Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8695473" data-attributes="member: 23751">You do realize that none of them, even the ones that lie, are attempting to &quot;ruin&quot; the game, right?&nbsp; It may have that effect on you, but that's not their goal.You're the only one of the two of us talking in absolutes about playstyle here.&nbsp; With you're, &quot;They're lying to me and trying to ruin games!&quot; by wanting to have fun trying to make a fun magic item for their character.&nbsp; The bastards!&nbsp; If there's any One True Wayism going on here, it's from you.The farrier whose only job is to put horseshoes on horses and the blacksmith whose job it is to make horseshoes? Man, if you have to jump through twisty swinging hoops to figure out a way for two people who rely on one another not to know one another, you might want to rethink your position.&nbsp; Heck, not even your suggestion there shuts down what I said in that other post.&nbsp; All it does is change, &quot;I know the blacksmith and can introduce you,&quot; into &quot;My wife knows him or his wife, we can see if she can get you an introduction.&quot;But hey, by all means shut it down if you've told the players before the campaign started that side quests like that are not going to be allowed, but don'tCool. Cool.&nbsp; Then it's wrong for you to declare that no side quests &quot;Must be the way it is.&quot;&nbsp; Fortunately, I don't run my games like that or force things on players.It's actually impossible for there to be no social contract in a social game.&nbsp; It's present.&nbsp; That you haven't consciously written one isn't relevant, nor does it mean that one doesn't exist.&nbsp; Depending on what you've set up with the players before the campaign began it could be very different than the one that is present in my game, but it exists whether you want it to or not.If the DM has a valid in fiction reason for to happen and the goal isn't to shut down player agency, it's fine.&nbsp; The vast majority of smiths have probably never worked with the metal and wouldn't know how.&nbsp; Some might.&nbsp; And some might be willing to learn.&nbsp; Who knows. As long as you are not invalidating player agency, it's all good.Where on earth did you get that ridiculous notion? It almost sounds as if you are deliberately trying to not understand what we are saying and just throw out absurdly contrary comments.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8695473, member: 23751"] You do realize that none of them, even the ones that lie, are attempting to "ruin" the game, right? It may have that effect on you, but that's not their goal. You're the only one of the two of us talking in absolutes about playstyle here. With you're, "They're lying to me and trying to ruin games!" by wanting to have fun trying to make a fun magic item for their character. The bastards! If there's any One True Wayism going on here, it's from you. The farrier whose only job is to put horseshoes on horses and the blacksmith whose job it is to make horseshoes? Man, if you have to jump through twisty swinging hoops to figure out a way for two people who rely on one another not to know one another, you might want to rethink your position. Heck, not even your suggestion there shuts down what I said in that other post. All it does is change, "I know the blacksmith and can introduce you," into "My wife knows him or his wife, we can see if she can get you an introduction." But hey, by all means shut it down if you've told the players before the campaign started that side quests like that are not going to be allowed, but don't Cool. Cool. Then it's wrong for you to declare that no side quests "Must be the way it is." Fortunately, I don't run my games like that or force things on players. It's actually impossible for there to be no social contract in a social game. It's present. That you haven't consciously written one isn't relevant, nor does it mean that one doesn't exist. Depending on what you've set up with the players before the campaign began it could be very different than the one that is present in my game, but it exists whether you want it to or not. If the DM has a valid in fiction reason for to happen and the goal isn't to shut down player agency, it's fine. The vast majority of smiths have probably never worked with the metal and wouldn't know how. Some might. And some might be willing to learn. Who knows. As long as you are not invalidating player agency, it's all good. Where on earth did you get that ridiculous notion? It almost sounds as if you are deliberately trying to not understand what we are saying and just throw out absurdly contrary comments. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

Verification