Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9000455" data-attributes="member: 6790260">When it comes to whether a player is being constructive, it probably is my call, but that isn't part of the game rules. That's a social consideration.When it comes to addressing the good-faith concerns, it's about reaching consensus. Each player either agrees or disagrees initially. My goal, then, is to adjust until everyone agrees things can go forward. That does not really parse into any of your provided methods. It's not about votes, because I don't want anyone to feel outvoted or vetoed. It's not about me making a final determination, because I work until the group agrees--that doesn't parse as anyone exercising &quot;authority,&quot; and much more as each person exercising assent.It's certainly possible that a player could convince me that my chosen course is incorrect, and that a better solution can be found. I almost always ask my players for feedback about how things went, so that's a good option. More commonly, as with the character-rebuild thing, the concern is less &quot;this is wrong and shouldn't happen&quot; and more &quot;X is happening, but Y isn't coming with it, an that's not okay.&quot; Hence, working with the player to make Y happen resolves the issue, achieving consensus. Or perhaps the concern is more like, &quot;I feel like I'm being left out.&quot; At that point, the issue is clearly my fault--I have not done my job as GM properly, having been an insufficient fan of the concerned player's character. Thus, the concern raised is an instruction, even if the player doesn't realize this, for me to do better. And that can be quite easily arranged simply by listening to their concerns and offering options I'm comfortable with that will address those concerns.Is the concerned player the one &quot;making the final determination&quot; because I will work until their concerns are addressed? Or am I the one &quot;making the final determination&quot; because I'm offering/accepting solutions? Or is it the group &quot;making the final determination&quot; because we achieve consensus? This is my problem with the question: it essentially assumes that there must be some singular, final authority, and that's...just not really how conversations resolve, but &quot;resolve via conversation&quot; is how DW addresses this sort of thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9000455, member: 6790260"] When it comes to whether a player is being constructive, it probably is my call, but that isn't part of the game rules. That's a social consideration. When it comes to addressing the good-faith concerns, it's about reaching consensus. Each player either agrees or disagrees initially. My goal, then, is to adjust until everyone agrees things can go forward. That does not really parse into any of your provided methods. It's not about votes, because I don't want [I]anyone[/I] to feel outvoted or vetoed. It's not about me making a final determination, because I work until the group agrees--that doesn't parse as [I]anyone[/I] exercising "authority," and much more as each person exercising [I]assent[/I]. It's certainly possible that a player could convince me that my chosen course is incorrect, and that a better solution can be found. I almost always ask my players for feedback about how things went, so that's a good option. More commonly, as with the character-rebuild thing, the concern is less "this is wrong and shouldn't happen" and more "X is happening, but Y isn't coming with it, an that's not okay." Hence, working with the player to make Y happen resolves the issue, achieving consensus. Or perhaps the concern is more like, "I feel like I'm being left out." At that point, the issue is clearly [I]my fault[/I]--I have not done my job as GM properly, having been an insufficient fan of the concerned player's character. Thus, the concern raised is an instruction, even if the player doesn't realize this, for me to [I]do better[/I]. And that can be quite easily arranged simply by listening to their concerns and offering options I'm comfortable with that will address those concerns. Is the concerned player the one "making the final determination" because I will work until their concerns are addressed? Or am I the one "making the final determination" because I'm offering/accepting solutions? Or is it the group "making the final determination" because we achieve consensus? This is my problem with the question: it essentially assumes that there [I]must be[/I] some singular, final authority, and that's...just not really how conversations resolve, but "resolve via conversation" [I]is[/I] how DW addresses this sort of thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification