder opinions." It seems very clear to me that there are two camps: "Shut up and obey the DM or leave and never darken my door again," and "alright, let's have a talk and figure out how we can both enjoy this."

Every time I have presented these two things, the consistent refrain is, "Yes, that first option is absolutely required," and almost always with the "and if the second thing doesn't work, what then? Huh? How do you fix that? You don't. That's why the first one is mandatory."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Calm down. Just explain what you mean then. You seem to be hostile to the idea that the players should endeavour to create character concepts that fit the setting, yet when an example is provided, you think it is a strawman.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If they were to explicitly say otherwise, then of course I would accept that. But I have never gotten the impression that, for several active posters in this thread, would ever consider consulting with their players even for a moment if they believed doing so could even potentially threaten their prewritten setting contents, in any way whatsoever.

Plenty of people (me included) have said that they're willing to work with the players, listen their ideas and potentially incorporate them. It is just that they wish to retain the final say about what goes as the curator of their setting. Sometimes the player has an idea that will enhance the setting, sometimes they have an idea that can be tweaked so that it fits the setting. But not every request is like this. Some things just do not fit, and it is perfectly fine for the GM to say that the idea might be better suited for some other campaign.

 

[AnotherGuy]

In the Tyranny of Dragons storyline the books offered several suggestions of how one can tie their character's background to the campaign storyline. In the same way a DM may request that for their campaign players select races/classes that tie into the theme of the setting envisioned.

In my campaign we began with a limitation of races playable. As the characters rose in level and the settings explored became more and more fantastical so did the options of races and classes to play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Calm down. Just explain what you mean then. You seem to be hostile to the idea that the players should endeavour to create character concepts that fit the setting, yet when an example is provided, you think it is a strawman.

Can you have a respectful conversation with your players where you recognize that their interests might sometimes--absolutely not every time, but sometimes--be more important than your prewritten setting concepts?

Are you willing to look for ways to make both sides happy, even if that likely means both sides make some adjustments on things?

Do you agree that, at least in the substantial majority of cases (IMO it's nearly 100% of them), if all participants are reasonable and acting in good faith, they can work something out together?

Because that's what I've talked about. Every single time. I've spoken of meeting people halfway. Of drilling down to find what players really, truly want, and that in general whatever that thing is, it's something totally workable. I've spoken of how infuriating it is that everyone always assumes that players always become petulant jerks. That players always do the horrific caricatures like your "wookiee Jedi in Star Trek" and thus always need a Hobbesian DM (that's Thomas Hobbes, not the stuffed tiger comic character named after him.) I've spoken about how tedious it is that as soon as any criticism is ever levelled against the notion of absolute DM power, it's countered with the non-argument "well don't you TRUST your DM?" or "I couldn't play a game with someone I don't trust so your argument is irrelevant," as though it were utterly impossible for DMs to do things that erode trust or that DMs don't automatically start with an unassailable carte blanche (especially when they're demanding absolute power!)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Can you have a respectful conversation with your players where you recognize that their interests might sometimes--absolutely not every time, but sometimes--be more important than your prewritten setting concepts?

Are you willing to look for ways to make both sides happy, even if that likely means both sides make some adjustments on things?

Do you agree that, at least in the substantial majority of cases (IMO it's nearly 100% of them), if all participants are reasonable and acting in good faith, they can work something out together?

Because that's what I've talked about. Every single time. I've spoken of meeting people halfway. Of drilling down to find what players really, truly want, and that in general whatever that thing is, it's something totally workable. I've spoken of how infuriating it is that everyone always assumes that players always become petulant jerks. That players always do the horrific caricatures like your "wookiee Jedi in Star Trek" and thus always need a Hobbesian DM (that's Thomas Hobbes, not the stuffed tiger comic character named after him.) I've spoken about how tedious it is that as soon as any criticism is ever levelled against the notion of absolute DM power, it's countered with the non-argument "well don't you TRUST your DM?" or "I couldn't play a game with someone I don't trust so your argument is irrelevant," as though it were utterly impossible for DMs to do things that erode trust or that DMs don't automatically start with an unassailable carte blanche (especially when they're demanding absolute power!)

The thing is, I don't assume players are like that. I've said that this has not been a problem during my adult gaming life but it is just something that I come across on the internet. This whole conflict just doesn't happen. The GM explains the setting, players ask questions and make characters appropriate to the setting. Sometimes the GM might expand some of the original parameters if the player has a really fitting idea that would require that, though that is rare, as most of the time the players just wish to choose within the original parameters to begin with. But in my experience people who insist playing an elf on Artra or a dragonborn on Middle-Earth just aren't a thing. Granted, I am sure they they actually are thing, but not in my circles.

 

[KYRON45]

I dunno, that seems fairly dismissive of the players' vision for their PC.

Everyone thinks their character is special. Until they make their next character.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The thing is, I don't assume players are like that.

Then why do you and others respond with the types of arguments above, which depend on players being absolute craptacular human beings?

I've said that this has not been a problem during my adult gaming life but it is just something that I come across on the internet. This whole conflict just doesn't happen. The GM explains the setting, players ask questions and make characters appropriate to the setting. Sometimes the GM might expand some of the original parameters if the player has a really fitting idea that would require that, though that is rare, as most of the time the players just wish to choose within the original parameters to begin with. But in my experience people who insist playing an elf on Artra or a dragonborn on Middle-Earth just aren't a thing. Granted, I am sure they they actually are thing, but not in my circles.

Okay so...you're doing the thing you said you don't do. You're assuming incredibly crappy player behavior as the ONLY alternative. That is, in this specific paragraph, you have just divided all players into two and only two categories:

1. Those who purely accept what the DM tells them they can pick from, with only extremely rare deviation, or...
2. Those who are buttholes that insist on utterly ridiculous, outlandishly provocative choices and become disruptive if denied

So, when someone tells me those are my options--accept what you're given or you're a butthole--can you see why I would respond negatively?