Quote from: PseudoephedrineI acknowledge that those are parts of communication. That is why I always post additional material clarifying my position. However, I have little patience for people who are not careful reader and who do not speak carefully. I try to be one myself, and I think it is better to be one than not. I am only willing to concede so much to the audience.

To make an analogy of sorts:

If I were to undertake an outreach program with undereducated urban youths, to teach them the value of education and self improvement over a life of violence and self destruction, I would not go to them speaking like I do in this example.  

The counter argument could be that by dumbing down the message I am condecending to the audience, which is insulting.  That, however, is missing the point. While 'pretending' to be something you are not is counterproductive, it is not necessary to adapt your communication to the reciever. Refusal to adapt is to purposely limit your ability to communicate.

You've pointed out that you do post follow-ups in an attempt to clarify your points. I've seen you post follow ups, but rarely do they seem to clarify. In fact, typically they tend to calcify your position on the extremes of whatever is being discussed... in effect counter to your stated intent.  Since your 'clarifications' are read as such (an attempt to clarify) they are taken at face value by the audience, and you naturally come across far more reactionary.  If someone posts something wild, I tend to question if they actually mean it. If they follow up and reinforce the wild parts, I tend to believe that is actually where they stand, rather than the opposite.

Those three parts of communication are held to equal weights. None is any more important to effective communication than any other.  By dismissing the audience's value... well, I'm repeating myself now.

Quote from: BrimshackPseudo:

There is a lot of wiggle room in your position. On the one hand you are addressing questions about the authority to make a decision, but on the other you are also talking about the heavy-handedness with which those decisions are sometimes made. Two very different problems.

I think they are related problems. There's an implication in many of the arguments that other people are making that the factual should be normative. Books say that the DM's word is absolute, so the DM's word should be absolute. Groups do play games by giving the DM near-absolute authority, so this is the way groups should play. I am critical of that implication.

QuoteRejects a player's argument is not ignoring it.

Certainly. Players can often make poor arguments.

QuoteReasonable people can and do often fail to see each others points, and the notion that the DM is the ultimate arbiter does NOT mean that he feels free to ignore his players. It means push comes to shove, he will make the decision.

Why not make a consensual decision? What does "push come to shove" mean? When one player is preventing everyone else from having fun by insisting that his position is the correct one that must be adopted without modification or questioning? I agree that can be a problem. In fact, I want to say it's not just a problem when a PC does it, but when a DM does it as well.

QuoteSome DMs can do this reasonably and others are jerks about it, but the approach is not inherently unreasonable. It does not smack of hubris (the Divine Right of Kings Example ignores that presidents, Judges, and a variety of people assert coercive authority without claiming such power), nor does necessarily entail dissmissal of the players.

Certainly, people can exercise authority without being jerks. I have not denied that. But the statement that initially caused me to speak out was "I am the law!" made by pathfinderap in reference to his power as DM. That's an extreme claim, and if you look at my response, you will see that it is specifically targeted at people who make those kinds of claims.

Now, I have since extended my critique somewhat to encompass less extreme formulations, but still of that general type - an assertion of the absoluteness of the DM's authority of the game, whether formulated as DM "ownership" of the game, or whatever else. I'd extend it to a critique of _any_ player, DM or not, who makes such a claim (for example, a rules lawyer), but that's outside the scope of this thread.

QuoteI understand you have a different approach, that you rely on consensus, and that you have had success with it. This is great, and I don't know about the others, but I respect that. What I object to personally (and yes I realize I am a newbie here, so for what it's worth) is the assertion that those who do not employ your approach are behaving as willful tyrants.

To say "I am the law" is the statement of a willful tyrant. The DM is not automatically such a tyrant, but many people posting to this thread seem more willing to err by being overly tyrannical than by being overly concerned with what the other players want. I am perfectly willing to respect people who wish DMs to have more authority than I wish them to have. But the boundary condition on that respect is not asserting the absoluteness of the DM's authority.

Once again, this isn't some theoretical or hypothetical point I'm making that nobody actually holds. Someone on this very thread wrote words to that effect, which I responded to.

Quote from: obrynSorry, I quoted the wrong post. :deflated:  I was referring to the games where he stands up and calls people cunts if they play differently than he does.

-O

Playing differently than I do isn't a problem. You have imagined that I have at some point written the sentence "I believe my preferences should be universalised amongst all persons" or something similar. I have not. Not in this argument or any other. Many people do hold this position, implicitly or otherwise. I do not.

