Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9547484" data-attributes="member: 93670">There may be middle ground, but the objective reality is that the game is one where a player can say &quot;can I/we do $x&quot; &amp; the gm needs to make a ruling when $x is not a thing the rules explicitly provide a relevant rule to handle.&nbsp; If the player doesn't like the GM's ruling they have options like attempting to make a more persuasive case or finding another table.&nbsp; If the player doesn't make use of those options then the GM should have every reason to assume that their ruling was accepted and there is no reason for them as the gm to continue looking for some &quot;nuanced middle ground&quot; beyond the seemingly accepted ruling.&nbsp; It's one thing to get a &quot;no&quot; or &quot;no because &quot; &amp; quickly try to make a more persuasive case based on the reasons given.&nbsp; It's an entirely different thing to get that no and endlessly push without letting it go or moving on.&nbsp; Sometimes it seems like these pressure on GM's to find compromise and middle ground rather than accepting sometimes &quot;no&quot; is a perfectly valid ruling is just inverting the scenario to avoid pointing a spotlight at a hypothetical player who refuses to accept their GM's ruling who keeps pushing for one more level of &quot;middle ground like this guy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9547484, member: 93670"] There may be middle ground, but the objective reality is that the game is one where a player can say "can I/we do $x" & the gm needs to make a ruling when $x is not a thing the rules explicitly provide a relevant rule to handle. If the player doesn't like the GM's ruling they have options like attempting to make a more persuasive case or finding another table. If the player doesn't make use of those options then the GM should have every reason to assume that their ruling was accepted and there is no reason for them as the gm to continue looking for some "nuanced middle ground" beyond the seemingly accepted ruling. It's one thing to get a "no" or "no because " & quickly try to make a more persuasive case based on the reasons given. It's an entirely different thing to get that no and endlessly push without letting it go or moving on. Sometimes it seems like these pressure on GM's to find compromise and middle ground rather than accepting sometimes "no" is a perfectly valid ruling is just inverting the scenario to avoid pointing a spotlight at a hypothetical player who refuses to accept their GM's ruling who keeps pushing for one more level of "middle ground like this guy. [/QUOTE]

Verification