Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9675391" data-attributes="member: 1008">If you're just talking preferences, then cool. It's clear you don't like certain GM styles. That's OK, we don't have to like the same things.Concerning?Now we've gone from preferences to moralising. I'm emphasising it in this conversation because GM power is what the conversation is about.I don't need to emphasise it at the table, because everyone playing already knows.What concerns to do you have? What problems is my GMing style causing that you are worried about? What I do at my table doesn't affect you in any way, why do you need to be concerned?The &quot;you have to stay and run the game, even if it's not the game you want to run,&quot; attitude is the problem, because you're imposing your preferences on someone else.Leaving is choosing not to participate in something you're not going to like. It is healthy. If anything is concerning, it's your ongoing insistence that anyone has an obligation to just keep trying to find a way to appease someone who wants them to do things they don't like and don't want to do.Well, yeah.If I had an example that I felt proved me wrong, I would consider myself wrong. Do you actually expect me to post something that proves I shouldn't believe the things I'm saying?That's OK. I've already said I'm good with you thinking of me as a tyrant; your opinion of me is not going to impact my game in any way.Again, I reference the two years of session reports you asked for as one of the very few things that would satisfy you, which I've provided to you twice and mentioned on a couple of other occasions, but&nbsp; which you continue to ignore while simultaneously accusing me of not providing enough examples ...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SableWyvern, post: 9675391, member: 1008"] If you're just talking preferences, then cool. It's clear you don't like certain GM styles. That's OK, we don't have to like the same things. [I]Concerning[/I]? Now we've gone from preferences to moralising. I'm emphasising it in this conversation because GM power is what the conversation is about. I don't need to emphasise it at the table, because everyone playing already knows. What [I]concerns[/I] to do you have? What problems is my GMing style causing that you are worried about? What I do at my table doesn't affect you in any way, why do you need to be [I]concerned[/I]? The "you have to stay and run the game, even if it's not the game you want to run," attitude is the problem, because you're imposing your preferences on someone else. Leaving is choosing not to participate in something you're not going to like. It is healthy. If anything is concerning, it's your ongoing insistence that anyone has an obligation to just keep trying to find a way to appease someone who wants them to do things they don't like and don't want to do. Well, yeah. If I had an example that I felt proved me wrong, I would consider myself wrong. Do you actually expect me to post something that proves I shouldn't believe the things I'm saying? That's OK. I've already said I'm good with you thinking of me as a tyrant; your opinion of me is not going to impact my game in any way. Again, I reference the two years of session reports you asked for as one of the very few things that would satisfy you, which I've provided to you twice and mentioned on a couple of other occasions, but which you continue to ignore while simultaneously accusing me of not providing enough examples ... [/QUOTE]

Verification