Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="M_Natas" data-source="post: 9832774" data-attributes="member: 7025918">And to be clear, the takeaway from this isn’t that we need blanket rules forcing GMs to accommodate every player demand in order to “balance power.”That would be solving the wrong problem.A GM pitching a specific campaign, with specific constraints, is not exercising abusive power. That’s just creative authorship. Saying “this is the game I want to run” is not coercion — it’s an invitation. Players are free to accept or decline.The actual problem is spaces where declining is punished rather than simply accepted. Where reputation, access, or social standing are leveraged to keep people compliant. You don’t fix that by flattening all GM authority or by turning every table into a negotiation committee.You fix it by dismantling unsafe norms:– treating participation as optional, not obligatory– normalizing “no thanks” as a complete answer– refusing to protect people from people who repeatedly exploit social pressure, regardless of whether they’re GMs or playersHealthy spaces don’t require rules to prevent abuse because abuse doesn’t pay off there. Unhealthy spaces will always find ways around rules.So the goal isn’t to nerf GMs. It’s to stop rewarding bad social behavior.</blockquote>