I don't know what just happend, but it seems that Ayn Rand corrupted my player!

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

No. I just dont think the gm should say yes to every request I make.

I never offered that opinion.

Why are we attributing the 'care less' disposition to the GM here. I prefer GMs who run a good game. In my experience a game where the GM says yes to everything players ask for is rarely a good experience. I want to be challenged and surprised by a session. One of my pet peeves is the GM allowing every optional prestige class even when it has no real place in the setting. I guess I want the GM to decide requests case by case depending on hoe reasonable or disruptive they may be.

I'm attributing that disposition because I don't agree that a DM who is dismissive of his players requests cares about their enjoyment.

Once again, I never offered that the GM says yes to everything. I offered that the GM should always cooperate and compromise with their players on a request by request basis.

If you disagree with something why is it so hard to say "That's going to be hard but how about we do it this way" instead of saying "No, I'm not going to do that, sorry"?

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

But, sometimes my preferences do out-rule theirs. That, sir, is real cooperation. Sometimes, I get my way. Sometimes, I let the other person have their way. Sometimes we pick something in the middle that is not quite what either of us really want. Give and take. If I am not allowed to say, "No," if that is never considered justified, then we aren't talking about cooperation, but obligation.

I disagree. Neither preferences out-rule each other. If you and your players are bent on getting your way then that's not a group or people I'd be involved with. I also think you should always strive for the middle ground.

I don't always get what I want and neither do my players but we're all adults who can reach a happy compromise and are not concerned with getting our way.

Sniping at the players is uncalled for, I agree.

But, I think you have causality wrong. Folks don't generally snipe at others *because* they feel their position is more justified. They snipe because they feel put upon, insulted, or have otherwise had their feelings hurt, or need their egos boosted. Humans tear each other down all too frequently, not usually because they are right, but to make themselves feel they are right.

Don't confuse the rationalization of an act for the cause of the act. They often aren't the same.

Alright, we agree that it's uncalled for despite the technicalities.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The OP was dismissive and uncompromising. I'm not assuming that or jumping to conclusions.

You are basing your opinion on a sample size of "1", with no clue as to how many other suggestions the OP and players bandied about- that is virtually a textbook example of jumping to a conclusion.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

HLTW, you are assuming the OP- and anyone who might say no- is saying no all the time. This is an assumption without an ounce of support, and it is NOT what our position is.

No, I'm not. You are assuming that's what I'm saying but if I've been unclear, I'll try to be as clear as possible now.

My position is that you should never say "no" outright because you think your preferences as a DM hold more clout over the preferences of your players. You should always be cooperative with them by reaching a compromise. Saying:

Sorry but I will not change this game from rpg to a scenario where there is no challenge and I just reade what you give me. My decision is final

Is wrong because its uncomprisming and dismissive. Not to mention the swipe he takes at them with his "non-RPG" remark. This kind of "no" and sniping at the players, after the fact, is what I consider authoritarian.

You have expressed an opinion that dissents from mine, which to me is also agreeing with OP, and attributed the players with "entitlement issues". That's fine but I think this kind of DMing harbours its own set of entitlement issues not to mention being authoritarian.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

You are basing your opinion on a sample size of "1", with no clue as to how many other suggestions the OP and players bandied about- that is virtually a textbook example of jumping to a conclusion.

It doesn't matter how many times he was being dismissive and uncompromising, it matters that he was being dismissive and uncompromising.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is a preference issue wolf. I can see how you want yes or compromiee, but I think no should remain an option for the gm. There are some very good reasons to deny requests (something doesn't fit the campaign, bothers others players, creates balance issues, etc).

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I think this is a preference issue wolf. I can see how you want yes or compromiee, but I think no should remain an option for the gm. There are some very good reasons to deny requests (something doesn't fit the campaign, bothers others players, creates balance issues, etc).

Okay, and I think those reasons are just as easily compromised than rejected. So we'll leave it at that?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The page at the link in your post says that the Fated are influenced by Max Stirner; and it says that the Fated serve as the tax collectors.

That doesn't sound much like Ayn Rand to me, at all. Objectivists don't like tax collectors very much. As I see it, Objectivism is more like the "Free League" non-faction: essentially libertarian in outlook.

The Objectivism comes in the ethical dimension, rather than the political one. The Fated believe that rational self-interest is the moral rightness. They reject altruism. They are tax collectors, but the taxes don't go to the poor in Sigil (there's no real form of economic wealth redistribution), they go to the Fated (and the Fated's interests and allies). This is in their rational self-interest, and, as they are clearly the only ethical Faction in the city (by their own definition), it's in everyone else's rational self-interest, too, since if they followed the Fated philosophy, they would join the Fated, and thus have the funds distributed to them.

Of course, it is not an expy. There's key differences (for one, the Fated hold to a sort of individualist anarchism -- the rights belonging to those who can take them -- as opposed to Rand, who seemed to think that there was a role for the state in protecting an individual's rights), certainly.

But the Galt line in AS: "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.", is very kin.

The Free League is pretty Libertarian, too, and they'd find allies in the Fated in certain respects (they both probably support Sigil's...infamously...free market!), certainly.

 

[Umbran]

It is not an "appeal to authority" to tell you that I deal with compromise for a living.

An "appeal to authority" is when I point to a third party expert- "Henry Kissinger says..."

Um, Danny? Argument from authority is a form of appeal to authority. You put forth your credentials, establishing yourself as an expert - like it or not, you are appealing to your own professional experience as a form of authority.

 

[FireLance]

The page at the link in your post says that the Fated are influenced by Max Stirner; and it says that the Fated serve as the tax collectors.

Somewhat off-topic, but I always felt that the core Fated ideology of working hard to earn your successes and refusing to accept charity and handouts were quite praiseworthy. However, somehow, this tended to get corrupted into greed and selfishness (grab what you can, don't give away anything for free) in the published materials.