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 coming! 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
Hot Take: Uncertainty Makes D&D Better
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: 8923323" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Except, and again this is a matter of public record, <em>that isn't what Maxperson actually said.</em> I pushed back, <em>hard</em>, on that not actually being "absolute" power. He refused, insisting that that term was the one and only correct description. Repeatedly and with great emphasis.</p><p></p><p>I am not <em>ignoring</em> context. The poster themself made the context irrelevant.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And the one and only way to address that in a small group environment is to achieve actual consensus. Not fake consensus, not bullying, not deception, <em>actual</em> consensus, as in "the group agrees." If the DM cannot get the group to agree, the group shouldn't exist.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Who said it was? Consensus is all about recognizing the shades of grey. "I can do what I want whenever I want if I think it is better for the game" IS black-and-white. There is one rule: "Do what I say." Everything else is window dressing.</p><p></p><p>Funny. You're the one who trotted out phrases like "player entitlement" first. <em>I</em> was punching back. I have no idea what <em>you</em> we're doing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Certainly. See above.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that is literally never necessary. Ever. It is 100% possible to never break the rules, never tell the players things that are not true about the gameplay or imagined space, <em>and</em> let the dice fall where they may, all without harming the players' experience in the least. So why do it? Why use tactics that are unnecessary and deceptive?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I never said you were. I don't even know why you mention him, and I <em>wasn't even talking about you.</em> I was referencing the OGL debacle, a breach of customer trust that put a large number of engaged participants in an extremely difficult position of accepting a crappy deal <em>or</em> losing their business. Because that is an excellent demonstration of a situation where it is <em>not</em> trivial to extricate yourself from a relationship with a figure that has absolute authority (in this case, over D&D copyright), and is in fact incredibly fraught and difficult. Hence also the reference to government; governments claim monopoly on the use of force and it is incredibly difficult to simply extricate yourself from where you live even if it becomes overtly hostile.</p><p></p><p>Again: I have <em>no idea</em> why you think this got personal, and I don't think calling me a jerk was even remotely warranted.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. Hence why I keep asking how you and others <em>avoid</em> that. Because without actual consensus-building (more on that below), it's all you. Your players are as much suggestions as the rules are. <em>That's why I push so hard on this.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you demonstrate your adherence to that standard by <em>giving your players actual authority.</em> That authority comes from not doing something if your players are opposed to it. The players cannot oppose something you cover up. You can only know what they oppose by talking to them, accepting their criticism (and, hopefully, their much more common praise), and reaching a true agreement with them. <em>Which is what we call consensus.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure it is. "I am simply a better person than you, and thus I have more worth and value than you" is a shameful belief.</p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no definition of elitism which does not claim that the alleged elite (a) belong to a superior class or stratum by some metric, making them simply better than other people, and (b) <em>because</em> they belong to this superior class, they <em>deserve</em> authority over those who are not among the elite.</p><p></p><p>It is not, strictly, a matter of selfishness (it is quite possible for someone not among the elite to believe the above is true), but it is <em>always</em> a matter of seeing others as lesser. It is, by definition, the antonym of egalitarianism.</p><p></p><p></p><p>He was speaking on moral philosophy, a subject which he was quite qualified to discuss.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That is extremely unfortunate, I'm sorry you had to endure that. I hope, for whatever it's worth, that you were able to hold your own despite this travesty "consensus." Based on your description, howvwer, it was by all reasonable definitions nothing of the kind: "consensus, n. 1. majority of opinion, 2. general agreement or concord; harmony." What you describe is quite clearly neither of these things, with the <em>elites</em> (powerful, influential figures) ostracizing anyone who dissented and/or inducing dissenters to disengage (self-ostracize) until only the pliable remained. That's bullying at best and closet tyranny at worst...and neither of those is compatible with the meaning of "consensus," no matter what word they claimed to use for it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Seriously? <em>Actually achieving general agreement or concord</em> is a beard for autocrats? Absolutely not.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So...you avoid achieving general agreement with others? How on earth do you get anything done with anyone? How do you have <em>relationships</em>? Unless, of course, you don't actually mean that you avoid general agreement or concord and harmony, you just avoid the horrible mockery you witnessed at that Quaker institution. You avoid the thing which they pretended was consensus but was, literally by definition, not consensus.