I do, when a DM or another player starts asserting their absolute authority over the game I am playing in, use foul language to indicate my displeasure with their conduct. I don't jump into other people's games to tell them that I dislike them. I also have not said that I do this, or implied that I do.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI acknowledge that those are parts of communication. That is why I always post additional material clarifying my position. However, I have little patience for people who are not careful reader and who do not speak carefully. I try to be one myself, and I think it is better to be one than not. I am only willing to concede so much to the audience.

If you frequently find yourself being read as having taken a different or more extreme position than you were espousing, it's possible (some would say probable) that the fault is not solely with the reader.

So what happens when Player and GM can't reach consensus?  A specific example you may have would be helpful.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf you frequently find yourself being read as having taken a different or more extreme position than you were espousing, it's possible (some would say probable) that the fault is not solely with the reader.

I am willing to admit that I am partially at fault, but I am not willing to take sole responsibility. It is also the same group of people who consistently read my posts as being more extreme than they are, not the general population of the forum.

Quote from: SpikeTo make an analogy of sorts:

If I were to undertake an outreach program with undereducated urban youths, to teach them the value of education and self improvement over a life of violence and self destruction, I would not go to them speaking like I do in this example.  

The counter argument could be that by dumbing down the message I am condecending to the audience, which is insulting.  That, however, is missing the point. While 'pretending' to be something you are not is counterproductive, it is not necessary to adapt your communication to the reciever. Refusal to adapt is to purposely limit your ability to communicate.

To convince someone of something is to negate what they currently know and replace it with something else. I don't make many concessions to sloppy readers because I am less interested in catering to their preunderstanding of the subject than in negating it and replacing it with something else.

This is why I often say that people fail to understand my position - because rather than reading carefully and taking my words at their face value, they import all sorts of things. One thing that often gets imported, for example, is the belief that I desire my preferences to be universalised. Obryn and Christmas Ape both did it in this thread, for example.

QuoteYou've pointed out that you do post follow-ups in an attempt to clarify your points. I've seen you post follow ups, but rarely do they seem to clarify. In fact, typically they tend to calcify your position on the extremes of whatever is being discussed... in effect counter to your stated intent.  Since your 'clarifications' are read as such (an attempt to clarify) they are taken at face value by the audience, and you naturally come across far more reactionary.  If someone posts something wild, I tend to question if they actually mean it. If they follow up and reinforce the wild parts, I tend to believe that is actually where they stand, rather than the opposite.

So what are you proposing I do instead? It seems to be only on this forum that I have this problem, and then only with a few people - obryn, Ian, etc. Also, I take issue with the characterisation of my posts as "calcifying [my] position on the extremes". I think that's a misreading of them.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think they are related problems. There's an implication in many of the arguments that other people are making that the factual should be normative. Books say that the DM's word is absolute, so the DM's word should be absolute. Groups do play games by giving the DM near-absolute authority, so this is the way groups should play. I am critical of that implication.

The second to last sentence contains a straw man. Most of the arguments presented here are not arguments to the effect that people should play this way. They are arguments against claims that we should not. Certainly my own objections to your position are directed against that position. But I for one have made no argument whatsoever about how people SHOULD play. I do believe that you have.

More importantly, the fact thatthey are related problems does not resolve the ambiguity in your position. Do you object only to DMs who are unwilling to listen or who make boastful comments about their word being law? Or do you object to any DM saying that they reserve the option to make the decisions as they see fit regardless of their willingness to listen to others?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineCertainly. Players can often make poor arguments.  

That wasn't my point. My point was that reasonable arguments do not necessarily resolve disputes. People can and do fail to see the reason in a good argument, and not out of malice or stupidity, but because of personal bias, miscommunication, differences in priorities, and all the other things that derail reason on a daily basis. The question becomes what happens when reason has failed? I don't reject your answer to that question, but I do reject your categorical dismissal of other prople's approach to it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhy not make a consensual decision? What does "push come to shove" mean? When one player is preventing everyone else from having fun by insisting that his position is the correct one that must be adopted without modification or questioning? I agree that can be a problem. In fact, I want to say it's not just a problem when a PC does it, but when a DM does it as well.

I haven't argued that consesual decisions should not be made by consensus? Why is consensus the only viable solution that you will entertain?

"Push comes to shove" was meant in the context of irreducible disagreement. Debate and argument do not necessarily resolve disagreement. My point was that there is nothing unreasonable about a DM reserving the right to make judgement calls as he sees them, especially if after hearing out the players he remains unconvinced.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineCertainly, people can exercise authority without being jerks. I have not denied that. But the statement that initially caused me to speak out was "I am the law!" made by pathfinderap in reference to his power as DM. That's an extreme claim, and if you look at my response, you will see that it is specifically targeted at people who make those kinds of claims.

