And a polite conversation is all that is needed to fix any accidental off behavior. No need for "authority," hell, no need for even rulings much of the time. If a polite conversation is not enough, we aren't talking about players acting in good faith anyway, so it's not a relevant example.
Er...a player can act in good faith and still be impolite about it; ditto a DM. Politeness and good faith do not always correlate.
I really, truly don't have a problem with "authority." I have a problem with "ultimate," with "my way or the highway," with every bloody example being a player acting in bad faith or actively trying to destroy the game.
Honestly. I challenge you to find even a tenth as many examples of a perfectly good-faith player inducing a need for this vaunted "ultimate authority" in order to resolve a problem, compared to the LITANY of examples of bad-faith players. Hence my repeated calling-people-out for getting all huffy when DM bad-faith behavior is used as an analysis, but CONSTANTLY, REPEATEDLY, and INTENTIONALLY only using player bad-faith behavior as their examples.
Since I seem to be failing to communicate why this is a problem: Consider "no one may own guns" laws. A common response to such things is, "That means every person who owns a gun is a criminal. Do you really want that?"
Well, as a matter of fact, yes I do want that.
That's how this comes across; it paints every person who criticizes as BEING a problem. Whether or not that is intended or meant is irrelevant. When the only practical examples given are bad-faith players, what am I to think? I am not being irrational or putting words in someone's mouth. I am just deeply, DEEPLY frustrated at how many people IMMEDIATELY resort to (intentional or unintentional) abusive or destructive behavior as their examples.
My experience is that there's - in very broad strokes - two types of players: those who also frequently DM and those who do not.
Those who also DM tend to, when they criticize or disgree, not necessarily be seeking advantage by so doing: they're looking at the game as a whole.
Those who do not also DM tend to be seeking advantage via their criticisms or disagreements: they're looking out for themselves.
And note that I specifically say "tend to" in each of the above, as I've seen opposite examples both ways.
The group doing so, or, if ABSOLUTELY pressed because there's no time or some other immediate unavoidable practical contingency, the DM saying, "we'll talk about it later, but for now, it doesn't work that way."
Ah, but here you run into another issue: the setting of precedent.
IMO this is why DMs have to be very careful with their on-the-fly rulings, as they're either stuck with that ruling for the rest of the campaign or are willing to sacrifice in-game consistency when they change their minds later.
Because that's actually respecting the player's right--and yes, I DO consider it a right!--to speak up and question what's going on.
You have a right to question what's going on, I agree. By the same token, though, your DM has the right to not answer you; or to give you an answer you didn't want or don't agree with.
Because you are literally saying the only reason I invest in campaigns is to grub for advantage. Now who's being insulting?
You'd be a rare breed indeed if you invested in campaigns to grub for disadvantage.
The above problem, even if it really is true, does not defend this notion. Or, rather, it defends only that players shouldn't trifle with worldbuilding; they should take it seriously, and if they can't actually do so, THEY ARE ACTING IN BAD FAITH ANYWAY. Because WE ALL AGREE that bad-faith player behavior shouldn't be tolerated! Doesn't matter if it's single-person or whole-group bad faith, if someone is acting that way THEY ARE WRONG. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
One person's/group's bad faith could be good faith to another. It depends on what each person/group defines as good, bad, or neutral faith.
Again, I disagree. If the authority is not used in practice, it is not real. See: the monarch of the UK, who theoretically retains absolute power to block whatever Parliament says...but would never actually use it even if it's totally legal to do so because doing so would be idiotic.
Yet I defend her right to that authority notwithstanding; and accept it as real even if it is never likely to be used.
And as a Canadian, technically this directly applies to me.
It works by:
1. Having a respectful, open conversation as soon as practical. Yes, you are correct that SOMETIMES that means deferring the conversation to later so that things can move on right now, but such concerns must also be mitigated. Most of the time, a quick resolution isn't difficult if both sides actually listen to each other.
2. Reviewing the situation after the fact and asking for feedback, both collectively and individually. (Ideally in a three-step "anyone have any comments as we wrap?"/"hey, just wanted to check in with you personally between sessions, see if you had anything to add"/"now that we're back together, anyone wanna talk about any game stuff before we begin?" pattern, which balances out certain flaws of each approach.
Why on earth would I want to have three arguments when settling the issue only takes one? And yes, I mean arguments: I've played with some rather stubborn people and can be one myself, and - fact of life - sometimes people dig in their heels.
Sort it out once whatever it takes, lock it down, and move on.
You do realize this is literally a no-true-scotsman argument in pure, distilled form? "X can't be done" "well here's an example of doing X" "I should have said worthwhile X can't be done."
Fine. In this case I'm cool with that.