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And I assert this is nowhere near as easy as you claim if the DM has in fact abused their powers...just as it is extremely difficult to unseat a representative from government even when they have probably done something illegal. I am not saying <em>you</em> or any other specific person <em>do</em> abuse your powera so. I am saying that the alleged protection of "recall" is in fact extremely difficult to use in practice because this is a social activity and both "recall" and disengagement have costs, sometimes major ones. There is a perfectly symmetric problem with players, to be clear: a long-time friend or group member who is revealed to have done something untoward (cheating, reading adventures ahead of time, harassing other players or just generally being a creeper, etc.*) can be very difficult to remove, because (for example) he's dating one of the other players and is best friends with a second player and one of the DM's coworkers. Suddenly the social costs of simply cutting off a relationship are sky-high, and what should be the obvious and straightforward solution ends up being anything but. </p><p></p><p>And that's just to get rid of one player, whose absence may be an annoyance but the game goes on. The vast majority of groups, if you "recall" the DM, <em>the game ends.</em> That alone is a tough sell for many groups and requires <em>egregious</em> problems to get them to pull the proverbial trigger. Add in the common social dynamics (telling a DM they're metaphorically fired when everyone in the group is friends who meet outside of game regularly) and you have an incredibly high wall to climb before anyone will consider a "recall."</p><p></p><p>*This actually happened in one of my gaming groups. Longtime friend of the Storyteller and most of the other players was harassing a female player in the group. Extricating him was a whole ordeal, took months, soured the group mood on the game for months thereafter, and generally was just a real downer overall. We got through it, but it was rough.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I'm aware. Nothing I said was a defense of players. It was a claim that the person who asserts that they deserve power is the person who bears the burden of proving that they deserve it. As opposed to the idea that the people who are not claiming power are somehow <em>indebted</em> to the person who claims power over them, regardless of whether that power is on the tiny scale (like DMing) or the grand scale.</p><p></p><p>The taking on of responsibility is the <em>price</em> extracted for the DM to be <em>allowed</em> power, not a justification for why others become <em>indebted</em> to them for doing it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Whereas to me, <em>that</em> sounds like convenient semantics. You are able to claim the specter of a movement corroding the game which must be opposed no matter the cost or consequences. This is not so.</p><p></p><p>Some entitled players exist. "Player entitlement" as a scourge besieging D&D (or TTRPGs in general) is a myth, a Boogeyman conjured up to demonize opposition to abuses of authority.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8923323, member: 6790260"] Except, and again this is a matter of public record, [I]that isn't what Maxperson actually said.[/I] I pushed back, [I]hard[/I], on that not actually being "absolute" power. He refused, insisting that that term was the one and only correct description. Repeatedly and with great emphasis. I am not [I]ignoring[/I] context. The poster themself made the context irrelevant. And the one and only way to address that in a small group environment is to achieve actual consensus. Not fake consensus, not bullying, not deception, [I]actual[/I] consensus, as in "the group agrees." If the DM cannot get the group to agree, the group shouldn't exist. Who said it was? Consensus is all about recognizing the shades of grey. "I can do what I want whenever I want if I think it is better for the game" IS black-and-white. There is one rule: "Do what I say." Everything else is window dressing. Funny. You're the one who trotted out phrases like "player entitlement" first. [I]I[/I] was punching back. I have no idea what [I]you[/I] we're doing. Certainly. See above. [I][/I] Except that is literally never necessary. Ever. It is 100% possible to never break the rules, never tell the players things that are not true about the gameplay or imagined space, [I]and[/I] let the dice fall where they may, all without harming the players' experience in the least. So why do it? Why use tactics that are unnecessary and deceptive? I never said you were. I don't even know why you mention him, and I [I]wasn't even talking about you.[/I] I was referencing the OGL debacle, a breach of customer trust that put a large number of engaged participants in an extremely difficult position of accepting a crappy deal [I]or[/I] losing their business. Because that is an excellent demonstration of a situation where it is [I]not[/I] trivial to extricate yourself from a relationship with a figure that has absolute authority (in this case, over D&D copyright), and is in fact incredibly fraught and difficult. Hence also the reference to government; governments claim monopoly on the use of force and it is incredibly difficult to simply extricate yourself from where you live even if it becomes overtly hostile. Again: I have [I]no idea[/I] why you think this got personal, and I don't think calling me a jerk was even remotely warranted. Okay. Hence why I keep asking how you and others [I]avoid[/I] that. Because without actual consensus-building (more on that below), it's all you. Your players are as much suggestions as the rules are. [I]That's why I push so hard on this.