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

[noretoc]

Maybe sometimes getting an answer of "Because I don't like them" and sticking with that until you leave the game, is exactly the outcome the DM is looking for. If I tell a my players no elves and that I don't want to discuss the reason, and one keep going back to me on it, it just means I have identified a person I don't want to play. If I keep shutting him down until he walks, mission accomplished! My players know I have reason for things, and wouldn't needle me on it. They trust me. If someone doesn't then there are other games for them.

When I am a player, and get shut down, I give the benefit of the doubt that there is a reason. Even if there isn't that is fine, there are other concepts to play. An unlimited amount, I will choose another. Why should I try to piss off the person who is taking time to make the adventure and run it, by giving him a hard time? How does that make a fun time for me or anyone?

Have some consideration for your DM and fellow gamers, and let it drop. Have fun a different way. Don't be a D**K

 

[kaomera]

On topic, AFAICT, the consensus is near-universal that, sometimes "Because I don't like it" should be good enough, but that it is not generally the best way to go about it.

Well, what about "Because I like it", then? Throw in "because it's cool" and that's the common response I get as to why someone wants to do something I don't particularly want in my game. And that's cool and all - I want the players to be excited about their characters, but I'd like to be excited about them as well.

In fact I feel like it's part of my responsibility to be able to get excited about the PCs and come up with cool stuff for them. I certainly don't want to be the guy that the DM overlooks when developing subplots because he just can't come up with anything for my character, and I don't really want to be playing opposite that guy either. And I think that the possibility that "I don't like it" is a truthful and significant description of the issue should not be ignored. And if that is the issue, deal with that issue. You may not be able to argue someone out of their opinions, but you can compromise on the issue in a way that makes things better for all parties involved.

I think part of the issue is that it is going to be a real compromise, and a lot of players (& DMs) are stuck in "game mode". They want to have a discussion so that they can "win" by proving that their point is correct. But if the issue is just one of preferences, then discussions about balance or flavor or whatever can only fail to be helpful.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe sometimes getting an answer of "Because I don't like them" and sticking with that until you leave the game, is exactly the outcome the DM is looking for. If I tell a my players no elves and that I don't want to discuss the reason, and one keep going back to me on it, it just means I have identified a person I don't want to play. If I keep shutting him down until he walks, mission accomplished! My players know I have reason for things, and wouldn't needle me on it. They trust me. If someone doesn't then there are other games for them.

When I am a player, and get shut down, I give the benefit of the doubt that there is a reason. Even if there isn't that is fine, there are other concepts to play. An unlimited amount, I will choose another. Why should I try to piss off the person who is taking time to make the adventure and run it, by giving him a hard time? How does that make a fun time for me or anyone?

Have some consideration for your DM and fellow gamers, and let it drop. Have fun a different way. Don't be a D**K

Wow. And you got posrepped for this?

IOW, behave like a passive agressive jerk to the player, just because he doesn't share your grand vision until such time as you force him to leave the group. Yeah, that's a good plan.

Wouldn't it just save a HUGE amount of time to actually come up with reasons for saying no, and, maybe, having a conversation with this player that maybe finding another group is a good idea? I dunno, maybe take a bit of a more mature approach?

Cos this? What I quoted here? This is about the worst DMing you can possibly do.

 

[pemerton]

I think part of the issue is that it is going to be a real compromise, and a lot of players (& DMs) are stuck in "game mode". They want to have a discussion so that they can "win" by proving that their point is correct.

If this is a serious prospect, I can see that would affect the way you approach the issue.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wow. And you got posrepped for this?

Largely for the 2nd paragraph, yes.

But, don't worry.....I've seen a lot of posts get XP here that boggle my mind!

If this is a serious prospect, I can see that would affect the way you approach the issue.

Yes, it would. Sorry I can't XP you yet. Gotta spread some more around.


