Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8164592" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I'm done discussing this with you. If you cannot see how "I listen to what they have to say, and if the whole group is against me on the issue I would be INCREDIBLY unlikely to oppose them, even if very, very rarely I might still do so" does not equate to "my authority is not entirely final or absolute," we have nothing further to discuss. You have a review committee: your players. If you don't see that from the words you literally used, there's nothing more to be said.You really aren't helping your case with these facetious and, frankly, insulting comments.My experience says otherwise.And a polite conversation is all that is needed to fix any accidental off behavior. No need for "authority," hell, no need for even rulings much of the time. If a polite conversation is not enough, we aren't talking about players acting in good faith anyway, so it's not a relevant example.Making the occasional "we need to move on" decision is fine. That doesn't mean the group isn't coming to a consensus decision eventually. They're just accounting for timing. Just as (for example) democracies usually place a lot of "respond to a crisis RIGHT NOW" power in the hands of a single-person "head of state" office, but retain override and review powers for a different, more deliberative body (like a legislature, court, or both).The last half of this is false. Respecting your players is absolutely a practical concern. I would not push so hard about it if it weren't. Yes, "we need a fix/response/operating plan NOW" situations are perfectly appropriate for a DM to say "we're going to proceed this way." There's nothing wrong with that. It's why I haven't responded much to the times Oofta and others bring it up; it isn't relevant.See above. I flatly disagree.I really, truly don't have a problem with "authority." I have a problem with "ultimate," with "my way or the highway," with every bloody example being a player acting in bad faith or actively trying to destroy the game.Honestly. I challenge you to find even a tenth as many examples of a perfectly good-faith player inducing a need for this vaunted "ultimate authority" in order to resolve a problem, compared to the LITANY of examples of bad-faith players. Hence my repeated calling-people-out for getting all huffy when DM bad-faith behavior is used as an analysis, but CONSTANTLY, REPEATEDLY, and INTENTIONALLY only using player bad-faith behavior as their examples.Since I seem to be failing to communicate why this is a problem: Consider "no one may own guns" laws. A common response to such things is, "That means every person who owns a gun is a criminal. Do you really want that?" That's how this comes across; it paints every person who criticizes as BEING a problem. Whether or not that is intended or meant is irrelevant. When the only practical examples given are bad-faith players, what am I to think? I am not being irrational or putting words in someone's mouth. I am just deeply, DEEPLY frustrated at how many people IMMEDIATELY resort to (intentional or unintentional) abusive or destructive behavior as their examples.See above. It'd be real gorram nice if you ever had any example that wasn't an abusive player. It would feel a lot more like you aren't of the opinion that challenges to you don't exclusively take the form of abusive or destructive behavior. Because the only examples I can recall from you are Tornado Monk, Odin Cleric, "why can't we just say we beat the BBEG right now?"/"I declare I have an I-win button," and...one other that literally just vanished from my mind. But literally every single one of them was a player acting in bad faith. Maybe try having, I dunno, an example or two that is a good-faith player actively trying to work with, rather than against, you?The group doing so, or, if ABSOLUTELY pressed because there's no time or some other immediate unavoidable practical contingency, the DM saying, "we'll talk about it later, but for now, it doesn't work that way."Because that's actually respecting the player's right--and yes, I DO consider it a right!--to speak up and question what's going on.I will ask the same question I have asked everyone here:Why is it we only talk about bad-faith players, and good-faith DMs? Why is it the moment a bad-faith DM is brought up, a chorus of voices shuts it down as obviously inappropriate, but a bad-faith player is perfectly 100% acceptable and discussing GOOD-faith players is dismissed or ignored?Unless and until you defend this asymmetry, I'm not going to give these arguments the time of day anymore, other than to call them out.