Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Authority
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8164811" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>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 <em>about</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. The politics of the example weren't the point. The point was the <em>question</em>. "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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>really bad</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>have</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If two "reasonable people" are <em>genuinely incapable</em> of coming to an agreeable consensus, maybe they shouldn't <em>be</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>In fact, this <em>sounds</em> 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" <em>isn't even a consideration</em>....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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. <em>Most</em> 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.")</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>NPCs in the game</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>(Note, here, that <em>not telling the whole truth</em> 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.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p>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? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite12" alt="o_O" title="Er... what? o_O" loading="lazy" data-shortname="o_O" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8164811, member: 6790260"] 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 [I]about[/I] 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. Sure. The politics of the example weren't the point. The point was the [I]question[/I]. "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. 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 [I]really bad[/I] 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. 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. 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. 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 [I]have[/I] 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. If two "reasonable people" are [I]genuinely incapable[/I] of coming to an agreeable consensus, maybe they shouldn't [I]be[/I] 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 [I]sounds[/I] 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" [I]isn't even a consideration[/I]....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. 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. [I]Most[/I] 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.") 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. 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 [I]NPCs in the game[/I] 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 [I]not telling the whole truth[/I] 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.) 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). 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? o_O [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Authority
Top