[/I] And you demonstrate your adherence to that standard by [I]giving your players actual authority.[/I] That authority comes from not doing something if your players are opposed to it. The players cannot oppose something you cover up. You can only know what they oppose by talking to them, accepting their criticism (and, hopefully, their much more common praise), and reaching a true agreement with them. [I]Which is what we call consensus.[/I] Sure it is. "I am simply a better person than you, and thus I have more worth and value than you" is a shameful belief. There is no definition of elitism which does not claim that the alleged elite (a) belong to a superior class or stratum by some metric, making them simply better than other people, and (b) [I]because[/I] they belong to this superior class, they [I]deserve[/I] authority over those who are not among the elite. It is not, strictly, a matter of selfishness (it is quite possible for someone not among the elite to believe the above is true), but it is [I]always[/I] a matter of seeing others as lesser. It is, by definition, the antonym of egalitarianism. He was speaking on moral philosophy, a subject which he was quite qualified to discuss. That is extremely unfortunate, I'm sorry you had to endure that. I hope, for whatever it's worth, that you were able to hold your own despite this travesty "consensus." Based on your description, howvwer, it was by all reasonable definitions nothing of the kind: "consensus, n. 1. majority of opinion, 2. general agreement or concord; harmony." What you describe is quite clearly neither of these things, with the [I]elites[/I] (powerful, influential figures) ostracizing anyone who dissented and/or inducing dissenters to disengage (self-ostracize) until only the pliable remained. That's bullying at best and closet tyranny at worst...and neither of those is compatible with the meaning of "consensus," no matter what word they claimed to use for it. Seriously? [I]Actually achieving general agreement or concord[/I] is a beard for autocrats? Absolutely not. So...you avoid achieving general agreement with others? How on earth do you get anything done with anyone? How do you have [I]relationships[/I]? Unless, of course, you don't actually mean that you avoid general agreement or concord and harmony, you just avoid the horrible mockery you witnessed at that Quaker institution. You avoid the thing which they pretended was consensus but was, literally by definition, not consensus. And I assert this is nowhere near as easy as you claim if the DM has in fact abused their powers...just as it is extremely difficult to unseat a representative from government even when they have probably done something illegal. I am not saying [I]you[/I] or any other specific person [I]do[/I] abuse your powera so. I am saying that the alleged protection of "recall" is in fact extremely difficult to use in practice because this is a social activity and both "recall" and disengagement have costs, sometimes major ones. There is a perfectly symmetric problem with players, to be clear: a long-time friend or group member who is revealed to have done something untoward (cheating, reading adventures ahead of time, harassing other players or just generally being a creeper, etc.*) can be very difficult to remove, because (for example) he's dating one of the other players and is best friends with a second player and one of the DM's coworkers. Suddenly the social costs of simply cutting off a relationship are sky-high, and what should be the obvious and straightforward solution ends up being anything but. And that's just to get rid of one player, whose absence may be an annoyance but the game goes on. The vast majority of groups, if you "recall" the DM, [I]the game ends.[/I] That alone is a tough sell for many groups and requires [I]egregious[/I] problems to get them to pull the proverbial trigger. Add in the common social dynamics (telling a DM they're metaphorically fired when everyone in the group is friends who meet outside of game regularly) and you have an incredibly high wall to climb before anyone will consider a "recall." *This actually happened in one of my gaming groups. Longtime friend of the Storyteller and most of the other players was harassing a female player in the group. Extricating him was a whole ordeal, took months, soured the group mood on the game for months thereafter, and generally was just a real downer overall. We got through it, but it was rough. Yes, I'm aware. Nothing I said was a defense of players. It was a claim that the person who asserts that they deserve power is the person who bears the burden of proving that they deserve it. As opposed to the idea that the people who are not claiming power are somehow [I]indebted[/I] to the person who claims power over them, regardless of whether that power is on the tiny scale (like DMing) or the grand scale. The taking on of responsibility is the [I]price[/I] extracted for the DM to be [I]allowed[/I] power, not a justification for why others become [I]indebted[/I] to them for doing it. Whereas to me, [I]that[/I] sounds like convenient semantics. You are able to claim the specter of a movement corroding the game which must be opposed no matter the cost or consequences. This is not so. Some entitled players exist. "Player entitlement" as a scourge besieging D&D (or TTRPGs in general) is a myth, a Boogeyman conjured up to demonize opposition to abuses of authority. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Hot Take: Uncertainty Makes D&D Better
Top