Either way it's a discussion. You seem to imply that a DM discussing house rules and expectations is a bad thing.
I do not. I'm very specific, it's not hard to tell what I'm saying. I'm saying that when you invoked my as support and then said you put your GM foot down at tell the players what's what, that this is not what I was saying, so you shouldn't use me for support on that.
This isn't rocket science, and I have no idea why you feel the need to make this me saying something entirely different that you can then strawman.
I disagree. As long as the DM is clear on what type and style of game they're running before joining, it's simply letting telling people what I want out of the game to be certain we're on the same page before a single character is created.
And here's the strawman, arguing with a stuffed dummy of your own invention. Beat it up! Kapow! Nicely done, that one's down for the count!
It's not "my way or the highway", it's "this is the highway were talking, if that sounds fun, let's head down the road and see where it takes us "
No, you were clear that it's very easy for you to find players that agree to play the game you pitch, so you do not have to find consensus. You even noted that I might be in a different situation where I have to adapt my games for my friends, which is another interesting statement that assumes facts not needed for my position so as to bin it neatly.
Look, the simple fact is that I'm suggesting seeking consensus and finding out what game everyone wants to play. This doesn't privilege the GM in any way as having a superior voice or more input than the players. You're not there, but you invoked me as support for your position, which I am not advocating. I've pointed this out, politely at first, to clear the air, but you keep doubling down that you were correct to invoke me as supporting your position, and, if not, then I must be suggesting any number of things I haven't said at all so that I can be very wrong indeed. You've cast me as wrong, either way. I either don't understand and am supporting your positions, so invoking me was correct on your part, or I am wrong in that I'm actually, nefariously, suggesting some other things, so your mistake was one of my bad faith in this discussion. I'm really not interested in either -- you are in error that I support your position (past the rather generic deal with out of game things out of game), and in error that I am saying what you've intimated here. It's okay being wrong on this, I don't understand why you're being so defensive. We do not agree on approach, here. Do you think we have to? And, if not, why are you fighting so hard, here, to insist that we do or I'm advocating some wild and wrong ideas?
