Why is "I don't like it" not good enough?

[Sorrowdusk]

Where to start? How about with answering what I multi-quoted.



Milan, MICHIGAN.

Oh. Never heard of it, I'm from Detroit.

Actually, it's sort of gender specific for genders that are hermaphrodite, other, and not "it". In my opinion it is more distinct than the shi/hir hermaphrodite pronouns that again, in my opinion, do not sound any different from "she" and "her". And it's also what you said, in the possessive form.

I'm all for allowing explanations of how a concept fits into a setting. What I'm having trouble with is why people would want to push a GM who is clearly uncomfortable with something to allow it rather than playing with a GM who will?

It depends on GM availability. You may have had to jump through some hoops to get one at all, and on the other hand you might have already made an investment in this campaign only for some point of contention to come up and not want to leave what development you have and start from square one. It may be more tempting for you to try to change your GMs mind about something.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

While the 2nd answer is certainly more intelectually satisfying, it might not be more honest - and instead could be a rationalization flowing from "I just don't like it."

And yet, it still shows some thought beyond the initial gut instinct, provides information to the player about the specific case, and even provides some information about the more general cases of things that could also trip the GM's "I just don't like it" button.

Ergo, while at root you can keep deconstructing each step in the chain until you get to an "I just don't like it" situation (e.g., Why are the overpowered tripping rules bad? Because the GM doesn't like combats wherein people pop up and down like whack-a-moles; Why doesn't he like those? Uh ...), that is not sufficient justification to stopat the surface level.

My friend was curious and asked the judge about the opinion, which factors were the most significant etc. The judge looked at him and said "At the end of the day, I just don't like it, everything else flowed from there."

And if the judge had stopped at, "I just don't like it," his peers on the SC, other judges, future barristers, etc., would have found it an ultimately unsatisfying (and, dare I say, infantile? useless?) opinion.

 

[Mort]

Oh? Really? *Any* claim otherwise? Absolutes can generally be disproven with single counterexamples. I hope you'll allow me one slightly excessive one to make the point:

My wife prefers to not eat strawberries. The fact that she's deathly allergic to strawberries (as in, "I cannot breathe and may die if I don't get medication") doesn't stand as a logical reason for that preference? She's rationalizing an emotional dislike of strawberries to the point of anaphylaxis?!?.

Now that I'd like to see at a game session "I'm sorry but I'm deathly alergic to dwarves, you playing one may cause an alergic reaction to which they have yet to discover medication, so no, no dwarves!"

 

[Sorrowdusk]

People are going to have to figure out how to not sweat the broccoli example. Do I really care if someone likes broccoli? No. But it's an off-the-cuff example of something someone may not like because they've never had it well-prepared - their experiences are limited to poor renditions of the subject, an issue that certainly can occur in particular elements of games.

Ultimately, what someone likes to eat isn't my concern. Unless I'm the cook, it doesn't affect me. But if the GM is banning things I like simply because he doesn't like them, it may affect whether I like the game and whether I play that game or not. As I've said, whether the GM excludes something he doesn't like is his prerogative, but I think he has to be willing to countenance push-back from players, should be willing to examine his own reasons for not liking something, and keep an open mind about his players' preferences as well - including rethinking an exclusion.

I'm sorry but...

BROCCOLI or THE BEHOLDER?!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtLd0Nks5Kc&NR=1[/ame]

 

[Mort]

And yet, it still shows some thought beyond the initial gut instinct, provides information to the player about the specific case, and even provides some information about the more general cases of things that could also trip the GM's "I just don't like it" button.

Ergo, while at root you can keep deconstructing each step in the chain until you get to an "I just don't like it" situation (e.g., Why are the overpowered tripping rules bad? Because the GM doesn't like combats wherein people pop up and down like whack-a-moles; Why doesn't he like those? Uh ...), that is not sufficient justification to stopat the surface level.

And if the judge had stopped at, "I just don't like it," his peers on the SC, other judges, future barristers, etc., would have found it an ultimately unsatisfying (and, dare I say, infantile? useless?) opinion.

Absolutely true - but it does not change the fact that it was the most honest answer, with the rationale coming afterwards.

 

[Tarek]

A lot of "gut instinct/I don't like it" responses do have a reason. Sometimes that reason goes way deeper than "I don't like that specific thing" and sometimes it doesn't.

