Not if you remove functionality you can't. And I already showed how it's a tool that I need in my example earlier in the thread. You would remove that ability from me and in the process ruin a good tool.
I've given support multiple times. Once with a specific example recently used by me.
I must have missed it, because I don't remember you giving any solid examples. I remember you saying this recent bit about it grinding the game to a halt if you had to have a talk with your players, but as we are showing, that isn't true.
You do know that a quick explanation isn't the same as an involved discussion, right? You're conflating the two things and in the process getting what I said completely wrong.
And no one said that you would need an involved discussion. You are assuming you need one for no reason I can discern except that it makes your position seem more reasonable. A discussion is different than an involved discussion, and so you can easily have a quick discussion that the players can participate in.
Objectively false. The two words do not mean the same thing at all. A lack of involved discussion doesn't even come close to meaning without explanation.
How about the lack of a quick discussion? Because I've been using the word "discussion" without the adjective "involved" you are adding that and changing the meaning of the point.
No. There was no conversation. I informed them that I was going to include magic weapons without pluses as weapons unable to harm creatures with resistance/immunity to magical weapons. Then I explained that it was so that I could give them some cool magic weapons, rather than them finding none at all or nearly none, which was to their benefit. Explanation =/= conversation.
Dictating a rule without giving them a chance to respond. Actually worse, because they did respond if I remember this story correctly, voting to allow those weapons to harm monsters with resistance. However, you withheld information from them, which is that you would give them fewer magic items in that case, and then justified ignoring their wishes, because of a rule you homebrewed (the frequency of items) and basically gave them an ultimatum that if they didn't go along with your desires, they would get less interesting gear.
And you are probably going to defend this by explaining to me something about the game balance or the threat of monsters with resistance to non-magical weapons, but it is hogwash. There were other solutions, including laying out your real concerns first, and allowing the players to discuss that in session zero, intstead of telling them "actually, that discussion we had previously doesn't apply, because that result is one I don't like"
And, if you have the time to say all that, then you could easily fit in a quick conversation with your players to get their opinions on the matter. You simply choose not to.
They are intertwined. You cannot take away a tool that I use to great effect without reducing my personal enjoyment of the game. Discussing my role as DM and the tools available invites my personal enjoyment to be part of the discussion as it has relevance to the discussion.
No, it doesn't. If we were discussing the role of the umpire in baseball, and their ability to make certain calls, like kicking coaches or fans out of the game, the umpire saying "But I like having the power to kick coaches out of the game" is a meaningless distraction. It doesn't matter if you like it, it matters what is best for the game. There are many things we like, that we don't get to have or do.