Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8609048" data-attributes="member: 16814">Except that there's a wide range before you get to abhorrent, so you're excluding the middle.Um, that wasn't about you, it was following me saying that I might not be able to find a good outcome, but trying is important to me.  If you think it's about you, maybe that's telling?Again the excluded middle.  You're trying to conflate any preference for all preference.  Me mediating a dispute between players (as a friend, not as GM) about mind controlling other PCs so that they did what the player in question wanted isn't really expandable into your general preference claim.  And I tried -- tried to find out if this person was really adamant about this or if it was a mistake that they expected play should be like this because of prior experiences.  Turns out this person started with 1) it's not a big deal and when told it was a big deal for some people became angry at them and then 2) ended with it being my fault for not stopping them before they did it anyway -- that I should just say it doesn't work when they do it and it might be a problem.  Some people you can't work with, I tried, we parted ways.  The key here is that I actually tried to find the compromise positions -- to see if there was something I was doing that was creating this behavior or if there was a middle ground.  There wasn't, the player just didn't want anyone to disagree with them on anything and felt using the game mechanics to enforce this and make them agree was justifiable and wanted to continue doing it (while saying that they would probably try to kill the PC of anyone that did it to them, but if other players aren't willing to stand up for themselves they deserve it).  The other difference here is that the issue wasn't with me, particularly, although I dislike that kind of play, but really that it caused problems at the table.  If it was just about me, I wouldn't have done anything.  Further, I did something not because I was GM has had the say or authority but because I was well positioned to mediate.  One other player could have done it as well, and I asked them if they wanted to, but they deferred due to other potential social conflicts.  So, as the person that knew them both the best, I mediated because it had to be resolved or it would get worse.This event led to the one standing house rule in my usual crew -- if you engage in PvP, the target has the say on what happens.  Not rules, not the GM, the target.  So, if you cast Charm Person on another PC, that PC's player says what happens, no saving throw needed.  This solves ahead of time any need to mediate a similar dispute in the future.Is it a terrible assumption?  What, in your game, are you open to being questioned on?  If you make a call, can that be questioned?  If you say something happens, and I don't like it, can I question it?  You argued for not trusting players, and you've tried to make any preference the same as all preferences about play above, so that a preference to not have rulings questioned would have the same weight as not wanting to run sexual encounters in detail, so, yeah, I'm not real clear on what line you're drawing here except to try to get in a rhetorical point.Again with the excluded middle.  Interestingly, this is me saying that I don't really want to participate in a game where I'm told up front that I shouldn't expect any voice in how the game runs, and you're using it as defense for telling people that they shouldn't expect to have a say in how a game runs.  I mean, irony, yeah?</blockquote>

Verification