Your initial response was indeed directed at the "extreme claim." Your follow-up arguments cast a much broader net, as noted below.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNow, I have since extended my critique somewhat to encompass less extreme formulations, but still of that general type - an assertion of the absoluteness of the DM's authority of the game, whether formulated as DM "ownership" of the game, or whatever else. I'd extend it to a critique of _any_ player, DM or not, who makes such a claim (for example, a rules lawyer), but that's outside the scope of this thread.

Okay, so your concerns are not simply about refusal to listen or making boastful claims. They extend to any DM who asserts the authority to decide how things will work as they see fit. Thus far, however, you have made no arguments whatsoever as to why that is unreasonable. You have asserted that other alternatives work foryou. Fine. And you have argued that DMs should not be dismissive, etc., but that can as easily be taken as an argument about how to wield power as an argument against having itin the first place.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineTo say "I am the law" is the statement of a willful tyrant. The DM is not automatically such a tyrant, but many people posting to this thread seem more willing to err by being overly tyrannical than by being overly concerned with what the other players want. I am perfectly willing to respect people who wish DMs to have more authority than I wish them to have. But the boundary condition on that respect is not asserting the absoluteness of the DM's authority.

I don't share your assessment of the "many" other poster's priorities. Perhaps you could show me where a significant number of posters have expressed a willingness to allow tyranny. Alternatively, I would suggest that your perception of this willingness is based on little other than failure to adopt your own rather egalitarian approach to the game. That appeoach sounds interesting, but once again, you treat it as a norm that the rest of us should folow. It isn't.

But at the end of this paragraph your back to a more narrow objection. The respect you claim you show now has been withheld in previous posts. In the same post you have both claimed a wider objection to DM authority and restricted yourself to a narrow one to misuse of that authority. This is equivocation.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOnce again, this isn't some theoretical or hypothetical point I'm making that nobody actually holds. Someone on this very thread wrote words to that effect, which I responded to.

Again, this goes to the more narrow of your objections. If the point is that the DM shouldn't be too haughty with his power, then so be it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI stuck with the idea of building rules consensuses between players instead of just demanding they acknowledge my authority when I was DM, and in reward, I was told that I DMed the "smoothest" game of D&D they'd ever played.

I don't work to build consensus so much as to demonstrate how games work—in short, conflict equals fun. I basically posit this: You, as a player, can help make your experience more fun by helping me add appropriate conflict to the game. If you built characters, engender situations, etc., that overly much reduce the conflict in the game, our fun is going to suffer.

And then I try to make them co-authors in the game.

Seanchai

Pseud:

QuoteNow, I have since extended my critique somewhat to encompass less extreme formulations, but still of that general type - an assertion of the absoluteness of the DM's authority of the game, whether formulated as DM "ownership" of the game, or whatever else.

QuoteI am perfectly willing to respect people who wish DMs to have more authority than I wish them to have.

Here is the heart of the problem as I see it. Above, you appear to be saying both that you object to giving the DM ultimate power and that you can respect it for others. Going back and forth like that it is difficult to tell your argments against DM boorishness as a personality issue and your arguments about what in principle should or should not be the role of the DM.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSo what are you proposing I do instead? It seems to be only on this forum that I have this problem, and then only with a few people - obryn, Ian, etc. Also, I take issue with the characterisation of my posts as "calcifying [my] position on the extremes". I think that's a misreading of them.

I think this is at least part because of your previous posts.  Taken in a vacuum, or under a different user name, I don't know that I would have read as much overbearingness into your posts in this thread.  Other than the yelling at the gamemaster, part.  That's just inane.

Like it or not, you're developing an implied persona here - that of a rules-mongering, nerd-raging asshole.  It's not these posts in particular, it's your body of work taken as a whole.

Sure, you can blame me for reading more into it than you put there, and say you don't need to cater to worrying about how I read your posts.  Fine.  Just don't be surprised when I (and others) read more into your posts than you think you put there.  Reading between the lines and assimilating social information is an essential human skill, and anyone without Aspergers or Autism will tend to do it automatically.

-O

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think the idea of DM's "owning" a game and exerting "ultimate control" is an ideological position, not a real description of how people play. I've never run across a functional group that actually ceded all authority to the DM and just quietly accepted his interpretations of the rules. The assertion that a DM's word is "law" is just one made by DMs and would-be DMs to bolster their authority.

