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

[EzekielRaiden]

So to come across as a judgemental elitist jerk a lot of people no doubt already perceive me as, that is genuinely painfully stupid to me. Like if you all are having fun, then more power to you, but I would not run such a game and if this was going on in game I was playing, I would walk.

Now if the participants are literal children, then the childishness is more understandable. I'm sure that as a twelve-year-old I did something roughly as embarrassing.

I mean, I don't think you're an elitist jerk, but I do think dismissing this stuff as "painfully stupid" is kind of undercutting any arguments based on D&D being a toolkit or the like. If you believe folks should be doing what they want with it, thinking it's inappropriate and childish to use it X way instead of Y way--so long as X way doesn't do any harm to any of the participants--seems a little hypocritical.

This is what made WoW, the original one, the best one, so great. The world was the main character.

Eh. Always felt pretty bad to me that you could be doing all this work, saving the world and stopping evil and everything, and then immediately get demoted to Sir Not Appearing In This Film the moment a cutscene happened and the REAL characters (read: WC1-3 NPCs) showed up and acted like they'd just toiled so very hard.

Not saying every game has to canonically feature the PC like FFXIV has the "Warrior of Light" and such. Just that the whiplash from being the one who did all the work to being just some nameless, faceless soldier was either hilarious or frustrating depending on how invested you were in the story.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually, I specifically chose things that aren't generally to my taste. I appreciate the creativity and the implications, but I'm not sure if I would want to play in either of those games not. The campaign premise would be doing all of the heavy lifting.

Nice job making this super personal and jabbing at me, yet again, when I was trying my utmost to be positive and constructive. Really helps eliminate that feeling of hostility and make everything feel so inclusive, y'know? I'm just awed at the warm fuzzy feelings.

But the thing is you have been super judgemental about GM curation for the whole thread. But now you suddenly are fine with it, except for subset you deem bad (Tolkien-ripoffs.) I may even share your opinion on those, but that is not relevant to the acceptability of the curation in the first place.

So either it is fine to make curated settings or it isn't. Whether those curated settings end up being good, bad, to your liking or not is irrelevant to that.

 

[Scribe]

Eh. Always felt pretty bad to me that you could be doing all this work, saving the world and stopping evil and everything, and then immediately get demoted to Sir Not Appearing In This Film the moment a cutscene happened and the REAL characters (read: WC1-3 NPCs) showed up and acted like they'd just toiled so very hard.

Yeah I can get that. I just appreciated in the original how so much of it felt like you where in it, you were part of it, but that world was going on without you. It didnt revolve around you in the least.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But the thing is you have been super judgemental about GM curation for the whole thread.

In the context of absolute authority, yes.

I dislike anything involving absolute authority other than the one divine authority I recognize. Regular old human beings cannot be trusted with absolute authority--ever. Oversight, accountability, and checks and balances. That's the one and only way to produce a power structure run by humans that won't fall into serious, serious problems.

But now you suddenly are fine with it, except for subset you deem bad (Tolkien-ripoffs.) I may even share your opinion on those, but that is not relevant to the acceptability of the curation in the first place.

So either it is fine to make curated settings or it isn't. Whether those curated settings end up being good, bad, to your liking or not is irrelevant to that.

It's fine to make curated settings...

IF AND ONLY IF YOU EARN YOUR PLAYERS' TRUST AND ENTHUSIASM FIRST.

Something I have, in fact, said repeatedly in this thread. Something I have been repeatedly mocked, derided, or dismissed for saying, thread after thread after thread. Despite it being what seems, to me, an incredibly mild but incredibly important statement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, I don't think you're an elitist jerk, but I do think dismissing this stuff as "painfully stupid" is kind of undercutting any arguments based on D&D being a toolkit or the like. If you believe folks should be doing what they want with it, thinking it's inappropriate and childish to use it X way instead of Y way--so long as X way doesn't do any harm to any of the participants--seems a little hypocritical.

I don't think it is inappropriate. I would just personally hate it. But people are allowed to have different tastes. Or even bad taste.

Eh. Always felt pretty bad to me that you could be doing all this work, saving the world and stopping evil and everything, and then immediately get demoted to Sir Not Appearing In This Film the moment a cutscene happened and the REAL characters (read: WC1-3 NPCs) showed up and acted like they'd just toiled so very hard.

Not saying every game has to canonically feature the PC like FFXIV has the "Warrior of Light" and such. Just that the whiplash from being the one who did all the work to being just some nameless, faceless soldier was either hilarious or frustrating depending on how invested you were in the story.

This I sorta agree with. I still remembered fighting the (incredibly hard) Lich King, finally managing to defeat him, and in the end some stupid NPC just running there to killsteal him. Though FFXIV character being the warrior of light is a bit awkward in the multiplayer game too, as WoL is just one specific person yet there are many characters. I think I prefer if the character is a hero but not the hero.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It's fine to make curated settings...

