I don't know what just happend, but it seems that Ayn Rand corrupted my player!

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Reflect on this: compromise and acquiescence are 2 different things. I should know- I'm an attorney/mediator, and I help people craft compromises that get drafted into contracts for a living.

It is perfectly possible to craft an agreement between parties without them agreeing to every demand of each side...especially if/when the demands are mutually incompatible.

If the OP had instead been asked to include psionics in a LotR game, his refusal to do so would have been no less justified, and labeling his rejection "authoritarian" or "hedonistic" would be no more juvenile.

I don't respect appeals to authority, so I could care less what you say you are. You are also missing the point. Improv is an art that lives and dies by cooperation, its golden rule is to say "yes" not "no" or "say yes sometimes but no other times". Doesn't that tell you something about the nature of cooperation and the effects of negative qualifiers on cooperation? It's also an art form which develops from two people not two people with a mediator going through a structured mediation process.

Also, the OP did not compromise or even offer a hint that the issue was up for discussion. That's authoritarian and in my opinion being an authoritarian DM in this respect is being a jerk.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If the players at your table all wanted a reload feature, how would you rule?

I don't know the term, honestly. If, as others befuddled by the term have suggested, it is akin to having multiple lives in a video game, it's not something I'd want to use in every game I ran.

IOW, whether I said yes or no to it would depend on the genre, RPG, game style I'm shooting for, and individual campaign.

 

[tuxgeo]

FWIW, Ayn Rand has improved my games, via Planescape and the Fated Faction, who have a pretty strong Objectivist streak in them.

Ayn Rand has also enhanced my videogames, via BioShock.

The page at the link in your post says that the Fated are influenced by Max Stirner; and it says that the Fated serve as the tax collectors.

That doesn't sound much like Ayn Rand to me, at all. Objectivists don't like tax collectors very much. As I see it, Objectivism is more like the "Free League" non-faction: essentially libertarian in outlook.

Of course, I can't read her books, for much the same reason that I can't read the Left Behind series, but y'know, that doesn't mean that the big ideas aren't fun to mess with in a fictional setting....come to think of it, much like the Left Behind series...hmmm...

Now I'm imagining a series of books to be known as the _Right Behind_ series, which would provide ideological counterpoint to the _Left Behind_ series -- but it would probably be just as unreadable.
Sample dialogue:
"You want me to take point? What for?"
"Go ahead! I'll be right behind you."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Wolf it is great if you have a style that works for your group but it sounds like you are suggesting that if the GM doesn't say yes to every player request he is, in your estimation, authoritarian. That style may work for you but I have to admit as a player I would find it annoying. There are very good reasons for a gm to say no once in a while.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Wolf it is great if you have a style that works for your group but it sounds like you are suggesting that if the GM doesn't say yes to every player request he is, in your estimation, authoritarian. That style may work for you but I have to admit as a player I would find it annoying. There are very good reasons for a gm to say no once in a while.

How do you get "saying yes all the time" out of "saying yes or cooperating and compromising with players"?

So, as a player, you believe that your suggestions should be ignored and that a DM who is in favour of discussion and compromise, no matter what the subject because you find important, is annoying?

While you think a DM who might be up for compromise sometimes but ultimately rejects a select group of ideas and could care less if you think its important to your enjoyment, is less annoying?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't respect appeals to authority,

It is not an "appeal to authority" to tell you that I deal with compromise for a living.

The "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is when I point to a third party expert- "Henry Kissinger says..." and assert the point I'm bolstering by doing so must be true.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm talking about my personal, professional experience within my field of expertise- making to a statistical syllogism, and therefore not a logical fallacy.

You are also missing the point. Improv is an art that lives and dies by cooperation, its golden rule is to say "yes" not "no" or "say yes sometimes but no other times".

I'm familiar with improv- I've been playing guitar since 1988. I understand that "yes".
You are missing my point: you don't have any idea how many times the OP said yes or no to these players, you just know that no was said to this one particular request- the OP could have said yes to 59 other proposals.

