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

[Micah Sweet]

Why would I want my RPGing to resemble a MMO?

Well, a lot of people seem to think Astaroth is pretty cool. I always liked it back in the day. I don't see how liking it has anything to do with how you run games.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's about being respectful of others' preferences, even if you don't share them. "Knock-off" is pejorative in common parlance.

Are we allowed to take people to task for pejoratives then?

So I can do so if people refer to collaboration as "design by committe"? Or if folks immediately presume that DMs need absolute power in order to protect their games from bad-faith players?

Because this is absolutely something I would very much appreciate a clear go-ahead for.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do they actually say that (I honestly do not know)? That would be pretty short-sighted of them (WotC) in my view.
How do you reconcile the above (should it exist) with what is stated in the DMG where it very matter of factly states the DM is the master of the setting and decides what is allowed and what isn't?

Absolutely. Here is the text:

Choosing a Race​

Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species. Your character belongs to one of these peoples.
Not every intelligent race of the mlutiverse is appropriate for a player-controlled adventurer. Dwaves, elves, halflings, and humans are the most common races to produce the sorts of adventurers who make up typical parties. Dragonborn, gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings are less common as adventurers. Drow, a subrace of elves, are also uncommon.

I absolutely despise this and other things (like the "true exotics" phrase). These things openly prejudice the game toward specific things and away from others. They are emphatically not something a "toolbox" should EVER be declaring, period.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"I go into the castle to talk to the king"

Options for Response:

"Okay, so the guards stop you at the entrance to the keep and ask your business."

or

"Tell me exactly how or you will be stabbed"

Yup. I'm the one in bad faith.

No one said anything about "walking up to the gates". The just said the went into the castle, and there are many ways a PC might try to get into a castle, and when I asked for clarification, all I got was a snarky response. That's a bad faith player, refusing to engage properly with the game. Not only are they stabbed, they are out of the game. No one gets to be snarky, because that isn't fun for anyone other than the snarky player.

If, rather than saying "I go into the castle and see the king" (intent, not an action), they had said "I walk up to the castle gate and ask to see the king" (action), they might have been turned away, the might have been admitted, they might have been asked for a skill check, depending on the situation. Whatever the outcome, they are engaging properly with the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"hey guys, i'm using a star wars setting, you can be any species, from any planet, and go anywhere and do anything that's in star wars"
"what? i ONLY get to be ANYTHING from star wars? but that's so limiting!"

Really? Are we really going here? This isn't even an argument, it's just a strawman.

We are very clearly talking about people NOT doing this specific, exact thing. We are very clearly talking about people saying "we're playing Star Wars, but you can ONLY play humans. Nothing else. Period."

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the players aren't interested in taking the game seriously in the way the GM aspires to, does anyone think that rule zero is the solution?

Right.

This seems to be less about the players engaging with the setting and more about the GM wanting to run a railroad (or something in that neighbourhood) while not being willing to be upfront about that.

And it's certainly a long, long way from the sort of approach to RPGing that I'm looking for. (As player or GM.)

Providing opportunities within the setting for adventure that the players can pick and choose from (while always allowing for the possibility of the players doing sonething else) is a railroad to you? That's, like, the definition of a sandbox.

As much as you've written, sometimes I still have a hard time understanding your perspective.

 

[Oofta]

Really? Are we really going here? This isn't even an argument, it's just a strawman.

We are very clearly talking about people NOT doing this specific, exact thing. We are very clearly talking about people saying "we're playing Star Wars, but you can ONLY play humans. Nothing else. Period."

If a DM limits a campaign to human only why would that be an issue? Depending on what they have in mind, it might be interesting. Or not. But that limitation alone doesn't tell me much if anything.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think there should be initial trust. But even if a DM for no reason other than he just hates a particular race, spell, class, magic item etc..., I think the DM has the right to remove it. He is not going to be a good DM with something he hates irritating him at every turn. We need more DMs and even if you don't like what he or she is offering you can just choose another DM.

For me? I think some DMs need to get over themselves and learn that ban-this, ban-that is actually a pretty destructive way to run games.

I certainly agree we need more DMs. I don't see how that has any intersection whatsoever with the topic at hand.

I give a DM the benefit of the doubt going into the game. I can usually tell fairly early if a DM is not the type I like.

I'm willing to hear what they have to say. I, too, believe I can suss some of this out relatively early (most of the time). One of the things that enables that is looking at whether they're open or closed to other ideas, whether they're ban-this ban-that or generally much more chill, and how sensitive they are to disruption of their preconceived notions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No one said anything about "walking up to the gates". The just said the went into the castle, and there are many ways a PC might try to get into a castle, and when I asked for clarification, all I got was a snarky response. That's a bad faith player, refusing to engage properly with the game. Not only are they stabbed, they are out of the game. No one gets to be snarky, because that isn't fun for anyone other than the snarky player.

If, rather than saying "I go into the castle and see the king" (intent, not an action), they had said "I walk up to the castle gate and ask to see the king" (action), they might have been turned away, the might have been admitted, they might have been asked for a skill check, depending on the situation.

Maybe we should just leave twisting words into the worst possible result for genie wishes or even better, never.

They expressed their intent, said nothing about breaking in, walking through walls, any of this other stuff. They said they 'went to the castle' or 'went into the castle', a thing people in the area will do every day and got met with a smartass response, not an ask for clarification.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If a DM limits a campaign to human only why would that be an issue? Depending on what they have in mind, it might be interesting. Or not. But that limitation alone doesn't tell me much if anything.

At least in my case, it tells me that that DM doesn't really understand one of the main draws of the Star Wars setting.