Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9460523" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Why is the DM not having fun? Yes, you would prefer if the players would describe their actions in a different manner. I would prefer if my players would roll all their attacks together and then just add up all the damage, instead of doing it one at a time. I wouldn't say that my preference not being met prevents me from having fun at the table.Of course there is nothing wrong with asking, but that doesn't mean the player is going to ask, or is even going to sit down and think about it that hard. The scene is moving, things are happening, and they just call out what they want. This isn't a matter of "the best way to resolve this is a die roll" and more "this is what might be going on in a player's head, who defaults to this approach, and it isn't a bad thing that they do so." People are not perfect communicators, and I see accepting the request for a die roll as being equivalent to a fully stated out series of actions as meeting the player where they are at in the moment.Sure, but "I want to use my lockpicks" or "I want to use my insight skill" is also a whole sentence, without really giving you anything more.You never stated the opposite, yet you felt the need to point out that you as the DM get to decide when a roll is required... what else could you be referring to? It is a bit weird to insist on something, but then turn around and say that you never stated the opposite was happening. You have certainly implied that the player asking to roll somehow infringes on the DMs ability to call for rolls, because if you didn't think that was the case you wouldn't have brought it up as a point of discussion.You seem to somehow think that a conversation only counts if it is what you said, and nothing anyone else has ever said on the subject matters at all. I entered this thread by responding to Charlaquin, who is not you which I fully and completely recognize your individuality, by complimenting how eloquently they stated their preferences, but during the part of the conversation before I joined, I had noticed some of that phrasing that tends to catch my attention. Ideas of training players to play the way the DM prefers them to play. And so, since the conversation had been getting heated between the two sides, I asked if it were possible for Charlaquin to speak as eloquently for the other side. Could they express what was good about the other side's preference? And over the course of that conversation, many things were said which I challenged. For example, the nicest and kindest thing that Charlaquin could say about my side of things was that it allowed me to be a lazier and sloppier DM who didn't need to put as much care and attention into my games. And then you have come in, with only one supposed insistence: Can't we all just state our preferences and nothing else? And I have merely pointed out that, by prioritizing the DMs preference over the player's potential preferences, you are not doing that. You haven't just stated your preference and left it at that, if you end up insisting players match your preference or be kicked from your table, or you killing the game because of it. And you have also kept challenging me about why I am "attacking" your preference. Which I have not done. I actually do not disagree with the words you have typed above, in a general sense. I don't disagree with compromise. But "Do it my way, because it is my table" is not a compromise position. And my position has been consistent. "Why is allowing the player to play in the way they prefer a problem for you, if it is merely a preference and no more serious than that?"</blockquote>

Verification