NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8161586" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Literally no one has disputed the first two, AFAICT. The latter is literally not what we're talking about. (Giving one response to save space.)"Strawman" only applies if the argument is a fake set up to criticize you. If we're operating from an asked hypothetical, or from a story where you didn't tell us everyone else thought the monk was being dumb, it's not a strawman.More importantly: It's nice to see you recognize that bad-faith DMing actually does occur, and actually can be a problem. I just have a lower tolerance for it, it seems.Improvisation is a vital DM skill. Why not exercise it with these rulings as well?The go-with-the-flow-option in D&D is to listen to the DM, not one "strong personality" player, so I don't see the relevance. If the players don't know how the game works, that's an error that should be corrected. The players should know how the game works when they play it!Your anecdotes are nice, but fail to be more than that. And, as stated above, if you're going to ask that we assume good faith on the part of the DMs in these scenarios, please assume good faith on the part of the players. Asking to have infinite resources or instantly win is bad faith in almost anything.While I accept that casual players are a thing, and should be worked with, at least a fundamental understanding of the rules should always be a goal for every player. And whether or not the DM is more rules-experienced is both (1) only true some of the time, and (2) irrelevant to the vast majority of good-faith player requests.You may be surprised to know that others' experience differs. Mine, for example--on both sides of the screen.Being respectful, good-faith players. C'mon man, you got openly frustrated with people ascribing bad faith to DMs in the race-options thread.Then why even ask the opening questions? Those are not things you ask if you're treating your DM with respect.As far as I'm concerned, "Ultimate Authority"--especially when capitalized thus, giving it extra emphasis--SPECIFICALLY means NOT treating others with respect, NOT hearing what they have to say, and NOT taking any form of criticism or discussion. I mean, we literally have in this thread a person saying that any player dispute that doesn't immediately evaporate when the DM says "no" is toxic. That's a pretty big red flag for "you don't actually respect my thoughts or opinions, and you don't trust me to behave appropriately if given any leeway."Respect of player views, and in particular, the possibility that the player might have an idea in some way "better" than the DM's; actively seeking to meet in the middle whenever possible on disputes; actively facilitating player goals and engagement; and trusting that, barring meaningful evidence to the contrary, the player's requests are made in good faith to try for a more enjoyable game experience for everyone, rather than assuming any player is inherently coercive or abusive.As stated above: "Ultimate Authority" communicates to me "I claim absolute authority and zero responsibility, and if you don't like that for any reason whatsoever, I have some choice words to treat you with before summarily booting you." Cooperative authority values consensus, diplomacy, compromise, and facilitation, and recognizes that a positive social experience means certain requirements due to respect, appropriateness, decorum, trust, etc.As far as I'm concerned, you're pretty much NOT acting as an "ultimate authority" here. Yes, "ultimate" can be a synonym for "final," but it can also have other meanings--and I had assumed those other meanings (transcendent, supreme, categorical, and, yes, absolute) were very much intended alongside "final," particularly because people kept capitalizing it. Hence why I said you can fork "final say" apart from "Ultimate Authority," because work-a-day final authority and truly unsurpassable authority aren't equivalent.Now, aside from the above, I DO think you are at least a little overprotective of the world you've established, from the way you've described how you do things. But I'm also of the opinion that exclusively playing in the same campaign world for 20+ years is...maybe not "unhealthy," that has judgmental implications I'd rather avoid, but...I guess "inhibiting"? It discourages a wide variety of opportunities for improvisation, and (IMNSHO) runs far, far too great a risk of Elminster Syndrome or Lord British Syndrome By Proxy. These names are tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I do really mean some serious concerns by using them. That is, invincible (but inactive) retired characters (Lord British), or stupidly powerful and meddlesome ones (Elminster).Perhaps it's because of generational differences, or maybe our brains are just wired differently, but I'd lose my friggin' mind if I tried to squeeze 20 years of gaming out of a single campaign world, no matter how richly-detailed it was.And DONE. There. Responded to like, two dozen posts. Hopefully didn't crush anyone beneath TOO large a wall of text along the way.</blockquote>

Verification