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

[Dannyalcatraz]

It doesn't matter how many times he was being dismissive and uncompromising, it matters that he was being dismissive and uncompromising.

Merely saying "no" is not dismissive and uncompromising

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Um, Danny? Argument from authority is a form of appeal to authority. You put forth your credentials, establishing yourself as an expert - like it or not, you are appealing to your own professional experience as a form of authority.

Right, but it is not the same as the logical fallacy- its a statistical syllogism (a point I edited into my response).

Quoting from the wiki (which is a lot easier than copying from an intro to logic book):

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:
X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

What I- and my colleagues- do all the time is craft compromises or help others to do so themselves. Therefore, I'm well aware of the various methods of building consensus. I'm also aware that a compromise does not equate with always saying yes to the other parties; that saying no is legitimate and not inherently dismissive or authoritarian.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Merely saying "no" is not dismissive and uncompromising

Yeah, it is. For "no" to not be either it needs to proceed something that qualifies the possibility of compromise. Merely saying "No" is a refusal or denial and is usually used in a final context.

Like I said to bedrock, why is it so hard to say "This is going to be hard because (enter reason here) but how about we do it this way"

instead of

"Sorry but I will not change this game from rpg to a scenario where there is no challenge and I just reade what you give me. My decision is final"?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'm all for reloads. Why, in one game, after the pcs killed Orcus in the final battle, Orcus reloaded and wiped the floor with them the second time!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, it is. For "no" to not be either it needs to proceed something that qualifies the possibility of compromise. Merely saying "No" is a refusal or denial and is usually used in a final context.

And as I've pointed out before, the OP and players may have already discussed and come up with several other HRs- IOW, had other compromises- and in that context, saying no to a single thing is not dismissive.

In addition, we only know that the discussion ended with a no- we have no details as to the actual tone or length of the discussion. For all we know, alternatives were suggested, none of which satisfied the demand for a "load" mechanic.

Since you have assumed that no other compromises existed between the OP; that the rule proposal was met with a flat no, you have reached an unspported conclusion.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

And as I've pointed out before, the OP and players may have already discussed and come up with several other HRs- IOW, had other compromises- and in that context, saying no to a single thing is not dismissive.

In addition, we only know that the discussion ended with a no- we have no details as to the actual tone or length of the discussion. For all we know, alternatives were suggested, none of which satisfied the demand for a "load" mechanic.

Since you have assumed that no other compromises existed between the OP; that the rule proposal was met with a flat no, you have reached an unspported conclusion.

Fine, we can play that game, if you wish. Since you have assumed that compromises existed, you have reached an unsupported conclusion.

You have no idea of knowing how the conversation started and ended and you have no idea how much middle ground they may have found.

This whole conversation is now irrelevant.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm attributing that disposition because I don't agree that a DM who is dismissive of his players requests cares about their enjoyment.

Once again, I never offered that the GM says yes to everything. I offered that the GM should always cooperate and compromise with their players on a request by request basis.

If you disagree with something why is it so hard to say "That's going to be hard but how about we do it this way" instead of saying "No, I'm not going to do that, sorry"?

This is, to me, where you're blindingly wrong. I've completely dismissed player requests before precisely because I care about their enjoyment.

You see, as the guy running the game, it's our responsibility to take everything into account that isn't one of the PCs (though we take them into account, too). We run everything going on behind the screens. This means that, sometimes, you dismiss the idea the player had if it clashes with the setting, genre, or theme of the game. Let's look at a couple examples (off the top of my head... the first is real, the second is fictitious):

(1) I had a player who wanted to invent gunpowder with a character he was considering making. He never made the character, as I told him no, he couldn't invent gunpowder. Why? Because this was the type of world that would latch onto that technology. The people of the world were generally highly proficient, and they would unlock the mystery of how the PC created gunpowder by acquiring it through any means necessary. Once this was done, it would only be a matter of time before the technology spread across the countries and continents.

This would do two things to make the idea less enjoyable for the players: (1) they wanted to play in a standard fantasy setting, and adding gunpowder would quickly destroy that, and (2) the player wanted only his character to have it, and this likely wouldn't be the case once enough kings sent their best warriors, mages, assassins, and thieves to get the equipment from him. Saying no saved the player from playing a character that wouldn't pan out the way he wanted it to, and it saved all the players from the setting irrevocably progressing. (Before it comes up, this was an established sandbox campaign, and I would not have fudged events once gunpowder was used to keep it out of the hands of those who wanted it.)

