FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Please stop this personal attack.Change "friends" to "anyone's" and you have the oldest philosophical exercise known to man.
Please stop this personal attack.Change "friends" to "anyone's" and you have the oldest philosophical exercise known to man.
I didn't address anyone specific in that post. If you are seeing yourself in that statement, that's on you.Please stop this personal attack.
Reasonable.My friends know that I'm afraid of rabbits. They wouldn't invite me to a game of Bunnies and Burrows.
If you buy a copy of "City of the Spider Queen" and reach out to a friend you know is arachnophobic to join in you're kind of a jerk.
If you don't know and reach out and learn and then don't play that game with them, cool.
Whether "They remove themself" or you rescind the offer or you choose to run a different adventure because you want to spend time with them. There is no wrong path outside of being like "This is what we're playing and you HAVE TO PLAY because the rest of us want to play and otherwise you're being a bad friend!"
I’m sorry but referring to my statements in this thread as justifications to not care about anyone and keep doing what I’m doing is a personal attack, whether you explicitly mention my name or not.I didn't address anyone specific in that post. If you are seeing yourself in that statement, that's on you.
Then do that next time instead of accusing me and others of trying to justify not caring about our friends.Attacking an argument on its face for its whataboutism it not a personal attack.
Then do that next time instead of accusing me and others of trying to justify not caring about our friends.
I thought the take away was slightly different, that because they didn’t accommodate you every time they got together to game that they were not really your friends. Maybe not quite as much irony that way, but still is an unusual expectation for friendship to me.The irony being, my statement of not wanting to impact my friends plans, by exercising my own personal choice and taking responsibility for my own desires and feelings, has somehow lead to escalation of rhetoric and insinuation for pages.
So by me caring about my friends, and removing myself from the situation, I...dont care about my friends.
![]()
So, if I'm understanding these examples correctly (numbered in listed order)
1 (only 5e/OSR), 3 (some folks may not accept AD&D), and 5 (you will never run Fallout) are about system selection, and thus occur before any sort of gaming even begins. Thus, not applicable to what the thread is about, which is tools for assuaging/preventing conflicts in the preparatory and execution stages of gaming.
2 and 4 are time slot selection, which is not an issue of actually playing, but of whether play can happen in the first place. This isn't a matter of conflicting personalities or disagreements, it's a matter of whether it is even possible to game at all. So, again, has absolute bupkis to do with safety tools or compromise.
Once play has actually begun, so long as the people involved actually did communicate and express their interests properly etc., you have said "we can have a discussion"--meaning, you are amenable to finding a way to make things work, even if one or both sides ends up not getting the full and exact, specific details they originally set out for. Yes?
Because if so then that seems pretty clear to me that you do think a reasonable solution can be reached by reasonable players in actual-play situations, so long as the participants (DM and player alike) are in fact participating in good faith.
There are thousands of different modules out there, and infinite amounts of DM created scenarios. How many players do you have lined up that you can sacrifice them for one specific module?