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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6112623" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yes, DM roadblocking is a common occurance with many DM's.  The fact that several DM's in this thread alone have advocated roadblocking bears that out.Actually, it was the whole, "Let's detail out the minutia of how you ride the centipede" that I found completely disengaging.  But, yeah, the desert isn't particularly interesting either since we have zero investment in the desert and 100% investment in the goal.This is why you have a group template.  The group's goals are such that the city should not be disengaging since the city is a group goal.  But, y'know what?  I still have no problems with another player saying, "Let's skip this".  But more on that later.Well, yes.  If you, the DM fail to present any desired scenes, I'm thinking that might be a problem.  But, again, more on that at the bottom.Certainly I'm willing to play an "exploration" character in the next game.  Exploration characters are a blast.  I'm more than willing to play in either campaign.  What I'm not willing to play in is both campaigns at once.  Thus, the whole "Let's have focused campaigns" thing I've been harping about.He shouldn't.  Why should he?  I'm willing to play things out most of the time, so, it's usually not a problem.  Just as it shouldn't be a problem when, that one time, I don't want to.  Again, no obligation either way.Now, here's the bit at the bottom I mentioned above:If you have five players and you present five scenarios and each scenario is rejected by a different player each time, your table has WAY larger issues than a veto.  This is a dysfunctional table and will implode anyway.  If the only thing keeping the table from imploding is some bizarre sense of obligation to the DM, I cannot see how this would actually be a fun table to sit at.If people are veto'ing scenes regularly, again, there's some pretty serious issues at that table.  Instead of simply blaming the player, why would we not sit back and try to assess where the real issue is?  After all, in the Desert Crossing scenario, it's not that I'm skipping the desert that's the real issue.  The real issue is how much should we enforce process simulation at the table.  How important is the simulation to the group?  If it's very, very important, then the player trying to veto is probably a bad fit for the group and this is a pretty good sign that something needs to change.  If it's not very important, then what's the issue with skipping the scene since skipping the scene is perfectly acceptable if the party has the proper in game resources?  There must be some other issue at work.</blockquote>

Verification