Search results

But you do know it's not intended that way. Clarity and additional nuance has been added repeatedly by a range of posters, but you keep leaping on specific phrases and words and choosing to interpret them in the most extreme or silly way you can, in order to do things like accuse people of being...

Speaking for myself, when I've said anything like this, I've been saying that I simply have no interest in playing with strangers, in general. My gaming is something I do with my friends. But during the lengthy initial discussion of trust, the people you're referring to, including me, also said...

If you are going to quibble and say the restrictions aren't reducing power, I'm not going to bother arguing. Choose another word that works for you. This is yet another complete straw man. The literal answer here is that no one in this thread is claiming their judgement is better than anyone...

And some of us, like me, have said they actively try to avoid doing that too much. And you know what? That's OK. The "sandbox DMs" are not a monoculture all marching in lockstep. We all have our own way of doing things, and anyone who assumes that any of us speak for all of us in everything...

You have made it clear that it doesn't work for you; I don't think it's unreasonable for people to suggest that you accept this. It really does feel like your insistence on fighting this good fight is causing you nothing but stress and anger. Bluntly, when you demand that I explain what steps I...

It's certainly my objective, and every person you're arguing with has said the same thing on multiple occasions Too bad you're having this argument with a scarecrow.

I've gone to significant effort to explain this for you on a couple of occasions, but you ignore those responses so you can rant at other posters and complain to them that no one will answer you. This may or may not be the case, but one thing seems abundantly clear. This style is absolutely not...

Well, of course the game designed with the specific intent of constraining the GM does so more than a system that empowers the GM to make judgement calls as they see fit. I can't see anyone disputing that. I will dispute any claim that one method is inherently superior to the other.

I think this is in large part because it's all very context dependent. But first, and politely, you're exaggerating and changing the things I just said, so I'd ask you to take a small step back. I absolutely did not describe anything as an "example of problematic DMing that no player should...

If the players are offered a naturalistic, plausible game, but don't feel they're getting it, they affect the situation by telling the GM how they feel. The involved parties then discuss the point of contention and hopefully arrive at an understanding and a closer alignment on what is...

Fortunately, I'm far more rigorous about lake and ocean placement than my players are about analysing it. As such, even though my placement might not be rigorous enough to satisfy a geologist (or whatever other 'ists study planetary formation, rainfall patterns, processes of erosion, fluid...

So you think he might agree he's accountable even though not responsible? What does it mean to you if the the GM is accountable but not responsible? I can't see how accountability can be considered irrelevant to a discussion of responsibility unless you're using some extremely strange...

No, because at no point has he claimed that he is not responsible for his decisions or not accountable to his players. He has, in fact, stated clearly on multiple occasions that his players are welcome to question him and that he will be completely open with them about his processes. I can...

The GM is always ultimately accountable to the players at the table. The players are always ultimately accountable to the GM and each other. It doesn't matter where the GM gets their information or what their process is. It doesn't matter whether the setting is independent or not. It doesn't...

I overlooked this part of your earlier post, until @Faolyn quoted it. We would resolve it through a conversation. As GM, if one of my players was telling me they had reliable research to suggest the penalties were too harsh and the rules were realistic enough for it to matter, I'd probably rule...

If we are talking about irreconcilable differences of perspective then I can't see any method of GMing working for me. If we're not, then, in my experience, disagreements do, indeed, usually come down to miscommunication. However, if the reason wasn't a miscommunication and wasn't the result...

We don't need need some objective rating of plausibility that can be reduced to some hard, numerical rating, though. Do the players feel it's plausible? Do the players feel that less plausible things fall within an acceptable range as plausible outliers? Then it's plausible enough, which is all...

I explain my position, the GM explains theirs, we reach a decision, we move on. Most likely, the root cause of the disagreement was a miscommunication and we both had slightly different understandings of the situation, so once we identify that point of confusion, it's generally easy to reach a...

This response seem to have little or nothing to do with what I said. A DM being required to automatically discount a resolution as soon as any player questions it also sounds pretty dysfunctional to me. My expectation is that players and GMs are able to arrive at mutually agreeable...

A game where the players' opinions just don't matter is a dysfunctional one, and I am confident that no one in this thread is advocating for dysfunctional games. "This playstyle won't work if the GM doesn't care what their players think," is a given, as far as I'm concerned.