Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8696923" data-attributes="member: 6790260">This is, as I have repeatedly said, the main problem.If you (generic) as DM choose to use these techniques and get explicit affirmative consent to do so in advance (e.g. during session zero), then awesome. That gives folks like me a chance to ask you to please not, and if no understanding can be reached, we can break amicably.But the OP, and pretty much every single person I've ever seen advocate for railroading (and fudging etc.), will either explicitly say "tell your players you don't do this even though you do," or will say "well players should just know that this is how stuff is done, I don't have to talk about it, everyone knows, there's no need to get consent." Even Crimson Longinus, who has become more clear that communication is actually involved in his stuff (as noted below), has spoken of how there's a one-liner reference buried deep in the DMG as justifying a presumption of player buy-in so actual communication can be skipped.There is a different lesson to take from this, one that doesn't dismiss the entire other side you don't grok as though it were a pointless waste of time: other people have (a) very strong feelings about things you don't, and (b) it can be difficult to predict, so (c) you should be extremely careful and do your best good-faith effort to actively discover what the players value and how important to them certain things are. IOW, learning from this that communication is not only important, but that one of the great responsibilities that come with the great power of the DM's seat. That it is incumbent on DMs to be highly proactive. Nobody's perfect and nothing is guaranteed, so there may still be issues. That doesn't mean the effort isn't important.How am I supposed to say something--to even know there is something to speak about--if, as the OP repeatedly says, I am being TOLD that things are a certain way when they aren't? Or if I am not told such, but the DM is constantly concealing any evidence which might suggest the other way?How can someone who has only ever heard propaganda ask hard, important questions about their government? How, for example, were the American people supposed to speak out against PRISM when the program was secret?Given the OP explicitly and repeatedly warns against such communication, I'm not sure how one can get this reading.  And as I and [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] have repeatedly said, it is the false impression that is the problem, not the technique itself. The OP clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly refers to not only NOT communicating, but outright saying things which are not true and actively cultivating a false pretense for the players, actively avoiding any possible form of consent. That's where the moral issue arises.</blockquote>

Verification