RC

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think part of the issue is that it is going to be a real compromise, and a lot of players (& DMs) are stuck in "game mode". They want to have a discussion so that they can "win" by proving that their point is correct. But if the issue is just one of preferences, then discussions about balance or flavor or whatever can only fail to be helpful.

Add to that*, a lot of people don't know what they want. Note, I didn't say, "have trouble expressing it." They really don't know. I'm not sure I buy the statistics on the number of people who have been seriously abused in some way, but even if the numbers are much smaller, the percentage is still significant. Personal experience with people suffering from such and subsequent education on the matters leads me to believe that not knowing what they want will be a common issue. When dealing with that situation, no amount of communication between you and them is going to solve the real issue on the table. You might navigate the rapids successfully and get on with the game, but you won't "solve" anything.

Nor is that the only reason why people don't know what they want. Given the fraility of the human condition, I'm sometimes startled that communication works as well as it does.

* I am in no shape, form, or fashion even implying that "trying to win" correlates in any way with someone having been abused. Merely pointing out another way in which the intent of the discussion can be radically misconstrued.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Maybe sometimes getting an answer of "Because I don't like them" and sticking with that until you leave the game, is exactly the outcome the DM is looking for. If I tell a my players no elves and that I don't want to discuss the reason, and one keep going back to me on it, it just means I have identified a person I don't want to play. If I keep shutting him down until he walks, mission accomplished!

Isn't this just a little passive-aggressive? Wouldn't it be better to just, I dunno, communicate a little better here?

 

[Rel]

Isn't this just a little passive-aggressive? Wouldn't it be better to just, I dunno, communicate a little better here?

I think that noretoc has established that the only reason he'd imagine somebody would question why the GM had banned something is because they wish to be a disruptive dick. Since he doesn't want to play with disruptive dicks then it only makes sense to drive them away.

 

[airwalkrr]

This is my first foray into this thread, but here is my opinion on the matter.

"I don't like it" is a perfectly good enough reason. As a player, I may be disappointed if a DM won't allow my pet favorite character concept or tool, but I will find something else that is interesting to play. I have DM'd enough to realize that DMs have a vision for a campaign and enjoy it most when they are allowed to bring that vision to life. On the same token, I appreciate that a DM who is not enjoying the game is not going to run an enjoyable game. With that in mind "I don't like it," is a better reason than any other I can think of.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I suspect that some of my visceral reaction to this topic is a different assumption about how important order of the questions matter.

For example, I don't consider, "I asked you first," to be very telling, at least not by itself. I've got a game already past the group planning stage, and the conversation starts like this:

Player: I'd like to be play a tiefling warlock.
GM: Well, initially they were banned.
Player: Why?
GM: Because I don't like them, and no one else really cared. Why do you want to play one?
Player: Because I think they are cool.

Well, that raises an interesting question, doesn't it? Do I really need to go through all the reasons I don't like them before you give me something more than "cool"? (Especially since I find "cool" to be an anti-reason, given that I've found anything done specifically to be "cool" never is. You do something for another reason, and it will be cool or it won't. But a new player might not know me well enough to know that.)

People act as if "asking first" moves the burden of providing a reason, but I don't see that it does. At the most, it establishes perhaps a trade. Tell me more about why you think it's a good idea, and I'll tell you more about why I think it isn't. That's communication. But don't expect me to justify my preferences to you, if you aren't prepared to, you know--have a conversation about the subject matter.

And for the record, I would totally invert that burden of providing a reason in another context--say a pre-campaign discussion among the group. If I want to ban tieflings then, and someone else cares enough to even ask why, it is very much on me to say why. Otherwise, why even have a pre-campaign discussion?

If I'm the one introducing the problem, it's on me to start the exploration for a solution. When you attempt to bring an otherwise unacceptable character into a game with already established parameters, then the same burden rests on you. Here's how it should go, and the reason "Why" is the start of the derail:

Player: I'd like to be play a tiefling warlock.
GM: Well, initially they were banned.
Player: I know, but I think they are cool, and I have this idea that I'd like to work in if we can...