Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6122511" data-attributes="member: 22779">Summing up.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I think for me, what it boils down to is that in any group, whether it is a gaming group or a group of friends, no always trumps yes.  Again, this is for me.  If five people are trying to decide what to do, and one says, "Hey, let's go bowling." and someone says, "Naw, I don't want to go bowling." that means we don't go bowling.  Granted, we might try to wheedle and cajole someone into going bowling, or outright bribery is not out of the question (There's beer in it!) but by and large, if someone doesn't want to do something, we respect that.It seems to me that at some gaming tables, that is not respected.  No does not trump yes.  So long as one person says yes, as in N'raac's cases, the group is obligated to do what that person wants to do, presuming that the DM also goes along with it (or, that one person might solely be the DM).  To me, this is not a game I would enjoy.It doesn't matter how good the game is or how good the DM is (or how bad for that matter).  It's about everyone at the table having a say in what the game is.  When someone doesn't want to do something, expecting that person to ride the pines quietly for the next hour, or possibly the next three gaming sessions, is unreasonable to me.  I never expect anyone at my table to quietly accept anything.  No one is ever obligated to do so.  If someone doesn't like something, that is not a problem for me.  We move on.The whole point of a group template is to make sure that everyone is on the same page at the outset of the campaign.  We might have conflicting goals, but, we will never have mutually exclusive goals.  N'raac's example of the group with the fighter and the wizard and the tower illustrates perfectly why we do group templates.  In my group, either everyone would be on board with going to the tower, or everyone would be on board with going home.  You would never have a player leveraging his in-game resources to hijack the campaign against the express wishes of another player (or players). Which does bring me to an additional point.  In the Wizard/Tower example, what happens if the wizard and cleric want to go home, but the fighter wants to stay?  The fighter has no in-game resources to leverage here since the wizard controls the means of transport.  The fighter has no in-game way, short of simply walking away from the group, of making the campaign about exploring the tower.  What happens then?  Does the group go home or does it stay and explore?Because if the group goes home, then my point about in-game resources has been spot on all the way along.  This whole discussion has nothing to do with respect or table etiquette or anything like that and everything to do with in-game resources.</blockquote>

Verification