Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 7656465" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Wait, so you're objecting to my hearing you out and asking questions before explaining how you've got it all wrong? You seriously want me to dismiss you without a hearing? You want me to just assume that I know exactly what you think the word "collegial" means, and tell you why you're wrong because you're using it wrong? What kind of life do you live, man? I try to listen to people before talking at them. I don't always succeed, but I try. This is the first time I remember anyone ever objecting to that.False. "You're right, a whole fleet of star destroyers couldn't destroy a planet." Or if you still consider that "setting" information about the capabilities of star destroyers, "Roll an Intelligence check. [On success] You're right, it would take a massive amount of firepower to destroy a planet, more than you think a whole fleet of star destroyers would have. Isn't that interesting?"It is false that the GM has no recourse at the metagame (i.e. rule) level.So, are you demanding that I go through this list of yours to argue with you about which items are significant and which are irrelevant trifles? YMMV, but: (a) is false. (b) is not an interesting difference. (c) is just a restatement of (b). (d) is false--the resolution of the manticore/terrain question can be pursued in-character by attempting to disbelieve illusions or pursue the puzzle of its appearance, provided that the character has knowledge of manticore ecologies. (e) is false or at least unsound--you're inferring facts which haven't been provided. We don't know from the story whether the player wanted a retcon to remove the manticore or simply an acknowledgment by the DM that Manticores shouldn't be here (and maybe renaming it a Forest Manticore or something). (f) doesn't matter, since player knowledge and PC knowledge are separate things. Revealing in-game knowledge to the player isn't the same thing as revealing it to the PC. In 5E this would be an Intelligence (Nature) check. (g) was already covered by me. (h) was suspected by me but it's good to see you acknowledge that my guess was correct. This is the essence of what I see as the difference between a collegial approach and your approach, which you prefer to be called something other than "dictatorial" because of the stigma. In the collegial approach (collegial: "relating to a friendly relationship between colleagues (= people who work together)") all the players are social peers, including the DM, so there are no social implications to "challenging" his "authority". (i) is false. It was a mistake. But this is really just (b) restated yet again. (j) is false, because they were playing AD&D2. Moreover, it is just a restatement of (a).Maybe I should demand an apology from you now for your implication that I "couldn't think" of any of differences, when the only two valid differences (g and h) were in fact identified by me. But that would be petty and stupid of me, right? Because winning social status contests by browbeating Internet strangers into agreeing with you never works in the first place, and would be a waste of time even if it did work. So no, I won't apologize to you for characterizing your position as ("apparently") dictatorial or "poisoning the well," but I'm glad that you've at least managed to state your position clearly now, and hopefully the opposing position is clear now as well and you can stop using straw men. Whether you actually do stop will say more about you than about me.</blockquote>

Verification