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.

Dude, dealing with 5e players is just the worst. I've spent so much time and energy learning how to deprogram them. 3rd edition was a mistake

I told him the game focuses on the group and if he's not part of the group then he won't be playing, and since that first game he has participated, with few issues popping up. I probably could have been clearer before we even got to the table that if you aren't playing with the group then you aren't playing, rather than just expect them to stick with a group on their first game.

If that's what you took away from my comments, have fun I guess.

I learn about the characters, myself included, throughout the campaign through their actions. Otherwise session one is like that time I asked a coworker about one of his tattoos and had to hear about his sister's murder. That's more of a session two+ thing to me.

Your rules are great, I agree you deserve some privileges when acting as DM because rod the effort you put in. My comment wasn't on that front. But if you are enforcing the rules, and receiving different treatment because of them, you deserve that. But if you are win control of the space, you set the rules and you enforce them. You're a 'ruler' in that context. My point is, your anarchism isn't really at play here.

I've seen it once...it was used against a single player because he refused to play anything but loners who backstabbed immediately and it was mostly used to piss him off enough he quit the group. He should have just been kicked out, sure. I think the dm just hated doing that which was cowardly. Buuut he was gone and that game was much more enjoyable!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you should read some anarchist political theory if you want to address their actual beliefs. This is exactly the kind of communal structure that anarchists advocate for: a voluntary collective where everyone agrees to contribute to furthering certain goals, values, and objectives. OP is not coercing players to be in their game or to do things their way; they're saying "this is the game that I run, take it or leave it," and the players can join if they share the same goals.

If the person playing is hellbent on being a lone wolf, they shouldn't have entered the game. Roleplaying a character who has trust issues but is willing to give the party a chance to convince them they're trustworthy is very reasonable, though - realistic, even.

Don't forget to hydrate. Must be tired after all that mental gymnastics.

I could tell by your first comment that you didn't care to know about how others think. Ignorance is a lot easier than education, I can't really blame you; I'm just disappointed.