I don't dispute that it's an ideological position, and relies on the consent of everyone at the table. Where we seemingly differ is in our experience of how this phenomenon manifests. "Ultimate power" in the sense I used it equates with 'the power of veto,' and has been supported and encouraged by many, many systems going all the way back to gaming's inception. How many times have we read variations on the passage "The DM's/GM's/Storyteller's/Referee's decision is final?"

The model doesn't preclude robust debate or even screaming arguments, instead it provides a baseline assumption intended to stop the potentially endless feedback loop of player vs. GM conflict, ceding the ultimate decision of what is permissable to only one of those parties.

QuoteIt's like a king asserting that his power comes not from the fact that he's part of an institution which acknowledges him as its legitimate leader, but because he has a divine right to be king and be obeyed.

That's one expression of the model, to be sure. It's also a piss-poor one that is likely a result of retarded socialisation on the part of the GM. I recently quit a 3.5 game because the DM would continually make arbitrary pronouncements on what could or couldn't be achieved by characters as the mood took him. It was a fundamental abuse of the authority the system and players had invested him with, and I had no time for it. That doesn't mean to say that the model is flawed though, as any consensus set-up can be fucked by by an intractable or argumentative player, too.

QuoteIn a real group, people are constantly debating about how the rules and story apply to a given situation, and much of what settles the debate in the end is out-of-game factors like personal charisma, precedent or the reasonability of the positions, not repetition of "I am the DM, my word is law!" or "I own the game!" or whatever.

Again, it's not the sort of thing that should be wielded like a club, but if and when when debate has reached an impasse then an appeal to authority needs to be made. Like it or not the default assumption for rpg's places that authority in the hands of the DM.  

QuoteI seem to hold the awful, murderous, genocidal opinion that if I make a reasonable argument, I expect others to feel the force of its reason, and in return, I will acknowledge reasonable arguments made by others as such, even if it's merely a reasonable argument about a game. I think people who want to prevent me from being able to do that are jerks, especially if their authority to prevent me from doing so is as petty as just being the DM.

I don't think your opinions are in any way awful, murderous or genocidal. I accept your dissatisfaction with the standard approach, and the ways in which it can be abused. The only real issue I have is with your apparent conflation of this model with the personalities of those who subscribe to it. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that, though.

Quote from: MoriartySo what happens when Player and GM can't reach consensus?  A specific example you may have would be helpful.

It would depend on why they couldn't reach a consensus.

Here's a specific example of something on which we do not have a consensus in my group: Should the tumble check to move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity be a flat DC of 25 (as it says in the PHB) or should it be an opposed check, such that you do provoke the attack of opportunity, but you get the better of your tumble skill check or your AC against the attack?

There are five people in our group: Chris, Curtis (our usual DM), John (me), Rob and Simon.

The positions are these: Chris favours the flat DC strongly. Curtis strongly favours the opposed check. Rob mildly favours the opposed check, and I mildly favour the opposed check but also acknowledge that the flat DC would benefit me more in our upcoming game. Simon does not care either way but wants a consistent ruling.

The situation of our game is this: We have recently finished a five year campaign and are about to start a new game under Rob. In the five year campaign, we used the opposed check, and it is the system we are most familiar with.

I suspect that the reason that we do not have a consensus on the problem has very little to do with the game reasons given by members of both sides and more to do with out of game reasons. Chris, Si and Curtis were all Rob's friends (though not with each other) prior to gaming with him, while Curtis and I are good friends outside gaming, and Curtis and Si are now close acquaintances outside of gaming. Rob and I used to be good acquaintances, but now mostly see one another when gaming.

Curtis, when he is DMing, tactically works to get Rob's approval of positions he adopts (he also attempts to get my approval, not to directly persuade others, but to provide him with talking points). If Rob approves of a position, Chris and Si will usually go along out of friendship, at least temporarily.

However, at the end of most of our games, I drive Chris and Curtis home, while Rob bikes home from Si's house. We traditionally wait until after the game to debate rules, which means any debate that starts on Si's porch finishes in my car, between Chris and Curtis and myself. Without Rob around to motivate an agreement, Chris and Curtis usually just debate without really getting anywhere. Since I started giving Rob drives home, I suspect that this will clear itself up in time.

Answering why a specific group can't reach a consensus on a specific issue is always complex. Even this is only one aspect of how our group works, and one that is somewhat simplified for presentation.