(2) Let's say a player wants to take a class that slowly begins transforming him into a dragon, half-dragon, dragonkin, or the like, after having multiple meetings with a "dragon cult" that had ritualistically infused themselves with dragon blood (the PC wants to copy the ritual). The players know that dragons haven't been seen in about a hundred years since the last Great War, and think it would be cool to see this progress. On the surface, this looks fine. It would be cool to see, so no problems.

Now, let's add the facts of what only the GM knows: the dragons were not eliminated, but were forcibly controlled (through artifacts) by the Dragon Masters and herded over the mountains to the north. Then, artifacts were created (using dragon magic and blood) to drive all of dragonkind insane, unless controlled. This keeps dragons in a state of perpetual control, else they lose all sanity. So, they have the choice: do they lose all sanity but become free, or do they willingly serve malicious masters but keep their minds intact? With these two options, the dragons mostly serve, waiting for the ritual to be undone.

Now, your player wants to infuse himself with dragon blood. Do you let him do so, knowing he'll drive himself insane (or, at best, controlled by the bad guys)? Or, do you say no, and save the PC so the player can keep having fun? As of this point, the "dragon cult" is deeply woven into your campaign, so while you could retcon it out, it would not be nearly as fulfilling to the players once they uncovered what it really was (assume it would be fulfilling to them as players to uncover it, like it would be for mine). And, if you retcon it out, you'll be denying them the enjoyment of that deeply fulfilling feeling.

I would actually probably allow the PC to begin to transform, honestly. He'd just have made a bad decision by performing the ritual that made him dragon-blooded, and should have looked further into it. The PC, however, will now go insane or be controlled, which is probably a massive problem for player enjoyment (for some groups, like in the OP). If you wanted to keep the player's enjoyment in mind, you might want to say, "no, you can't become dragon-blooded." It definitely doesn't mean you don't care.

At any rate, when I hear you say...

I'm attributing that disposition because I don't agree that a DM who is dismissive of his players requests cares about their enjoyment.

... I just can't help but heartily disagree. Sometimes, you dismiss player requests because you care about their enjoyment. It's not me out to screw my players. It's me out to make it fun. Our play style is just different. As always, play what you like

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

... I just can't help but heartily disagree. Sometimes, you dismiss player requests because you care about their enjoyment. It's not me out to screw my players. It's me out to make it fun. Our play style is just different. As always, play what you like

Heartily disagree all you want. I don't agree with the DM knows best argument either. As for your hypothetical, I change my plots to suit my players on a game by game basis. So I would let the player turn into a dragon or whatever and come up with another explanation as to why the dragons haven't been seen.

Player gets to do something cool and I get to flex my creative muscles. Win/Win.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fine, we can play that game, if you wish. Since you have assumed that compromises existed, you have reached an unsupported conclusion.

Actually, I haven't made any such assumption. I said as much when I said nobody in this thread (except the OP) knows what happened prior to "no.". As such, I have drawn no conclusions as to whether the OP was being uncompromising or no.

The ONLY conclusion I have made is that the players reacted rudely to the OP, which they clearly did by labeling him a "hedonist" etc. and walking out for saying no instead of saying "thanks but no", "what about playing a different game?" or volunteering to run a game themselves.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Heartily disagree all you want. I don't agree with the DM knows best argument either.

In my post, I included the thought that the GM knows more than the players. Then I used two examples of why the GM might be able to make a more informed decision than the players.

(1) In the first, the player wouldn't get the PC he wanted, and it would change the campaign world away from player wants.

(2) In the second, the players don't know about the dragons being insane/controlled, and thus the PC would suffer a very ill fate if you let him have his request. And, if you retconned the world, you'd be robbing the players of the fulfilling feeling of unwrapping this mystery later on since they've been working on it for so long.

Oftentimes, you know things as the GM that the players do not know. This allows you to make a more informed decision than the players in many situations. To some groups, this makes the GM a logical choice when deciding who should be making decisions on what's best for the game. That is, the players have to juggle some of the variables of what makes a good game, but the GM has to juggle all of the variables of what makes a good game, since he knows what's going on behind the screen.

To this end, some groups think that the "GM knows best" simply because he knows most. Can you at least see why people would knowingly and logically agree to a mutually acceptable social contract where the GM gets to make calls that include "no"?