Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Telas" data-source="post: 2236780" data-attributes="member: 20934">Next time you argue with one of my quotes, try using the whole quote.&nbsp; I believe I mentioned that as a disgruntled player's only option (aside from discussing it politely, which seems to be beyond a number of folks).Oh, look, there's the whole paragraph.&nbsp; And it seems that you're arguing with only a part of what I've said.&nbsp; Which leads me to believe that you're not here to actually discuss and possibly learn something, but to argue and put down people who disagree with you.If you're trying to imply that I DM at a small table, try again.&nbsp; I have two people waiting for slots, and one trying to get back into my game.&nbsp; Apparently I'm doing something right, since there are other options out there.The DM is like the judge in a courtroom (with the exception that you can always pick another DM).&nbsp; The table is his domain, and he is omnipotent.&nbsp; He can change the rules as he wishes.&nbsp; Yes, it's rude and unprofessional and short-sighted to do so.&nbsp; But the players really can't do a damned thing about it, other than to complain, convince, or leave.&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; No &quot;implied social contract&quot;, no &quot;save vs. DM&quot;, nothing.&nbsp;&nbsp; If this bothers you, you should play a game that is entirely objective, like chess.The game can continue without one player.&nbsp; It can even conceivably continue without all the players (assuming new ones enter).&nbsp; But it CANNOT continue without the DM, even if a new one is found.&nbsp; Change the DM, change the game on a fundamental level (Hell, you might just change it back to factory-stock D&amp;D!). Telas</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Telas, post: 2236780, member: 20934"] Next time you argue with one of my quotes, try using the whole quote. I believe I mentioned that as a disgruntled player's only option (aside from discussing it politely, which seems to be beyond a number of folks). Oh, look, there's the whole paragraph. And it seems that you're arguing with only a part of what I've said. Which leads me to believe that you're not here to actually discuss and possibly learn something, but to argue and put down people who disagree with you. If you're trying to imply that I DM at a small table, try again. I have two people waiting for slots, and one trying to get back into my game. Apparently I'm doing something right, since there are other options out there. The DM is like the judge in a courtroom (with the exception that you can always pick another DM). The table is his domain, and he is omnipotent. He can change the rules as he wishes. Yes, it's rude and unprofessional and short-sighted to do so. But the players really can't do a damned thing about it, other than to complain, convince, or leave. That's it. No "implied social contract", no "save vs. DM", nothing. If this bothers you, you should play a game that is entirely objective, like chess. The game can continue without one player. It can even conceivably continue without all the players (assuming new ones enter). But it CANNOT continue without the DM, even if a new one is found. Change the DM, change the game on a fundamental level (Hell, you might just change it back to factory-stock D&D!). Telas [/QUOTE]

Verification