IF AND ONLY IF YOU EARN YOUR PLAYERS' TRUST AND ENTHUSIASM FIRST.

Scenario: I run a game. My players all trust me. You are invited to join. You dont trust me. What happens?
This scenario has been used in this very thread.

 

[Emerikol]

In the context of absolute authority, yes.

I dislike anything involving absolute authority other than the one divine authority I recognize. Regular old human beings cannot be trusted with absolute authority--ever. Oversight, accountability, and checks and balances. That's the one and only way to produce a power structure run by humans that won't fall into serious, serious problems.

In a game, inside a campaign setting, I don't see much difference between final authority and absolute authority. It's limited because the players can walk. It's limited because the DMs authority is inside the setting and nowhere else. He can't make you eat a turkey sandwich for lunch. So the authority in that sense is not absolute. It is absolute INSIDE the campaign setting.

Now given the various forces OUTSIDE the setting, these may temper the way the DM uses his absolute authority INSIDE the setting. But in the end if the DM won't comply that campaign is dead. If a player won't comply or even all the players, the DM can get more players in theory for that campaign. I'd be sad to see a DM so miss in explaining his style that most players wouldn't side with the DM.

 

[Clint_L]

So to come across as a judgemental elitist jerk a lot of people no doubt already perceive me as, that is genuinely painfully stupid to me. Like if you all are having fun, then more power to you, but I would not run such a game and if this was going on in game I was playing, I would walk.

Now if the participants are literal children, then the childishness is more understandable. I'm sure that as a twelve-year-old I did something roughly as embarrassing.

The first was a neurodivergent kid who came to D&D camp with his fully loaded Darth Vader mask and I was more than happy to do whatever it took to engage him. The second is an ELL student who just wants to make friends and doesn't have great English. Now he has friends to sit with at lunch.

I have bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether the D&D campaign matches my preconceived notions, especially with beginners. I just want them to engage, start learning, have fun, put their phones down, and hopefully make some buddies.

In general, I used to come into campaigns with a story I wanted to tell. Now I try to come in with the attitude that I get to facilitate a story we will generate together. If I put aside my own expectations of what the story should be, I can't be disappointed and will likely be entertained.

Here's an example that @Lanefan will recognize: I was hosting a game of Dread that included him and some members of his VERY long running D&D group. The premise of the game was college rafting trip gone wrong - kind of a Deliverance meets Danger at Dunwater scenario. Anyhow, I asked players to prep a character, and one designed a character who was secretly a vampire.

My first (private) reaction was "well, no, that's not what I had in mind for this story." But then I thought about it...and so what? Just because it wasn't my idea and could take the story in a radically different direction didn't mean it wasn't an awesome idea that could be a ton of fun. The only real issue, aside from my ego, was that a fully powered vampire could obviate a lot of the scenario (super strength, being able to turn into mist, and all that), so I told the player sure, but did she mind de-powering her vampire for those reasons, and she was more than happy to oblige.

The game was super fun, the vampire angle added a whole new element to it and a surprise ending that I could never have predicted, and made the game better for everyone. And all I had to do was let someone else be creative.

I firmly believe that everyone should go with what works for them and their group. If you prefer tight narrative control, then bless. I'm not advising anyone to do anything, but I can report back that the more I let go of my own preconceptions about how the story should be, the more fun I've had helping to create it.

 

[Oofta]

You started off assuming that I would only ever assign these categories to people I disagree with, and thus concluded that nothing I sad had any value.

Your problem was your starting assumption, not my argument.

The amount of vitriol you expressed lead to my response. Not allowing any race a player may want? Bad. Inexperienced/inept DMs? Bad. Mediocre DMs, which you qualify as the majority of DMs? Not quite bad but really darn close.

And then you go on to say that "harmful" DMs are, in so many words, terrible tyrants only interested in their own fun. Which presumably includes most if not all DMs you determine are bad. All based on your subjective judgement of what a bad DM is. There's no logical reason you would consider a DM bad if you agreed with everything they did. I'm not making any assumptions, I based my response based on what you said.

 

[Oofta]

Alignment is irrelevant in 5e, so not the best example.

It's still in the book. It's relevant to me and my players that I don't allow evil PCs.

And, again, in the absence of other information. Did you tell your players you wouldn't let them play X Y Z before things got started? No? Then maybe you should reflect on the consequences of your choices as DM. It's not my fault if the DM only decides three sessions in that they hate sorcerers.

I always let people know my restrictions when I invite them to the game. They can always ask to play a species that I don't allow but because we could come up with a cool backstory and pass as one of the existing species. It's happened a couple of times but I reserve the right to say no.