D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[SableWyvern]

"By mutual consent" isn't enough for a sandbox. I thought this, too, was already established. If all you need is mutual consent, then literally every game ever has been the purest sandbox possible unless the DM outright lied to their players.

Two: Wait, so now collaborative development IS a thing? Something that I know multiple people very specifically rejected as utterly unacceptable in this thread?

One: If you can point me to where I said mutual consent is the only thing a sandbox needs, I'll be happy to address this point. Otherwise, I will pass on that straw man.

Two: If someone else told you GM's can run games without the consent of their players, take it up with them, there's no point directing your faux shock at me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One: If you can point me to where I said mutual consent is the only thing a sandbox needs, I'll be happy to address this point. Otherwise, I will pass on that straw man.

Two: If someone else told you GM's can run games without the consent of their players, take it up with them, there's no point directing your faux shock at me.

It's not faux shock. I am genuinely getting really really frustrated at what seems like constantly shifting goalposts and "definitions" that last for a hundred posts and then get upended when it's no longer convenient to stick to them.

 

[SableWyvern]

It's not faux shock. I am genuinely getting really really frustrated at what seems like constantly shifting goalposts and "definitions" that last for a hundred posts and then get upended when it's no longer convenient to stick to them.

Well, if you can find any example from anyone in this thread actually claiming that a GM in any style of play is able to make any decision without either the implicit or explicit consent of the players, I will happily join you in disagreeing with them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I am intensely curious to know what rules are required for how the group should imagine things. Particularly from someone with old-school sensibilities such as yourself.

Just one. The DM describes the situation and resolves any discrepancies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just one. The DM describes the situation and resolves any discrepancies.

I was expecting an answer that involved rules. But whatever. I'm tired of participating in this so-called "discussion".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, if you can find any example from anyone in this thread actually claiming that a GM in any style of play is able to make any decision without either the implicit or explicit consent of the players, I will happily join you in disagreeing with them.

I mean, literally the dozens and dozens of times people spoke of the DM pre-writing the setting so that it must necessarily be independent of the PCs and the players?

Like I figured that was literally the intent was that there wasn't and couldn't be "consent" from the players about that. To have it involve player consent in any way would be making it not independent.

But I genuinely don't expect any actual progress here. In the last 2000 posts, nothing has been achieved. I haven't even gained new understanding of anything. We've just circled round and round and round and round, with what seems to me like one side doggedly insistent of a bunch of things that are either vague to the point of uselessness, contradictory when actually examined, or not actually distinguishing anything from anything else.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I was expecting an answer that involved rules. But whatever. I'm tired of participating in this so-called "discussion".

Err, why do you claim that is not a rule?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean, literally the dozens and dozens of times people spoke of the DM pre-writing the setting so that it must necessarily be independent of the PCs and the players?

The DM creates the setting. But it is not necessarily pre-written. The quality will be better if it is written ahead of time, but if the players do something unexpected the DM has to create it on the fly.

Teaching is just the same really. It's considered good practice to have a detailed lesson plan, but it is possible to make a lesson up on the fly - it's just less likely to be good. And sometimes something goes wrong and you have to make it up on the fly.

 

[SableWyvern]

I mean, literally the dozens and dozens of times people spoke of the DM pre-writing the setting so that it must necessarily be independent of the PCs and the players?

Like I figured that was literally the intent was that there wasn't and couldn't be "consent" from the players about that. To have it involve player consent in any way would be making it not independent.

But I genuinely don't expect any actual progress here. In the last 2000 posts, nothing has been achieved. I haven't even gained new understanding of anything. We've just circled round and round and round and round, with what seems to me like one side doggedly insistent of a bunch of things that are either vague to the point of uselessness, contradictory when actually examined, or not actually distinguishing anything from anything else.

Well, if you honestly believe anyone in this thread is arguing that it is possible to run a game without any form of consent from the players, then you are absolutely correct, there is no possible hope of progress.

I mean, I also understand why you would disagree with someone holding that position so vehemently, because that would be a ridiculous position to hold. But the thing is, no one does hold that opinion, so I'm not sure who or what you're really arguing against.

It's as if you are interpreting the things people say in the most extreme and ridiculous way possible, assuming they hold completely untenable positions and then getting frustrated they won't back down, when it would be much simpler to reinterpret what they're saying in a more reasonable light, at which point you might find you don't actually disagree all that much.

But I am pretty sure I said something similar ten or twenty pages back.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, if you honestly believe anyone in this thread is arguing that it is possible to run a game without any form of consent from the players, then you are absolutely correct, there is no possible hope of progress.

I mean, I also understand why you would disagree with someone holding that position so vehemently, because that would be a ridiculous position to hold. But the thing is, no one does hold that opinion, so I'm not sure who or what you're really arguing against.

It's as if you are interpreting the things people say in the most extreme and ridiculous way possible, assuming they hold completely untenable positions and then getting frustrated they won't back down, when it would be much simpler to reinterpret what they're saying in a more reasonable light, at which point you might find you don't actually disagree all that much.

But I am pretty sure I said something similar ten or twenty pages back.

Every time I try to engage with people by taking their things seriously, they do exactly this to me, AND jump to extreme positions. It's been going on for years on here now. Consider asking @Maxperson about whether the DM has "absolute authority" or not. I did literally everything I could to get him to shy away from that terminology. He adamantly refused--and adamantly insisted that it was, in fact, "absolute authority" as both of us understood that phrase.

When time after time the extreme position has in fact been what people are advocating, what am I to do?