To expand on possible reasons with the example of not allowing Adamant/Mithril:

a> "I don't like it." - "Why?" - "I just don't like it." - Player thinks "What else doesn't he like that I don't know about that may affect my character?"

b> "I think they're overused" - Okay. Understandable. But.. "I like the idea of having a metal that's light yet durable and tough, to cut down on the weight my character's hauling around. Is there something similar?"
c> "I don't like special materials." - Okay. "So, I shouldn't expect any fantastic or unusual or magical materials to show up in this campaign?"
d> "I have my own list of unusual stuff." Okay. "So what would my character know about these special materials?"

The reason BEHIND "I don't like" might have considerably wider implications than just the game master saying "I'm not allowing this specific element in my campaign."

Also, these things go over a LOT better if they're introduced at the beginning of the campaign, or demonstrated in practice over time. "Hey, we're fifth level, and I still haven't seen a mithril chain shirt?" "Oh, my game world doesn't have mithril." "Oh. Why?" "I don't like it, so in my game, there are no mithril mines."

 

[Jacob Marley]

First, we're talking about roleplaying games - preferably played with people you consider to be friends. The chances of "I'm disallowing this because I don't like to talk about it" being a valid reason is so miniscule as to be disregarded; we're assuming we've moved past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions. (For people who can't get past that point, the "Stories of How I Left Games That Sucked" thread is thataway.)

Half-orcs spring to mind as a game element that often comes with some serious baggage. Issues that, in my experience, a lot of players do not want to have in their role-playing games. I don't think we should be too hasty in disregarding the "I don't like it and I don't want to talk about why" line.

Moving onward, the definition of a satisfactory answer will depend on what it is the GM is outlawing, but will in all cases indicate that he's put some thought into what he's removing from the game and why.

This is what I am trying to get a handle on - I agree with billd91 in that communication helps DMs and Players understand each other better. But, in my experience, the reason some people do not like certain things is often a gut reaction to when and how they first experienced that particular element. Their reasons often are little more than rationalizing thier first reaction.

For example, my initial reaction to 4th Edition Dragonborn was very negative - I just did not like them. I couldn't tell you why. Maybe it was how they were described. Or, maybe it was the artwork. Or, maybe I didn't like the designer who wrote the article? Etc. To this day I cringe looking at an image of a Dragonborn character. Of course, today I could give you plenty of *reasons* as to why I don't like them - they look silly and out of place in armor, they are clunky to fit into Greyhawk, etc.; although, all I am probably doing is rationalizing my initial reaction.

 

[The Human Target]

Why? The game functioned without Tieflings or dragonborn for many years just fine. So it goes back to what Mort said. Or more than he said, which player is willing to push the issue.

Do you need a game with tieflings in it? Do your need for them to exist since they are in this version outweigh the needs of everyone else to have a good game?

It the GM must be subjected to why they don't like something, then likewise a player must be subjected to why they are intent on having it in the game.

Of course communication and discussing won't always work, because it may be dealing with a detail about the game that a player should not yet know.

I would be asking these players who think "don't like it" is an invalid response, "Can the game function without it, or is it just that you cannot function without it?"

The thing is though, the game works just fine with tieflings and drgonborn and whatever else.

So if you're going to remove an integral part of the assumed game (hey both races are important enough to the new D&D setting to be in the PHB1) to me a DM should actually have a reason other than "just cause I personally don't like them" and explain why to the players.

There's nothing wrong with removing stuff- but using DM fiat as an excuse to not explain yourself to me is silly.

I myself don't like explicitly silly stuff in my games (like a dwarf fighter named Rocky Balboa or the like), but I explain to any new players why I don't like that stuff and ask they not do it in my game.

 

[Leatherhead]

People don't like it because you can't argue against it.

And, as evidenced in this thread, people love arguing until they get their way.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

A lot of "gut instinct/I don't like it" responses do have a reason. Sometimes that reason goes way deeper than "I don't like that specific thing" and sometimes it doesn't.

Yeah, "I don't like it" statements, whether followed by a reason or not, are often red flags. As "X is awesome!" statements sometimes are too.

A DM adjudicates a game much like a judge adjudicates a court room. If my judge is known for espousing ideas that I don't agree with, or for a lot of out-of-left-field statements, I'm likely to call for a mistrial and find a new judge.

Ex: "I don't like wizards, dwarves, long spears, water or meat pie." "I think animeshowthatI'veneverheardof, vampires, asparagus, muls and spirit shamans are the best things evar!"

Ahhhhh...have fun with your campaign, I just remembered somewhere I have to be.

But, in my experience, the reason some people do not like certain things is often a gut reaction to when and how they first experienced that particular element. Their reasons often are little more than rationalizing thier first reaction.

QFT.