I've got to go to work soon, so I can't answer your longer post until later tonight.

Quote from: BrimshackPseud:

Here is the heart of the problem as I see it. Above, you appear to be saying both that you object to giving the DM ultimate power and that you can respect it for others. Going back and forth like that it is difficult to tell your argments against DM boorishness as a personality issue and your arguments about what in principle should or should not be the role of the DM.

I have to go back and forth because the arguments I'm responding to don't distinguish between them. This isn't a position paper published in a journal - the people I'm arguing don't present clear theses one at a time, allowing me to rebut each one before going on to the next.

I'm engaging with a constellation of beliefs held by multiple people, each of whom choose to phrase their own ideas in different ways. Going back and forth is the only way to cover all the bases and respond to their objections.

There's nothing incoherent in what I've said, which seems to be more important than jumping around itself. I haven't contradicted myself, nor said one thing in one post then something completely different in another. It has taken me some time to get my full position out and show how it all relates, it's true, but that's because I can't devote all my time to answering replies on a messageboard.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineTo convince someone of something is to negate what they currently know and replace it with something else. I don't make many concessions to sloppy readers because I am less interested in catering to their preunderstanding of the subject than in negating it and replacing it with something else.

This is why I often say that people fail to understand my position - because rather than reading carefully and taking my words at their face value, they import all sorts of things. One thing that often gets imported, for example, is the belief that I desire my preferences to be universalised. Obryn and Christmas Ape both did it in this thread, for example.



So what are you proposing I do instead? It seems to be only on this forum that I have this problem, and then only with a few people - obryn, Ian, etc. Also, I take issue with the characterisation of my posts as "calcifying [my] position on the extremes". I think that's a misreading of them.

I am not at all certain that any person ever takes every communication 'at face value'.  By that I must assume you mean 'literally just what I said, word for word'.  We all read into, make assumptions, determine implied meanings in every scrap of communication barring only the most ruthlessly technical.  You consistently deride people for reading into your posts. You also seem to deliberately read into other people's posts by NOT reading into their posts. Sounds odd to say it that way, but...

Take the 'I AM THE LAW' that you took exception to. Most of us read that and get the implied meaning that he doesn't actually shout that around the table. It's implicit in the extremity of it that he's exaggerating, using hyperbole to communicate his position. He's signing up for a side.  Maybe that is looking too deep into it, maybe it's not. It is, however, a natural response.

You, apparently, took it far more literally. I won't go so far as to suggest you actually think he DOES run around the table shouting Judge Dredd quotes at his players whenever they dare speak up... but you certainly reacted much as if you had... both in the initial post of 'I'd tell him he was a Cunt if he took that attitude with me' and later when you quoted him.  You signed up, in a sense, as diametrically opposed.  Only when I shifted the conversation to the clarity of your communications did you conceed that the GM can have some authority at the table, as long as the conversation remained focused purely on the debates over GM authority you continously set yourself further and further apart from the 'GM as God' crowd.  

You calcified your position, which could be 'incorrect' insamuch as calcified implies lack of movement. You moved 'away' from center. Concensus, condemnation of GM authority; every post went a step farther in establishing your position on the other side of the line.

Yet when I changed focus, your actual position was revealed as more moderate. Moderate on the 'other side', certainly.  Its a standard pattern in arguments to distance oneself from the other position until, ultimately, neither side is really defending their own positions so much as 'not being the other guy'... you just seem to do it faster. Complaining that people aren't reading your literal words doesn't endear you to people 'in the middle' at all.

Since I don't want to try to dissect you and your posts... I've already tried harder than I'm comfortable with... instead I will suggest that you remember that on the internet we don't have access to your body language or other 'nonverbal' communication cues. We are all wired to use those cues to fill in gaps in our verbal (internet included) communications.  So, if you don't run into these problems in real life conversation, it is probable that people 'read you' easier with cues. Adapt to your environment, just like I advocate adapting your message to your audience.


In closing: I suspect part of the problem is your definition of convincing people.  That is very antagonistic. You lead like it's already an argument and arguments follow. Minds close, yadda yadda.  I would rather convince someone by giving them a bigger picture to look at, let them convince themselves if possible. Debates are fun, arguements are entertaining, but most of my conversations here are just that... conversations; give and take.

From what I've seen of you, yours are not. I can't read your mind any more than I can see your face from here. I don't know you from Adam. For all I know you are the most exacting, meticulous reader of any poster on the web. Or you could be the biggest bullshit artist and know exactly what you do, then just protest we aren't reading you.  I don't know.