Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8884478" data-attributes="member: 93670">that sounds familiar...[spoiler=&quot;maybe this is why&quot;]yea guess that's why[/spoiler]The trouble with just pawning a system problem off on a demand that the GM engage in a discussion is that 5e takes too many steps elsewhere to ensure that the GM starts off standing in quicksand and that the players have no needs at stake should they simply decline to participate &amp; twiddle their thumbs while some fraction of the group(maybe just a single player) makes clear that there is no room for compromise in their self insert power fantasy.&nbsp; half baked Solutions like gritty realism just make the problem worse because too many things are linked to time rather than rests &amp; the GM will be nerfing some things by switching &amp; ridiculously buffing others in ways that will require wave after wave of &quot;surprise&quot; unannounced nerfs as they are stumbled across.Even your example starts off churning that quicksand with <a href="https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Evard%27s_black_tentacles" target="_blank">Evard's</a> by setting up a no win <a href="https://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html" target="_blank">loaded question</a> where either the GM doesn't know why the players are taking a rest they don't feel appropriate to give -or- the GM is punishing the players.&nbsp; The idea that the GM could be the one in the right is not even on the table until they can prove otherwise &amp; the players have no incentive to listen to that attempt in good faith by design of a system that strips away every PC facing pressure for new players to develop the idea that player:GM cross table relationship has symbiotic elements &amp; that the GMisn't just their adversary while taking so many steps to ensure the GM can't look reasonable to their players when trying to subvert the system this way</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8884478, member: 93670"] that sounds familiar... [spoiler="maybe this is why"] yea guess that's why [/spoiler] The trouble with just pawning a system problem off on a demand that the GM engage in a discussion is that 5e takes too many steps elsewhere to ensure that the GM starts off standing in quicksand and that the players have no needs at stake should they simply decline to participate & twiddle their thumbs while some fraction of the group[I](maybe just a single player)[/I] makes clear that there is no room for compromise in their self insert power fantasy. half baked Solutions like gritty realism just make the problem worse because too many things are linked to time rather than rests & the GM will be nerfing some things by switching & ridiculously buffing others in ways that will require wave after wave of "surprise" unannounced nerfs as they are stumbled across. Even your example starts off churning that quicksand with [URL='https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Evard%27s_black_tentacles']Evard's[/URL] by setting up a no win [URL='https://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html']loaded question[/URL] where either the GM doesn't know why the players are [I]taking[/I] a rest they don't feel appropriate to [I]give[/I] -or- the GM is punishing the players. The idea that the GM could be the one in the right is not even on the table until they can prove otherwise & the players have no incentive to listen to that attempt in good faith by design of a system that strips away every PC facing pressure for new players to develop the idea that player:GM cross table relationship has symbiotic elements & that the GMisn't just their adversary while taking so many steps to ensure the GM [I]can't[/I] look reasonable to their players when trying to subvert the system this way [/QUOTE]

Verification