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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9665227" data-attributes="member: 1008">I think this is in large part because it's all very context dependent.But first, and politely, you're exaggerating and changing the things I just said, so I'd ask you to take a small step back. I absolutely did not describe anything as an "example of problematic DMing that no player should accept!" or anything close to that. What I said was if there is a difference of opinion, the players should speak up and this should be discussed, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreeable conclusion. We are going to end up at an impasse again very quickly if you are going to misrepresent the things I'm saying.With that out of the way, here are some examples of different situations, variations on those situations, and how I see them being handled.First, I do feel entirely comfortable, in certain circumstances, if a player says, "Hey, this doesn't make sense," responding to them, "The fact that you don't think it makes sense is probably exactly how your character is feeling right now. Thinking it doesn't make sense is perfectly reasonable, and I think it would make sense for your character to respond appropriately."I would probably expect my players to accept that, and trust me that there is an explanation.That said, if I had a player who who really dug in and felt there was no possible way it could make sense, I would be willing to go over it with them, because I know my players are reasonable, and if this is a real sticking point for them, it's worth clearing it up.Conversely, if it's a new player, I would probably also be willing to go into more detail if necessary, but for a different reason -- in this case, because I'm still in the process of building trust with that player, and being open is likely to help with that.Now, if this player turns out to constantly question everything I do, there is obviously a bigger issue. If we can't get on the same page then it is most likely the case that they're not a good fit for the group. Not necessarily due to anyone's fault, but just because we have fundamentally different expectations.If the player's issue is that there couldn't possibly be a lake of this size in this area, because of the local rock type and rainfall and blah blah technical scientific stuff, I would most likely say, "Look, I'm far from an expert on lake formation, are you OK with going along with the fact that, in this world, for some reason, there is a lake here? I'm not really in a position to completely rewrite all the details of this region." If the player is unable to do this, then again, the reality is we're probably not compatible. I am have no interest in running a hydrology simulation, nor would I have the knowledge to do so if I wanted to. If a player requires this from their game, I'm not the GM for them.So, just because a player speaks up, doesn't mean the GM gives them what they want. Sometimes, the GM might ask the player to just trust them. Sometimes that might not be a feasible option (especially in a situation where the player needs a clear understanding before they can make a decision). But, when the player and the GM discuss a point of contention, in my personal opinion, it should be relatively straightforward to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement, whether this is sticking with what the GM originally said, changing it completely or anywhere in between.In my experience, these types of issues aren't usually about what's plausible, they're the result of a miscommunication that is easily cleared up. When they're not communication issues, they can still usually be cleared up pretty easily and, at the end of the conversation, everyone's understanding of what is "plausible" is more closely aligned.My general philosophy on these things is to give the players what they want  as much as is possible, and I'll be happy to adjust my vision to suit their needs. However, because my players know that I will compromise in their favour quite often, they tend to be willing to cede to me on those occasions where I feel it is important that I don't compromise. There is give and take both ways, my players give me the authority to make a final decision if I need to, and I respect them by not overusing that power to get my own way.As I have said earlier, in the event that a GM and a player simply have irreconcilable views on what is reasonable or plausible well, by definition, the two cannot be reconciled. In such a situation, the player and GM simply aren't a good fit, and should look elsewhere for their gaming fun.So, in summary, I do GM with the power to make and enforce decisions as I see fit. And I use that power from time to time. But I have that power only as long as my players are content that I do, and I do not abuse it. And, when the roles are reversed, I work especially hard to support the GM and roll with their decisions. We work as a team, we communicate, we all want the same thing: we want to game, not argue or fight. And, as a result, we game and we do not argue and fight.I don't know if that is going to help you understand my position any better, but I hope it does in some way.[Some edits for grammar, clarity etc.]</blockquote>

Verification