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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9085190" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Which....is what I have been saying all along.That they are putting their wants--choices, goals, whatever word people want to use for it--ahead of their players'. Which is the problem at hand.This is something you've done at least three times now: I make a claim. You then take that claim and say, "Okay, so does that mean we must accept the most grotesque extreme version of that claim?" It's extremely tedious, especially because I'm pretty sure you yourself are one of the folks who have asked to avoid hyperbole.So: Can you make this argument without hyperbole?Okay. Now I want you to consider:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The way you have described how you view this feature sounds extremely narrow to me. You spoke, for example, of only allowing audiences with nobles with a very direct connection to the PC. That's not how the feature is written; it speaks in much more general terms. Can you see how such an interpretation would make me think you are not actually interested in giving me what is plainly written, but instead restricting things until only what you want is allowed to happen?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You keep harping on this "guaranteed," "guaranteed," "guaranteed" thing. Step back just the tiniest, tiniest bit from that, please? Not "literally guaranteed absolutely no matter what." But more like, "if there is ANY way to make it happen that is still reasonable, I'll do it." Reasonableness remains relevant. But "reasonableness" here is something only to be invoked at dire need. I don't see it being treated as a "dire need" standard here. I see it being pulled out after a token effort--if even that much. That's a concern.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You refer, here, to something that to me reads like a perfectly reasonable application, as you showing a significant--perhaps even extreme!--form of generosity. Again, that gives the impression that you feel the player's requests are impositions, unfair or inappropriate demands, which you are being terribly gracious to even entertain in the first place. This attitude is exactly what I am criticizing. I assert GMs should view generous interpretations as the default, which they should only deviate from when doing so would extract a truly unacceptable price. That is, since I apparently must specify this every time, ABSOLUTELY NOT the same as things being guaranteed. Instead, it means GMs should come to the conversation doing their damnedest to say yes, unless they truly cannot find a reason to do so....which is why I have said, repeatedly, the "we should be looking for a reason to say yes, not looking for a reason to say no."</li> </ul>Genuine question: Can you step back from such absolute hardline words like "guaranteed," allowing for nuance that I and others have explicitly referenced numerous times throughout this thread? Because it seems to me that you keep going back to the absolute most illogical extreme, and that's not actually what people are arguing. We are arguing for thoroughgoing generosity, where you seem to think generosity is an unnecessary olive branch the GM should remove on the regular; we are arguing for expansive interpretations, where you seem to think the best choice is always the most narrow interpretation; we are arguing for a gracious effort to meet halfway and find a solution that respects both player goal and world-consistency, where you seem to think that if there's ever an apparent conflict, it's a waste of effort to try to address it, so just focus on world-consistency, player goals are simply not important enough to try.So, do you not see how this is in fact presuming bad faith on the player's part? Because that's what this is. You are describing a petulant child, not a mature adult seeking reasonable ends.</blockquote>

Verification