Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9000424" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The problem is, that &quot;agreement&quot; is often never actually stated...and a significant portion of the time, it becomes contentious specifically because the DM is using rule zero in a way which seems to be inconsistent with that agreement. I can't tell you how many posters on this forum have said that their argument in favor of doing a thing I personally vehemently oppose (such as fudging) is, in not so many words, &quot;What, don't you trust me?&quot; And such an argument is one of the best ways to make me think someone doesn't deserve my trust.That is, the player is going to object only in cases where &quot;the judgment of the DM to make the calls for the betterment of the game overall&quot; is being disputed. When the &quot;faith in...[giving] this person the power&quot; has been shaken. At which point you aren't going to make any progress at all by citing Rule Zero or someone's agreement (whether tacit or explicit) with it. Instead, you have to restore the lost trust, reassure the objecting player, make clear that that faith does not need to be disputed. And that's exactly what you'd do without an explicit Rule Zero everyone has agreed to, isn't it?So, do you genuinely believe that simply having each player explicitly say, &quot;I will trust the DM to exercise power reasonably, and have faith in her judgment, and accept that her decisions are good of the game overall even if they seem to be bad choices,&quot; will thus prevent any possibility of any player ceasing to believe that the DM's use of such power actually is reasonable, involves sound judgment, and is solely for the good of the game overall?Because I don't believe that for a second. The existence of even an explicit agreement (and such things are almost never explicit IRL) does not prevent the possibility of anyone saying, &quot;Wait, that makes no sense at all, how could that possibly be good for the game, even overall???&quot; And as soon as that happens, the aforementioned agreement is already out the window, because the player believes the DM has violated it.Not the way most people talk about it around here. My-way-or-the-highway-ism is rampant among folks championing Rule Zero.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9000424, member: 6790260"] The problem is, that "agreement" is often never actually stated...and a significant portion of the time, it becomes contentious specifically because the DM is using rule zero in a way which seems to be inconsistent with that agreement. I can't tell you how many posters on this forum have said that their argument in favor of doing a thing I personally [I]vehemently oppose[/I] (such as fudging) is, in not so many words, "What, don't you [I]trust[/I] me?" And such an argument is one of the best ways to make me think someone [I]doesn't[/I] deserve my trust. That is, the player is going to object only in cases where "the judgment of the DM to make the calls for the betterment of the game overall" [I]is being disputed[/I]. When the "faith in...[giving] this person the power" has been shaken. At which point you aren't going to make any progress at all by citing Rule Zero or someone's agreement (whether tacit or explicit) with it. Instead, you have to restore the lost trust, reassure the objecting player, make clear that that faith does not need to be disputed. And that's exactly what you'd do [I]without[/I] an explicit Rule Zero everyone has agreed to, isn't it? So, do you genuinely believe that simply having each player explicitly say, "I will trust the DM to exercise power reasonably, and have faith in her judgment, and accept that her decisions are good of the game overall even if they seem to be bad choices," will thus prevent any possibility of any player ceasing to believe that the DM's use of such power [I]actually is[/I] reasonable, involves sound judgment, and is solely for the good of the game overall? Because I don't believe that for a second. The existence of even an explicit agreement (and such things are almost never explicit IRL) does not prevent the possibility of anyone saying, "Wait, that makes no sense at all, how could that possibly be good for the game, even overall???" And as soon as that happens, the aforementioned agreement is already out the window, because the [I]player[/I] believes the [I]DM[/I] has violated it. Not the way most people talk about it around here. My-way-or-the-highway-ism is [I]rampant[/I] among folks championing Rule Zero. [/QUOTE]

Verification