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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9544990" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I am, in fact, not. I'm starting from the position that others have specifically given me, which is that DMs forbid "disruptive" (a term repeatedly used by others) things, things that would harm their "vision" (another term frequently used by proponents of this style). This is their framing, not mine.My framing is that people come to the table with a sincere desire for everyone to have a good time, and that this is essentially always possible with discussion, so long as all participants are acting in good faith. I've made this position clear many, many, many, many times.I know it's not. But this is the forced dichotomy I keep getting shoved in my face over and over and over.This is not my dichotomy. It's the dichotomy forced by those who advocate for the autocrat-auteur DM.Ask [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER], [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER], [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER], and various other things......that is forbidding things. It is 100% identical to, "You are forbidden from playing anything that isn't a halfling from the Shire."Why?Seriously. Why? I don't understand this. I like, respect, and trust my friends. Not one part of that entails instantaneously believing "ah, yes, this WILL be the absolute best choice no matter what" just because a friend proposed it. I expect to, y'know, actually be CONVINCED to do it. Something that is never, ever discussed or even mentioned in this sort of thing. It is always--always--a diktat from on high. "This is what we ARE playing. Don't like it? There's the door. Bye."How? How do you "know" that? Because I sure as hell don't, and the specific people who make these arguments are quite clear that it will NEVER be the case that that will be allowed at their table--and, quite often, these people are also the forever DM of their group, so there is no other option.Why are you presuming only the rosiest possible situation, while when I talk about having a conversation, frankly expressing views, and each side working to find common ground, it is always--I stress, 100% always--expected to endure the absolute worst-case scenario?</blockquote>

Verification