[Citation needed.]Because you are literally saying the only reason I invest in campaigns is to grub for advantage. Now who's being insulting?The above problem, even if it really is true, does not defend this notion. Or, rather, it defends only that players shouldn't trifle with worldbuilding; they should take it seriously, and if they can't actually do so, THEY ARE ACTING IN BAD FAITH ANYWAY. Because WE ALL AGREE that bad-faith player behavior shouldn't be tolerated! Doesn't matter if it's single-person or whole-group bad faith, if someone is acting that way THEY ARE WRONG. PERIOD. END OF STORY.You don't exactly strengthen your point when you admit that your world would be significantly impoverished if you actually prevented players from participating in worldbuilding....Again with this "tacit authority" malarkey. If you say nothing, that's not authority, and I have yet to be presented with any real argument to the contrary. "Yes it is" is not an argument; it's just setting up a "yes/no/yes/no" line of BS.Implying that every player who challenges you is acting in bad faith is insulting.Implying--or explicitly stating--that every player who participates in worldbuilding or decision-making is grubbing for advantage is insulting.And it is FROM these implications that we derive the notion that you equate opposition to abuse.Again, I disagree. If the authority is not used in practice, it is not real. See: the monarch of the UK, who theoretically retains absolute power to block whatever Parliament says...but would never actually use it even if it's totally legal to do so because doing so would be idiotic."Review player background and design" means you're okay with it happening, you just want to be centrally involved and able to talk out disagreements--WHICH IS COLLABORATIVE AUTHORITY. As I have REPEATEDLY said.And, again, with the IMMEDIATE leap to examples of bad-faith players, rather than ones who ARE willing to work with you.Does this not illustrate my point? Does this not show how it seems IMPOSSIBLE for someone to talk about "final authority" without immediately resorting to a presumption of bad-faith players?This is a useful application of the DM's independence, sure. I don't see it as being an authority figure. I see it as being an involved participant that can leverage an extra degree of trust, and who can determine and implement consensus without some of the potential faults of doing everything "en banc" as it were.It sure as heck doesn't sound like it, given how nearly every example you give is a player being crappy. It'd be a lot easier to grok the collaborative parts of your approach if you, y'know, ever gave examples of doing so, or talked about times where players were working with you rather than being unpleasant or foolish.Again: the IMMEDIATE turn. The NEED to add "but but but bad-faith players!!!"Not sure who you're talking about, unless you're doing that detrimental-facetiousness thing again.It works by:1. Having a respectful, open conversation as soon as practical. Yes, you are correct that SOMETIMES that means deferring the conversation to later so that things can move on right now, but such concerns must also be mitigated. Most of the time, a quick resolution isn't difficult if both sides actually listen to each other.2. Reviewing the situation after the fact and asking for feedback, both collectively and individually. (Ideally in a three-step "anyone have any comments as we wrap?"/"hey, just wanted to check in with you personally between sessions, see if you had anything to add"/"now that we're back together, anyone wanna talk about any game stuff before we begin?" pattern, which balances out certain flaws of each approach.Yes. That's literally what I've asked for, and why I've said that deriding it (even if you don't mean to) as "design by committee" is unhelpful. Again: you bristle at implicit insult, yet openly insult others' choices and then deflect that as just word choice? Not helpful, dude.Then please, for the love of God and all that is holy, ACTUALLY START TALKING ABOUT GOOD-FAITH PLAYERS?Having exemplars that aren't about crappy player behavior would be incredibly nice. It would help communicate that you don't equate a question or challenge from your players with crappy player behavior.Just because the monarch of the United Kingdom hasn't exercised absolute authority in two centuries, doesn't mean the United Kingdom isn't an absolute monarch.This exactly.Sure. It'd be nice if you ever had stories about player behavior that was in this vein, too. Not just good-faith, but actively trying to HELP you DM rather than attacking you.You do realize this is literally a no-true-scotsman argument in pure, distilled form? "X can't be done" "well here's an example of doing X" "I should have said worthwhile X can't be done."It is not possible to act in bad faith without knowing it. That's literally part of <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad%20faith" target="_blank">the definition</a> of "<a href="https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx/Default.aspx?selected=21" target="_blank">bad faith</a>." And it is certainly not possible for "reasonable people...com[ing] to different conclusions" to qualify as "bad faith."Someone acting in bad faith is deceiving people. Sometimes it's self-deception, but it's a bit hard to square self-deception in this context. Acting in ignorance cannot be self-deceptive bad faith, because an ignorant person honestly believes something false, as opposed to hypocritically knowing something is false but trying to believe it anyway.Again with the unhelpful facetiousness.Yes. Exactly.Every conversation about this inevitably dismisses talking about good-faith players and gets incredibly defensive (with cries of "insult!") whenever bad-faith DMing is even implied, let alone discussed. And then people get upset when we interpret post after post after post after post after post after post of "well here's the deal, players acting in bad faith" as meaning this "ultimate authority"/"final arbiter" stuff is used as a club to ensure no player ever dares to act in bad faith.</blockquote>

Verification