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: 6123864" data-attributes="member: 22779">To be exact, I would be far less interested in a complication that I am not invested in.  Note, this doesn't mean an automatic veto - I've given an example above where it wasn't.  Just that a veto is an option.  And a veto will only occur in situations with zero player buy in. Actually, there is a very easy way for the DM to determine if a veto might be coming.  Does this scene have any player buy in?  Is it directly related to the goals of the group?  If the answer is no, then the DM should not be shocked that the players want to skip it.We've already agreed that if a single player is vetoing multiple scenarios, its time to talk to that player.  He likely does not fit in this group.  However, a DM which presents 5 scenarios which are vetoed by a different player in succession is likely, IMO, to be completely out of touch with the goals of this group.  It could simply be that the DM chose badly this time and the rest of the campaign goes smoothly, but, five in a row?  Yeah, that's on the DM.  Again, remember, when I build a group (not players, PC's, I mean) that group has interlocking goals that are known to everyone, including the DM.  The only way 5 scenarios would be rejected is if the DM completely ignored the group template and presented 5 totally unrelated scenarios.  Totally fair.  Which brings me back to the idea that if the veto is an problem at the table, likely it's a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself.  Your own examples - problem player, DM burnout are simply being highlighted by the veto.  It's not the veto that's the problem.  And, much better that the problem gets highlighted and dealt with than spending weeks or months trying to work around the problem because everyone's so afraid of hurting anyone's feelings that the game goes swirling down the drain.Ok, for the last time, that is not what I said.  I would "get shirty" when the DM presents complications with zero player buy in for the sole purpose of road blocking the game.  The whole "no discussion" thing is something you and others added to show how bad of a player I was for not immediately bowing to the all knowing, infallible DM.In the very original example, Celebrim talked about adding a bunch of, what I saw as, pointless skill checks and complications for forcing the group to interact with the desert.  That's what annoys me.  The desert has zero buy in from the player and the player is presenting a plausible means of skipping it because the desert has zero buy in.  But, because the DM wants us to interact with the desert, any means of skipping the desert that is not 100% iron clad backed by the mechanics will fail.  Nomads will blockade the city, flying monsters will suddenly attack, the weather will just happen to be bad.A siege will just "coincidentally" appear, with no warning, at the city we are in, after we have talked about getting troopies.Well, again, considering the dungeon was IN the city, I'm not really sure what we're teleporting to.  I'm not sure why you are adding this.</blockquote>

Verification