I think you're missing my point... the justification given for the DM running back his ruling in the presented situation has been the majority wanting something being equated to the most fun/what's best for the game (I mean even you used the appeal to popularity as a justification in some of your posts)... and the most fun was then equated to the goal of most/all peoples games... so in theory using those random determiners only detracts from the fun that could be had since the most fun is when the majority playing get what they want... right? If not... why are we using an appeal to popularity as some kind of valid argument for why the players opinions should take precedence over the GM's?
It's not about the appeal to popularity. It's about opposing views of what's fun/fair/enjoyable.
If your point is that this is not a way to adjudicate all conflict in the game, then yes, I agree with you. But I don't think anyone's really saying that should be the case.
Why? I mean you can state it but why does the majority rules method make sense? Please answer this in the same way I am answering your inquiry below...
Because more people think that's the way it should go? I don't know how to elaborate on that.
It's a situation that the rules leave unspecified. The GM makes a ruling. Every player in the game disagrees with that ruling. I don't really think such a ruling should stand.
The GM is privy to a clearer understanding of the situation as well as the game overall including hidden situations, how magic functions in his world, etc... We also are not increasing the power of already powerful casters by enabling them to circumvent one of the restrictions on the levitate spell to levitate multiple creatures or objects with one casting.
Sure, if there is relevant info of which the players are not aware, that may be a factor. I didn't see any in the example, but yes, that may come up in other examples. I don't recall the specifics of the levitate spell in 2e D&D to know if rules were being broken or not. It seemed to me a case of clever use of a spell shut down arbitrarily by a GM. The example is incomplete and we don't know all the relevant details, but when you questioned why the players should have their say, I thought it was very obvious why from the scenario as described.
Please quit trying to define my argument for me... it's not about being factually correct... it also shouldn't boil down to numbers make right, especially when there is a clear driver for bias... mainly my character not dying.
I'm not trying to define your argument for you. I responded with the same logic you offered. I mention facts because the world is not flat, so in that case, one side is factually correct. That's a distinction from a ruling in D&D where people have opinions on it, but neither side is factually right.
In this case, the majority of people are dissatisfied with the ruling made. Not "unhappy" as in they're sad about the results that they otherwise accept (like a PC dying....folks usually aren't happy, but they accept it)...but rather they think the wrong call was made.
