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

[ShinHakkaider]

What I'll say is this:

If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, you're a bad GM.

If you get heated the twentieth time that player questions a decision by you as a GM, that's a bad player.

Wow that's giving the player a lot of leeway and the DM, well....NONE.

I see where you're coming from now.

 

[Rel]

Wow that's giving the player a lot of leeway and the DM, well....NONE.

I see where you're coming from now.

You caught me. You sussed me out.

Clearly, hidden beneath my almost 30 years of GMing experience, I have always harbored a decidedly anti-GM slant.

 

[shadzar]

...has nothing to do with it. I think it is in ever single way the right and obligation of the GM to change anything and everything they like about a game or setting for the sake of making it one that they AND the players will have fun with. I don't for a moment support the notion that the GM shouldn't be changing things from how it is printed in some campaign guide book. Hell I almost never even USE a campaign guide book!

So the designers removing things at a whim because they don't like it is ok and not needed a response, but a DM to do so for not liking it requires a response?

It have everything to do with it. Had the designers explained to players to begin with that everything wasnt meant to appear in every game, as opposed to recent accounts where they claim everything should be allowed. Then problems of disallowing ANYTHING for ANY reason would more readily be accepted. Even if that reason is as simple as "i don't like it."

Seriously, Random Douchebag X with their name on a product gets more respect than the person you know, is supposed to be a friend, and ask to do the work to make YOUR game run?

By adding something to Forgotten Realms without also adding it to Dark Sun, they have removed that from Dark Sun, and also the core of the game.

Why does Random Douchebag X get more respect than the person you have running your game for you?

Of course but my point is for some people it is Hobson's choice, rather than a case of well if they don't like this DM they can find another.

I didn't say find another, jsut simply leave this game. It is your choice to make to try to find another, if you can, but no one is holding a gun to your head and making you stay in a game you are uncomfortable or unhappy playing in.

And lets no go further on the fake "friends" excuse, because if they are friends to begin with they you wouldn't be trivializing over reasons why someone doesn't like something and just sit your butt down and play the game with your friends. Which is more important, the game element a GM doesn't like or the combination of your friends and spending time with them?

You need to get your priorities straight before you can make the choice, but it is still your choice to make. Does your want to have Element X in the game outweigh your want to play the game with your "friends".

If they really are your friends, then Element X being in the game or not should not matter.

You make your own chocies, don't place blame on others for them, as only you can make them for yourself.

As a counter question to the OP I would ask, why is the fact that something appears in a rulebook considered to be good enough?


DM:OK guys lets talk characters.

Player: I got an idea for a really cool cleric. I'm gonna...

DM: No clerics. At least no clerics with spells or clerical abilities.

Player: Wha.... They are a core class, you can't just ban them.

DM: They don't exist. The game is set in Krynn pre-war of the lance.

Player: Ok cool.

Why is not allowing clerics suddenly cool because an "official" world says so?

What if the DM simply said that in his world clerics lost their powers long ago and nobody knows why? Would the player just accept that at face value?

Because as Rel said, it "...has nothing to do with it."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If the players are friends of mine, the whole question is moot. Why? Because friends are going to get at least some kind of explanation for stuff we do in the game. But it is because they are friends, not because they are players. Since in long-running campaigns, I only play with friends, then the only time it would arise for me is some kind of convention or pickup game.

Of course, one of the reasons I don't play long-running campaigns with players who aren't friends, is that you run the very real risk of getting a player that thinks being in the game gives him the same leeway as a personal friend.

Using Rel's criteria, a friend can ask me "why" as many times as they want. I'll never turn "bad DM" on them. A mere player will never make it to 20 tries with that stunt, and I won't feel bad about it, at all.

 

[Coldwyn]

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]:

It this: When I get a book by Random Douchebag X, I can read what it´s all about, get my justification right there and can formulate a way on how I want to play.

If I join a Game by Random Douchebag Shadzar and he tells me "No. And I don´t tell you why, get lost if you ask again", than I don´t know anything usefull, can´t formulate a plan, can´t really imerse into play.