By that standard, the OP may well have said "yes sometimes but no other times". By assuming that the OP said no and only no, you are jumping to conclusions and doing yourself a disservice in supporting your position.

Doesn't that tell you something about the nature of cooperation and the effects of negative qualifiers on cooperation? It's also an art form which develops from two people not two people with a mediator going through a structured mediation process.

You're conflating improv and cooperation- again, they are not synonyms.

Also, the OP did not compromise or even offer a hint that the issue was up for discussion.

Assuming things went EXACTLY as the OP posted, we cannot know whether there was compromise or not since we have only one exemplar from the discussion of campaign rules. He could have compromised on many other proposal and said no on just this one. Assuming otherwise is a pure assumption on your part. You're jumping to conclusions.

With the same assumption, though, it is clear that the players reacted with rudeness.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, as a player, you believe that your suggestions should be ignored and that a DM who is in favour of discussion and compromise, no matter what the subject because you find important, is annoying?

No. I just dont think the gm should say yes to every request I make.

While you think a DM who might be up for compromise sometimes but ultimately rejects a select group of ideas and could care less if you think its important to your enjoyment, is less annoying?

Why are we attributing the 'care less' disposition to the GM here. I prefer GMs who run a good game. In my experience a game where the GM says yes to everything players ask for is rarely a good experience. I want to be challenged and surprised by a session. One of my pet peeves is the GM allowing every optional prestige class even when it has no real place in the setting. I guess I want the GM to decide requests case by case depending on hoe reasonable or disruptive they may be.

 

[Umbran]

If you, as a DM, consider your preferences to out-rule the preferences of your players then I would consider that wrong. That's what I mean by above.

But, sometimes my preferences do out-rule theirs. That, sir, is real cooperation. Sometimes, I get my way. Sometimes, I let the other person have their way. Sometimes we pick something in the middle that is not quite what either of us really want. Give and take. If I am not allowed to say, "No," if that is never considered justified, then we aren't talking about cooperation, but obligation.

I agree, there is no obligation but if things turn sour you don't start sniping at the players because you believe your position is more justified...

Sniping at the players is uncalled for, I agree.

But, I think you have causality wrong. Folks don't generally snipe at others *because* they feel their position is more justified. They snipe because they feel put upon, insulted, or have otherwise had their feelings hurt, or need their egos boosted. Humans tear each other down all too frequently, not usually because they are right, but to make themselves feel they are right.

Don't confuse the rationalization of an act for the cause of the act. They often aren't the same.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, as a player, you believe that your suggestions should be ignored and that a DM who is in favour of discussion and compromise, no matter what the subject because you find important, is annoying?

HLTW, you are assuming the OP- and anyone who might say no- is saying no all the time. This is an assumption without an ounce of support, and it is NOT what our position is.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

It is not an "appeal to authority" to tell you that I deal with compromise for a living.

An "appeal to authority" is when I point to a third party expert- "Henry Kissinger says..."

Ah huh, so if you're not trying to qualify yourself as an authority then why suggest that "you should know"?

I'm familiar with improv- I've been playing guitar since 1988. I understand that "yes".
You are missing my point: you don't have any idea how many times the OP said yes or no to these players, you just know that no was said to this one particular request- the OP could have said yes to 59 other proposals.

It doesn't matter how many times he said "yes" or "no", the fact that he was uncompromising and dismissive does.

You're conflating improv and cooperation- again, they are not synonyms.

I'm not conflating anything, I'm asking you to think about why the rule is "yes" and not "yes sometimes but other times no".

Assuming things went EXACTLY as the OP posted, we cannot know whether there was compromise or not since we have only one exemplar from the discussion of campaign rules. He could have compromised on many other proposal and said no on just this one. Assuming otherwise is a pure assumption on your part. You're jumping to conclusions.

With the same assumption, though, it is clear that the players reacted with rudeness.

The OP was dismissive and uncompromising. I'm not assuming that or jumping to conclusions. I don't buy things went exactly like the OP posted, I think he made peppered the situation to his advantage as most people do.

With the same assumption, though, it is clear that the DM reacted like a jerk.