If you have an issue with this obviously sketchy Vampire 5e rule you are:
Setting aside the "obviously sketchy"(not to your taste, fine; but there's nothing inherently sketchy about doing some session 0 stuff with player input), that's literally not what I said. Like not even a little bit. Let me quote some relevant parts.
The GM is always going to be in the minority in any vote. Why would a player ever rationally choose to be restricted? I'm sure if I ask my players after they got wrecked by some sanity damage in Gumshoe if they should eliminate these sanity rules they would say yes, in the long run restrictive play produces immersive thematic gaming but in the moment you'd never ask for it. When I ran my a one ring game the fact that players got damaged and accumulated shadow over time made for a really interesting story but if I had asked at the beginning of the game would you want to risk getting worse no one would say yes.
See here? The OP comes in already assuming a lot about what will happen when people use rules like this. That players simply will want easy street if asked. Some will, sure, but it's far from universal. Anyone who's seen the discussion here knows that's just not true. Plenty of people like challenge and real risk in their games. Second, just because someone
wants things easy doesn't mean they're going to screw over the other players in order to get it.
Lots of players compromise. There's just a lot of baseless assumptions being thrown out. I don't think the question in the title was asked in good faith, but I choose to treat it as if it is because it's an interesting question with an answer that's a lot simpler than a lot of people realize.
You'll also notice in my posts that I use a few "ifs," as in conditionals, in my posts. I don't use them every time, but enough that you should know that I'm saying
if his fellow players are really that bad(which I seriously doubt; I honestly think the OP's assertions are baseless),
then they are toxic, petty, etc. It's a conditional for which I don't actually think the condition has been met. I'm sorry I didn't explicitly point that out. I should have known better.
If their fellow players would actually do the things they're claiming if given the chance . . . yeah, I wouldn't want to play with them in this system
or any other, tbh.
Oh, and before anyone says anything, obviously there are plenty of valid reasons why someone might not want to run or play a game using such rules - either changing the rules or playing a different game altogether. Maybe they want a single dedicated GM to have all of the control over those things. That's fine. Maybe they know someone in the group suffers from decision paralysis or is just not comfortable making those kinds of decisions. Also fine. But all this psychoanalyzing of people that simply doesn't match up with any real evidence? Ugh, please, spare us all.
And here's a bit from me where I kind of pre-empted the whole "If you have an issue with this obviously sketchy Vampire 5e rule" thing here. There are a lot of very good and valid reasons one might not want to use such rules. That's pretty obvious. I don't like 3e. I do like Fantasy Craft. I don't like Masks. I do like Urban Shadows. I have reasons for all of them. Literally none of those reasons are about assumptions(which would be wrong) about what the average player is going to do with those rules. (Other than my general assumption of good faith until shown otherwise, of course, at which point we can deal with it.)
Besides the obvious that it probably isn't a good debate strategy to simply insult those who disagree with you, just because you expect players to be "good gamers" doesn't mean you should be tempting them to act otherwise.
I'm insulting fictional people that I don't think actually exist, as again, I don't actually think the conditions to my if-then statements have been met. Setting aside the fact that just assuming that gamers will do the things mentioned in the OP if given the chance is pretty darn insulting. Some will, sure. Every group large enough has its bad apples. But there's absolutely
nothing to indicate that this would be the case in even a majority of groups, much less enough of them for it to be a meaningful assertion. The evidence simply isn't there. Like I wish the OP dude had just come in like "Hey, I heard about this, and it seems pretty weird to me. Could someone more familiar with these kinds of rules tell me a bit about how they worked at your table and how you kept the people now sharing in the GM duties(to one extent or another) from abusing them?" But the dude came in guns blazing with assumptions pulled out of thin air. Like . . . why just assume?
And, of course, there's the irony of requiring players to be model citizens in a game where the players are pretending to be murderers and rapists.
Yeah, um . . . not really sure where you're going with this last part. I expect players in my game, whether they share in any GM duties or not, to be civil and non-disruptive. If they do share in the GM duties, I expect them to use that power when they have it for the enjoyment of the whole group, just like I expect from a solo GM(I mean make a good faith effort to do so. I'm not expecting them to be perfect by any means. Sometimes they make a mistake or introduce something that falls flat, and . . . well, that's a whole different thing from being
intentionally disruptive.)
And, um, . . . yes, obviously I expect the average player to act a
lot better in real life than their characters. There are tons of things characters do in a lot of games, including the current most popular ones; and are justified in because of setting conceits that simply wouldn't pass muster IRL. I don't know why someone playing a vampire or an Orc or whatever should lower my expectations for them IRL.