Er...a player can act in good faith and still be impolite about it; ditto a DM. Politeness and good faith do not always correlate.
I flatly disagree in this context. While it is possible to have impolite good faith in other contexts, in this particular context, because the whole thing is
about requests/balance/consistency/etc., exhibiting bad faith is always a form of impoliteness, no matter how well-disguised. It is disrespectful of the group and the DM, and disrespect is always impolite, no matter what veneer it wears.
Well, as a matter of fact, yes I do want that.
Sure. The politics of the example weren't the point. The point was the
question. "Do you want every player who raises a challenge to be considered toxic?" Because yes, in this thread and others, we HAVE had people literally actually equate any form of challenge with toxicity. I can dig up the quote if you really want it.
My experience is that there's - in very broad strokes - two types of players: those who also frequently DM and those who do not. Those who also DM tend to, when they criticize or disgree, not necessarily be seeking advantage by so doing: they're looking at the game as a whole. Those who do not also DM tend to be seeking advantage via their criticisms or disagreements: they're looking out for themselves. And note that I specifically say "tend to" in each of the above, as I've seen opposite examples both ways.
What about discussions that are advantage-neutral? My experience is that "forever-players" (as it were) are pretty evenly split between "I only argue when I have a stake in it" and "I argue whenever I see things that don't line up, no matter who benefits." (I have, in fact, felt
really bad about being the "fly in the ointment" who got someone else's character idea shot down because I brought up a rules conflict. That group was pretty chill about it though.) A lot of the "make a kingdom" stuff is going to be advantage-neutral; having a nation you come from isn't going to translate into bonuses most of the time.
Ah, but here you run into another issue: the setting of precedent. IMO this is why DMs have to be very careful with their on-the-fly rulings, as they're either stuck with that ruling for the rest of the campaign or are willing to sacrifice in-game consistency when they change their minds later.
Sure. Precedent is always a concern, no matter how you resolve things. I prefer to treat precedent as strong but not binding; sometimes you have to be able to admit that the precedent was wrong.
You have a right to question what's going on, I agree. By the same token, though, your DM has the right to not answer you; or to give you an answer you didn't want or don't agree with.
I...feel that a question that can be rightfully ignored isn't actually being given the right to question at all. That's like saying, "You have the right to freedom of speech, and the government has the right to prevent people from hearing your speech." The latter occludes the former.
You'd be a rare breed indeed if you invested in campaigns to grub for disadvantage.
At first I was a little cranky about this, but coming back to it now, I appreciate the humor more. But you would be surprised that sometimes I
have argued to my own disadvantage because it was what was established or was how the rules went. Occasionally I have been wrong, and gladly accepted the bonus (or removal of a penalty), but usually when I argue so, it's because I'm very confident the non-beneficial situation is the correct one.
As a DM though, I tend to be, as much as possible, "player-positive" liberal in my decisions. The word used (IIRC in a different thread) was "facilitating," which I liked (I think that was Loverdrive?) If a rule feels dumb for a situation, I'll talk with the players about it, and sometimes supersede the rule to let them proceed or get the best benefit etc. I want the players to feel that, whatever ideas they have, I'm with them as long as they avoid being abusive or coercive. It actively encourages good-faith enthusiasm, which IMNSHO is one of the most precious things a DM can get.
Sure. But it's equally reasonable for them to disagree on what the vague rule means and not be able to come to a consensus. We see it here all the time in threads. Multiple interpretations with different people thinking that they are right. So #3 is an example of a situation where people very often don't come to an agreement and need a DM ruling.
If two "reasonable people" are
genuinely incapable of coming to an agreeable consensus, maybe they shouldn't
be gaming together. Maybe they shouldn't be interacting all that much at all. I'd say, if this applies to any two people ever, they're GOING to have a bad time sooner or later unless they go their separate ways.
Consensus-seeking is predicated on this: that you amicably end a relationship if it's not possible to resolve conflicts, rather than having one person/side promise to always surrender should the irresolvable arise. Hence the aforementioned "you and your spouse" example.
In fact, this
sounds like what a lot of people on the "I have the authority" side actually pursue anyway, hence the "I should hope I'm better at picking premises" etc. If so, resorting to "well what I say goes because I'm in charge"
isn't even a consideration....and if it somehow IS, I think we all agree it's a Very Bad Sign and maybe time to call it quits. Something literally all of us "we seek a consensus" people explicitly advocated.
What behavior do you think he's claiming disagreements lead to?
Tornado-Runner Monk, "I have Odin on speed dial and Odin Sees All" Cleric, hypothetical "My uncle gave me a key to this specific dungeon" guy, "inherently-scary 7-foot albino elf vampire with a Scarf of Buttkicking (that billows in a nonexistent wind)," and possibly others, my memory isn't ideal. The repeated use of exclusively extreme, negative, AND specifically player-only examples--even if it's because "you only remember the bad ones"--is actively unhelpful to the situation, and is probably THE main reason I've had such rustled jimmies about this. (Oofta isn't alone in this kind of thing, but has given the most specific and/or non-hypothetical examples.
Most people arguing from the "final arbiter"/"ultimate authority" position feel the need to ensure that most of their posts include a reference to "I'm needed in order to squash bad-faith players," though. It's almost clockwork; if a post or section opens with talking about leeway and cooperation, it will almost guaranteed then add in "but I absolutely need to shut down the troublemakers.")
...and people who enjoy exploring worlds probably have a hard time enjoying exploring and figuring out what they helped create.
My experience differs. I've only run for two groups. But each member contributed things, and then felt both wonder and pride seeing them grow and flower as the campaign unfolds. It is like each person setting a parameter for a fractal equation, and then looking in wonder at the infinitely-deep well of fascinating patterns that emerge. You know you had a part in it, and yet you can still be surprised by what came of it.
One person's/group's bad faith could be good faith to another. It depends on what each person/group defines as good, bad, or neutral faith.
I...don't see how that's possible. Bad faith means deception. Deception is deception, no matter what group you're looking at. Either you are presenting true things as true and false things as false, or you are presenting false things as true or true things as false. The former is not deception. The latter is deception. I never deceive my players ever (though
NPCs in the game absolutely WILL deceive the players, and it's on them to investigate and confirm!), and I expect my players never to deceive me. I don't see how it's possible for players to ever deceive the DM and have that be a good or even neutral thing.
(Note, here, that
not telling the whole truth is not deception per se, especially when it comes to DMs. There's a reason we care about "spoilers" and the like. I don't reveal every minute fact about the world to my players.)
Why on earth would I want to have three arguments when settling the issue only takes one? And yes, I mean arguments: I've played with some rather stubborn people and can be one myself, and - fact of life - sometimes people dig in their heels. Sort it out once whatever it takes, lock it down, and move on.
Well, it's not meant to be three arguments. It's meant to be three opportunities for feedback, trying to account for how recency (raw strong responses vs. cooler deliberative ones) and social concerns (groupthink and social anxiety vs. consensus and building off each others' ideas) can prevent relevant information from getting out. The DM's role as game-runner puts them in the position of connecting the group together, so I see such feedback-seeking as essential to actually developing consensus (especially for groups that don't know one another well yet).
Fine. In this case I'm cool with that.
I...don't know how to feel about just plainly admitting "yeah, I made this a moving target so whatever you say about it, I'm still right," but fair enough I guess?
