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

[FickleGM]

When I ask why, it doesn't mean I'm "asking a DM again" or "trying to change a DM's mind", it means that I'm interested in the thought process behind the DM's decision. :shrug:

 

[Hussar]

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...

Oh, totally agree with this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that. If you ban X and I want to play X, I better come up for a pretty darn good reason why you should change your mind.

"Because I like them" is no better answer than "Cos I don't like them."

When both the DM and the player come from the position that the other person is actively trying to create the best game possible, great things happen.

OTOH

You not getting it. I'm not getting rid of a player because he dosen't agree with me. I am getting rid of a player because he is willing to make a stink over a game and disrupt things. It he is a long time player, then he should know better, and know there is a reason, even if I don't bring it up. (might be game related). If he is a new player than he is already arguing in the first game. I have no patience for that. I play to have a good time. If you want to waste my time over something as simple as a restriction, I don't need you playing and taking away from the fun. If you are so inflexible that you can not accept "I don't like them" for a reason, then you are going to have a hard time dealing with anything that comes from me. Either trust me to do my job of making a fun game, regardless of restrictions, or go play with someone else. Maybe I am showing my age, but life it too short for me to waste time with someone like that.

As for being a bad DM, think what you want. I have 8 players and they disagree with you. They come back every week when there are plenty of other places to play around here, and I have more wanting to join.

As was mentioned upthread, you've basically taken the Big Daddy Chair approach to DMing. The fact that you've managed to brow beat eight other people into accepting your authority without question doesn't make you a great DM.

So, let's turn the question around. Why do you not trust that the player knows his job of making a fun game?

Why is the sole source of fun at the table the DM?

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I ask why, it doesn't mean I'm "asking a DM again" or "trying to change a DM's mind", it means that I'm interested in the thought process behind the DM's decision. :shrug:

If a question comes across that way, I don't think many people complain about it.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Not that it matters, but I guess a certain user got topic banned?

Anyway, I'm all for "you don't like that I don't allow X because I don't like whatever X , perhaps you should seek a different GM".

Now, people obviously have strong opinions. People who see "control freak/Big Daddy" will most likely do so no matter how permissive a GM who might not like a couple of things in his game actually is, as far as I can tell from this thread so far. I'm just not seeing the things that set people off on that as really being that controlling. So my opinion is, obviously, "you're seeing something that isn't there."

Of course, I do appreciate the "have a conversation" and "set your expectations up from the beginning" style answers.

 

[noretoc]

As was mentioned upthread, you've basically taken the Big Daddy Chair approach to DMing. The fact that you've managed to brow beat eight other people into accepting your authority without question doesn't make you a great DM.

So, let's turn the question around. Why do you not trust that the player knows his job of making a fun game?

Why is the sole source of fun at the table the DM?

First you have made an assumption about me that is wrong and condesending. My players don't accept "my authority". You don't know them or me. My players trust that I can provide a fun time, and that is why they don't argue. There is a big difference there, and I'm sorry if you have never run into that type of relationship before.

Second, the player who is arguing back and forth has already taken away from the fun. Why would I have any reason to feel it will be different int he future. His options are contimue with the game, and choose something else, or make it an issue. He chooses the latter, and is already showing himself a person who can't be trusted to put aside disagreements for the better of the game.

Let me ask you a question, if a player said "I'll play monday as long as I don't have to play the wizard" If I ask why, and he says "I don't like wizards" do I have the right to argue with him about it? Should I just let him play something else?

 

[noretoc]

You're getting rid of a player because he doesn't agree with you.

You basically do the equivalent of " I'm the DM, so f*^k off! " and don't even bother to communicate with the player, who is an equal partner in the collaberative effort that an Rpg game is.

Being DM doesn't mean that it's your time to shine and get a group of people to feed your ego.

The Dm is not and never was God. This is an attitude that should have died long ago.

Try reading the second line of the post you quoted.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The Dm is not and never was God. This is an attitude that should have died long ago.

The GM does more work. The GM bears more responsibility.

The GM gets more say.

It's really as simple -- and as completely fair -- as that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

noretoc, please fix the attribution of that quote. I did not say the quoted passage.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Anyway, I'm all for "you don't like that I don't allow X because I don't like whatever X , perhaps you should seek a different GM".

Now, people obviously have strong opinions. People who see "control freak/Big Daddy" will most likely do so no matter how permissive a GM who might not like a couple of things in his game actually is, as far as I can tell from this thread so far. I'm just not seeing the things that set people off on that as really being that controlling. So my opinion is, obviously, "you're seeing something that isn't there."

Of course, I do appreciate the "have a conversation" and "set your expectations up from the beginning" style answers.

Yep, for every truly controlling DM I've ever met, I can show you at least 4 players that can't take "No" as an answer. The only reason they wanted X was because it was banned. I'll leave it to the armchair psychologists to determine if the controllers or the anti-No people came first, because it really doesn't matter now. Both groups set off a clearly emotional response in the other.

At least the topic matter isn't that serious.

 

[Rel]

I have this compulsion to keep coming back to this thread in order to restate my position, which I believe (perhaps I'm biased) lies in the center of some of the extreme examples being put forth. I think that this:

The GM does more work. The GM bears more responsibility.

The GM gets more say.

It's really as simple -- and as completely fair -- as that.

...is completely accurate. I do think that the GM is the one doing more of the work, taking more of the responsibility and who is in charge of the overall "plan" of the campaign. I have never said otherwise and I think the GM can ultimately veto whatever he wants from the campaign.

I still take issue with the position championed by shadzar and noretoc (and maybe others) that a player asking "why" something is banned is already "over the line" and being disruptive. By giving an answer that explains your reasoning, you are offering an opportunity for the player to work with you to establish the sort of characters you believe fit in a particular campaign setting. Without that explanation then the player is simply left in the position of playing "Mother May I?" with regards to anything else that might be banned.

I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that the players and GM working in concert to achieve great games is at least equal and probably superior to the players simply abiding by the GM's restrictions while never understanding why.