Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9464360" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Did I say it NEVER happens? No. I said that if everyone is participating in good faith, a compromise is always possible, to which I was told that there MUST, always, be someone who calls the shots, someone who makes the final decision. This was not a &quot;well some of the time this thing is needed.&quot; It was an always thing.Why don't marriages have dungeon master equivalents? Why don't friendships have dungeon master equivalents? How can people POSSIBLY resolve disagreements without a single person always calling the shots that everyone else must bow to forever and ever?!?!But then it must in fact ACTUALLY go both ways. That's the problem I have with this rebuttal. It doesn't actually go both ways. It instead means, &quot;Okay, so now we go back to players being absolutely subservient to DMs, or being summarily kicked out.&quot;Because the &quot;I CALL THE SHOTS HERE&quot; DM is the one declaring they deserve massive power. Someone declaring that they get to call the shots means they'd better be ready to take the blame for something going wrong, don't you think? And if they aren't ready to take responsibility, they'd better not be declaring that they have absolute power. (And yes, I really do mean &quot;absolute power,&quot; because multiple users on this very form have insisted on that terminology, despite my extensive efforts to talk them out of it.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9464360, member: 6790260"] Did I say it NEVER happens? No. I said that [I]if everyone is participating in good faith[/I], a compromise is always possible, to which I was told that there MUST, always, be someone who calls the shots, someone who makes the final decision. This was not a "well some of the time this thing is needed." It was an always thing. Why don't marriages have dungeon master equivalents? Why don't friendships have dungeon master equivalents? How can people POSSIBLY resolve disagreements without a single person always calling the shots that everyone else must bow to forever and ever?!?! But then it must in fact ACTUALLY go both ways. That's the problem I have with this rebuttal. It doesn't actually go both ways. It instead means, "Okay, so now we go back to players being absolutely subservient to DMs, or being summarily kicked out." Because the "[B][I]I[/I][/B] CALL THE SHOTS HERE" DM is the one declaring they deserve massive power. Someone declaring that they get to call the shots means they'd better be ready to take the blame for something going wrong, don't you think? And if they aren't ready to take responsibility, they'd better not be declaring that they have absolute power. (And yes, I really do mean "absolute power," because multiple users on this very form have [I]insisted[/I] on that terminology, despite my extensive efforts to talk them out of it.) [/QUOTE]

Verification