Believe it or not 0.1% of the entire population is not any sort of statistical threshold.
Hence why your lived experiences aren't representative of anything besides you.
If we assume the playerbase to be uniform I'm waaaay past a 99% threshold for it being just luck.
No, I don't think you are. I don't think you've reached any sort of threshold that warrants you saying that your experiences are representative of anyone except yourself.
Which means that either the local environment is very different (which is possible) or that skill matters (again possible).
Or that you've just been lucky insofar as having met a very, very small number of total players (which is probable), most of whom happen to be good.
This doesn't follow. I'm good and know I'm good. I'm just not some sort of paragon, just someone still learning.
This smacks of denial. Remember, by your own accounting:
- Your experience is representative of the player base.
- Bad players are the result of bad DMs.
- You've had experiences with bad players where you were the DM.
So by your own logic, you've created at least a few bad players. So I'm not sure your evaluation of yourself is objective.
This doesn't follow either.
It's not about me - but I do have fairly wide ranging experience.
When you say "it's not about me, but..." that last part sounds a lot like an invalidation of the first. "It's not about me, except it is" isn't a counterpoint.
Spoing! My irony meter just exploded after your last comment. You're explicitly saying that your experience is irrelevant to anyone else.
Because it is irrelevant to everyone else. That's not irony, it's a simple acknowledgment that I don't speak for anyone who isn't me. Why you think that's some sort of "gotcha" moment is beyond me.
The only conclusion therefore is that what you point out is nothing to do with anyone else.
You seem to be under the idea that we're in some sort of duel to make claims that our experiences are objective truths about the state of the hobby. That's certainly not what I'm doing, and I certainly don't think that you have any sort of standing to say that you can.
And I am answering that. Fix it at source - with the DMing problems that lead to it. And then I am suggesting how.
The problem is that this isn't the source. Rather, you're positing that it is, and you now have multiple people telling you that's not the case. Maybe accept that and move on?
You simply don't like this answer.
I have a tendency to not like inaccurate answers in general.
And this is a strawman. I have never said there are no bad players. I have simply said that complaints about this specific problem flows from the DM.
And you're wrong about that, at least insofar as you've categorized that as being a universal truth based entirely on your experiences, which you think represent the norm. Needless to say, there are a lot of problems with your premises, there.
I have never seen a non-DM make this complaint about their fellow players; it is a problem that 100% exists on the Player/DM interaction axis and that means that there are always two people involved of which one is always the DM.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't real. Even leaving aside the fact that "tyranny of fun" players can and do exist without having been made that way by DMs, we need to get past this idea of yours that something isn't the case because you haven't experienced it.
What? That you're commenting on irony?
That you were commenting on the irony, actually. Which makes this newest comment of yours irony squared.
What's under discussion is an interaciton problem. It's simply that you are sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming how it must be the other guy, not even considering that it takes two people to have a problem.
What's under discussion is an interaction problem on the part of the player. The issue is that you're simply throwing a hissy fit about how it can't be the player, it must be the DM.
You literally quoted me pointing out that bad and toxic are not the same thing in the exact same post you are replying to. You can't even claim you didn't read that sentence in my reply. You are just lashing out here.
You have to appreciate that the person using bold text is trying to lecture someone else about etiquette, here. I mean, leaving aside that the definition-pedantry isn't really an issue, and that this is you trying to deflect from the main discussion again, I think you need to take a step back and look at who's really lashing out.
Which means that no further conversation can be productive.
I mean, you came into this discussion trying to shut down any talk of "tyranny of fun" players by saying that such things weren't players at all. So when you implicitly disrupt the conversation, it's kind of impolite to then claim that no further discussion can take place.
This is just you attempting to deflect. "Tyrrany of fun" players are a problem with the player/DM interaction. I've pointed out where I believe it lies - with DMing practice. This is entirely in line with the conversation. And believe it or not fixing DMing practice is something you have much more control over than the player side of the interaction.
This is you trying to derail the conversation again. "Tyranny of fun" players are problems that can and do exist independent of DMs. However, you refuse to countenance this possibility, saying that any attempt at a solution is a "DM power grab" despite DMs not even being central to the discussion. Maybe make some room for people who don't agree with your premise, and let theirs continue to be discussed without derailing it?
Deflection is right - but it's not mine.
Unfortunately, it is. I'm not the one who replied to a two-week old post just to tell someone else that their premise was entirely wrong.
The very next sentence you quoted after this one was "I haven't said that. Especially as bad and toxic aren't the same thing. But part of the DM's job is helping players grow."
Which is you bolding the wrong part, since the operative part of that sentence was you assigning some sort of moral responsibility on the DM to shape the players. Call it bad, call it toxic, either way it's not a good thing to put on a DM.
You know perfectly well that I don't think that there are no bad players and I have mentioned that I have had to remove toxic players.
Which is notable, as you're of the opinion that you think bad players are created by DMs.
You are just throwing as much chaff as you can here to avoid the question as to where the actual problem lies.
Except for all the times I've flat-out said that the problem is with the players in question. To which you've denied player agency, placing it all on DMs who "helped them grow" wrong.
I'm imbuing DMs with responsibility. And it's not a separate discussion; it's part of the same one.
No, I think that it's possible to discuss problem players without starting from a premise that they only exist because DMs made them bad. Even when they're "tyranny of fun" players.
But it's clear that you are trying to shout me down
I'm not the one using the bold text.
and are either not reading what I am writing or you are intentionally strawmanning it. There is no point in continuing this further.
Pointing out that you do not represent the larger community, that the DMs are not supposed to "help players grow," and that problem players exist and can be discussed without presuming that DMs made them that way are not strawmanning. Rather, it's denying all of these deflections that you've made because you don't believe the problem is real, despite multiple people saying it is. Maybe, you know, listen and believe people when they describe a problem, instead of telling them they have it all wrong?
Catch you later.
