I think that was the right action, but you could have explained better. Instead of just "Ok, you stay at the tavern" something like "Ok, you can stay at the tavern if you really want to, but you *do* understand that will mean you're sitting here bored all afternoon while the rest of us play, right?"

Sorry for being off-topic, but I don't think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn't anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people's brains about this stuff.

What are we, some sort of Shadowrun?

Yeah you definitely showed that 12 yr old who is boss...

I told him multiple times that if he was going to try and do his own thing, he won't be participating with the group, and the group is the entire focus of the game. I suppose I could have made it more explicit that he could join the group or he could leave the game.

It might be your least favorite part of DnD, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who enjoy meeting a new group of characters and finding out about their particular ticks and specialties.

Yeah. He has a lot of rules and demands for an "anarchist" lol.

I actually made this work in a recent cheesy short campaign. My character was an intelligent monkey, although he was still an animal and couldn't speak. After meeting the party, he decided to go do his own thing, which just so happened to be the same thing as the rest of the party. It worked out really well. The rest of the party could navigate social challenges without having to explain the monkey, I could sneak around and grab MacGuffins without having to accommodate huge humans who were terrible at climbing. I doubt it works well for longer or more serious games, but it matched the hectic nature of the campaign and led to some hilarious moments.

> Communal resources seems to go against that Mutual aid is a fundamental principle of (most types of) anarchism, as is freedom of association. In other words: if the PCs don't like it, they can make their own game with their own rules.

Yeah, in that case I think you did everything that could reasonably be expected of you.

The fact your seeking feedback suggests no, but it was certainly a bad move, both as a DM and as an uncle. Punishing anyone, though especially children, without explaining why *is* mean. You have a responsibility to clearly communicate problems with others as an authority figure at the table and in their life. I don't necessarily think the punishment was unreasonable, but if it's not explained to them, it just comes across as arbitrary and vindictive. Imo, the best way to handle issues like that is to set the rules and consequences, making them clear to everyone, and to be *consistent* in their application. Letting people off or being vindictive will just exacerbate things.

Absolutely. The GMs got tables to help them determine what's going on - you've got one person. Engage with the setting, not a piece of paper. And yes, DMs, sometimes that means adjusting your plans on the fly to make what they do have fun consequences. That's our job.

Anarchism means "no rulers" not "no rules". If we all consent then what's the problem? IRL consent is complicated by coercion - you can't disagree with your boss because if they fire you, you can't pay your bills. DND is an asymmetrical activity. One person, the DM, has an outsized level of effort required. If im expected to create a whole world, NPCs, plots, and respond to all your nonsense, I think its totally fair to ask the players abide by a simple code of conduct. Again, I've almost never had issues.

See my other reply re: "no rules" Also, just read the first chapter or two of this. It's very, very accessible https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

Political anarchy is not inherently against rules. Anarchy does not mean that everything is on fire and everyone steals from others and do whatever they want, that's just a common misconception. Also it's only 3 pretty basic rules, nothing particularly crazy about them

Thank you. ️ I'm not hurting for players. I run my game exactly as often as I want to.

I think it's funny that I have the exact same *rule zero*: I'll reluctantly *play* 5e, but I won't run it.

I've got a second tho so I'll try: 1) it means "no rulers", from Greek. Not no rules. You can't have more than 2 people without some rules, we just want to all be able to agree with them. Anarchists by and large are opposed to *hierarchy*, that's the focus. We tend to like direct democracy and communal organizational structures. The stories I tell don't have to be purely anarchist in structure. If im DMing, and we all agreed to the God Curse if you screw over your party, and then one player does - who's responsible? The one with full knowledge of the consequences who then did the thing anyway, right? Look: as a political philosophy, anarchism exists in the real world. There are people who've done it very successfully. But that's not why I call myself an anarchist. I do so because when I discovered anarchism, I found other people who thought the way I did. I'm an anarchist because my *soul* is anarchist and always has been. I *also* think its what we need to do if we're going to survive climate change, but fuck me for trying to convince anyone of that, so I keep to myself.

Thank you. I've given a *lot* of thought to this. I want everyone to have fun, even if its not my kinda fun. But any player's right to do so stops when they make that impossible the rest of us.

Nah brother you did the best you could, 12yos are pains in the ass.