X can take something away because his workings are transparent and easy to follow, S just acts like a douchebag.

Sorry if this is getting topersonal, but like one shouts into the wood and so on ..

 

[Rel]

So the designers removing things at a whim because they don't like it is ok and not needed a response, but a DM to do so for not liking it requires a response?

It have everything to do with it. Had the designers explained to players to begin with that everything wasnt meant to appear in every game, as opposed to recent accounts where they claim everything should be allowed. Then problems of disallowing ANYTHING for ANY reason would more readily be accepted. Even if that reason is as simple as "i don't like it."

Seriously, Random Douchebag X with their name on a product gets more respect than the person you know, is supposed to be a friend, and ask to do the work to make YOUR game run?

By adding something to Forgotten Realms without also adding it to Dark Sun, they have removed that from Dark Sun, and also the core of the game.

Why does Random Douchebag X get more respect than the person you have running your game for you?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Sorry but I forgot to address this part of the post directly.

If your GM thinks that you're an a-hole, it's probably because "Show me on the doll where the bad Cleric touched you." is kind of an a-hole thing to say to somebody you want to have a conversation with.

Not meaning to derail the thread, but now joking with someone who you might have some familiarity with is being an a-hole? I know my point was that the joke kinda backfired but youre going to tell me that you've never made borderline inappropriate jokes with your friends or acquaintances at the gaming table? *You guys game in suits and ties too?

*I have actually gamed in a suit and tie. Attended a function then ran right to a Mekton game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wow that's giving the player a lot of leeway and the DM, well....NONE.

I don't think that's fair.

If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, the odds are very, very good that you are a bad GM. Now, that's not really an absolute statement, because there are ways of making that first question really, really obnoxious.......but, Rel is pretty much right here.

OTOH, Rel doesn't say it takes 20 questions from the players; merely that, by that point, the odds are really, really good that the player is a bad player.

Between the two is a middle ground that could fall one way or the other.

Or, at least, so I read it.

So the designers removing things at a whim because they don't like it is ok and not needed a response, but a DM to do so for not liking it requires a response?

If memory serves, lots of folks thought that the designers removing things required a response in times past, whether it was the transition from 1e to 2e, or the transition from 3e to 4e.



RC

 

[Rel]

Not meaning to derail the thread, but now joking with someone who you might have some familiarity with is being an a-hole? I know my point was that the joke kinda backfired but youre going to tell me that you've never made borderline inappropriate jokes with your friends or acquaintances at the gaming table? *You guys game in suits and ties too?

*I have actually gamed in a suit and tie. Attended a function then ran right to a Mekton game.

I've gamed in a suit and tie too! It was awesome! I had no time between fusangite's Gamma World 1e Escape From The Embassy Suites game and True Dungeon and the ENnies and the strip club so I just wore my suit and tie to the whole shooting match. I was pronounced, "The best dressed man to ever complete True Dungeon!"

As for making off color jokes with my friends, we're HORRIBLE. We say things to each other that would make the Devil blush! We'll make jokes about each other's mothers, hairlines and reproductive equipment. Also we freely question why each other decide to ban certain things from our roleplaying games. It's merciless.

 

[Ralls]

It's not so much "Reasons" for allowing it or not that cause conflict. It's the player's and the DM's expectations clashing.

Here's an example:
I got pulled over for the first time while speeding, and I've heard from my friends that the nice cops in the city usually let teenagers off the hook with only a warning, not a ticket. I got a ticket.

I was understandably more upset about getting the ticket because I expected a warning. Getting a ticket just didn't seem fair, even though it was. I was speeding.

Likewise, if the players expect minor in-game consequences for their in-character actions, and instead their characters are quickly arreseted and thrown into the in-game jail, there will be some harsh tempers, and harsh words.


I try to communicate with my players before hand, asking them what they'd like the campaign to feel like, or if I'm a player, I tell the GM what I'd like the campaign to feel like, being as general as possible.