Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9504153" data-attributes="member: 8461">Hence why your lived experiences aren't representative of anything besides you.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.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 smacks of denial. Remember, by your own accounting:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Your experience is representative of the player base.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bad players are the result of bad DMs.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You've had experiences with bad players where you were the DM.</li> </ol>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.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.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.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.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?I have a tendency to not like inaccurate answers in general.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.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.That you were commenting on the irony, actually. Which makes this newest comment of yours irony squared.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 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.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 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?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.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.Which is notable, as you're of the opinion that you think bad players are created by DMs.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.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.I'm not the one using the bold text.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.</blockquote>

Verification