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

[Zhaleskra]

It's all about communication. If you invite folks to play D&D and one of them shows up with a tiefling warlock, it's your fault for not specifying 2nd Edition Dragonlance. Especially when dealing with new groups, it is important to establish any rules that diverge from the Core.

Speaking of Tieflings, another thing I don't like is how much they changed since their introduction. Planescape box were okay, I liked Planewalker's Handbook Tieflings better, even if it was a little more work. My opinion is that Faces of Evil over defined how much fiend blood they had. Then they were "reset" with 3e . . . initially.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A DM is always free to do whatever they want, and so are the players. That's what makes it a collaborative game.

Player wanted to make a trick knife thrower, but World Tree doesn't really have "cover" rules.

I don't know how "cover" rules would be key to playing a trick knife thrower, but what's difficult about rules for "hitting something you can't exactly see entirely"? I'd think any game with a modicum of grid-based combat could have such a thing, since it's something that's going to come up.

His angle was to be an extreme feather caster (the magical equivalent of speeding on streets), cheating the gods out of their cley.

....I don't know what that means or what it has to do with Atheism, but for a method of doing atheism in a world where gods are observable facts, check out how Planescape has done The Athar. Short version is that they treat the gods kind of like most people might treat dragons or giants or liches. Big and powerful, but not exactly worthy of dying to serve.

I later did come up with some ideas how this could work, which disadvantage would be appropriate, but that was well after the adventure tanked.

Y'know dude, you might want to consider bringing up things you're not quite sure how to handle here at ENWorld. We're crazy helpful about campaign stuff like this, generally speaking. If you can't think of a way to make it work, the braintrust here can likely make everyone happy, or if not, at least give you a better grounding in exactly why you can't do such a thing. Cover rules, knife-throwers, fantasy athiests, there's a lot of ideas out here.

 

[Mark CMG]

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

A GM can disallow anything they wish but they run the risk of losing players if they do it often without what the players believe to be good reason(s).

 

[Zhaleskra]

I don't know how "cover" rules would be key to playing a trick knife thrower, but what's difficult about rules for "hitting something you can't exactly see entirely"? I'd think any game with a modicum of grid-based combat could have such a thing, since it's something that's going to come up.

World Tree neither encourages nor discourages map based combat. One thing he wanted to do with his tricks was throw knives around obstacles.

....I don't know what that means or what it has to do with Atheism, but for a method of doing atheism in a world where gods are observable facts, check out how Planescape has done The Athar. Short version is that they treat the gods kind of like most people might treat dragons or giants or liches. Big and powerful, but not exactly worthy of dying to serve.

The Athar's philosophy doesn't exactly fit the gods of the World Tree, especially because of a few rules to how magic works. I've sometimes called the game "d20 based Ars Magica with anthropomorphic animals". That said, nothing can be destroyed beyond repair, and nothing can be so "healed" that it is beyond destruction.

Also I think you might have missed that I'm more than familiar with Planescape.

The normal atheism on the tree is "the gods exist but lack divinity" whatever that means. Since you have to pay a cley (magic point) to the gods every time you cast a spell the regular way, claiming that the gods don't exist at all is a Bizarre Belief (-2 Disadvantage).

 

[Rel]

I don't hold much opinion about whether you have the "right" to say no without giving a further reason. But it's probably not a very good idea if you consider the players to be friends and peers.

If my friends and I are going out to dinner and one says, "I want to go to the Mongolian Steakhouse" then I can say, "No." But if I don't give any further reason then they must draw their own conclusions about why I'm saying No and they might conclude that I'm just being a contrary dick. If I instead say, "No, I'm vegetarian." then I've given a reason behind my objection. They may think that's a good reason or a bad reason but I've at least backed up my negation of the idea with something.

If you are pushing for the right to say No without any further justification then I think you're establishing yourself as an authority over the players to the same level as a parent or a boss. You're saying, "Because I said so." is your reason. I just don't see much profit in that.

 

[Reynard]

You're saying, "Because I said so." is your reason. I just don't see much profit in that.

"I don't like X" is not the equivalent of "Because I said so."

 

[Remathilis]

For example, I don't like metals that start with "adamant-" or are pronounced "mithril" (regardless of actual spelling) because I think they are the most overused fantasy materials.

You answered your own question.

"I don't like it" is usually followed by "why?". The why is what makes or breaks the issue.

Because it doesn't fit the world/game/motif you're aiming for? Fine. Let your player's know the change is for that reason.

Because its tired/cliche/overdone? Okay... but you're setting yourself up for a slippery slope here, esp when orcs raid a village, or a dragon kidnaps a princess.

Because I, the GM, harbor some personal grudge against the thing in question? (Orcs are stupid. PCs shouldn't be assassins. The bard class is poorly written.) This can be tricky. Is there a reason for those opinions (orcs make no sense in my world, assassins ruin party unity, the bard is too weak to support his role) then you may see some dissatisfaction from players, esp. the one who wanted to be a half-orc bard!

No one ever dislikes something blindly. There is always a reason. The question you gotta ask is "is my reason convincing enough to disallow this" before falling on the I am the GM card.

 

[Barastrondo]

It can seem as something of an empty comment if the player can supply specific reasons why he or she likes something. If a player has specific reasons for wanting to include something, and the GM has no specific reasons other than "I just don't like it" for excluding it, and exclusion wins out, it could feel a little authoritative.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

I'm trying to wrap my head around why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something. Especially when the GM gives zir reasons.

For example, I don't like metals that start with "adamant-" or are pronounced "mithril" (regardless of actual spelling) because I think they are the most overused fantasy materials.

What is this "zir" you speak of both here and in an XP comment above? Bit of Italian?-I see you're from Milan.

In any case, I dont like "Because I just dont like". Anytime I do something or houserule something, or change something-I always try to have reasons beyond that. I mean certainly a ruler (and you are Dungeon Master of The Table) could make an edict or any rule or change because he feels like it, but people feel much better if they give a reason based on some logic or reasoning beyond mere sentiment and emotion.

I mean, what if there were no fantasy PC races in your game? You could say, "I just dont like elves, dwarves, haflings, gnomes, or orcs-I dont want any." and most people would ask 'why'? And might indeed be quite disappointed if they like any of those. Of course if you explain the history of your setting and the... "Just So" stories of your setting, they may accept this. OF COURSE they could just leave and not start the game-HOWEVER, players may become upset if some "I just dont like" comes up in the middle of campaign when they already invested much time into their character and into the game only to have some oddball "I just dont like" come out of nowhere unexpectedly.

If you have any such sentiments which might come up, you should get them out of the way as soon as possible.

A GM can disallow anything they wish but they run the risk of losing players if they do it often without what the players believe to be good reason(s).

Also mind you though-the instant the DM gives a reason the PCs can now argue with them. (Albeit many people would think it rude to argue in the middle of play with limited time as opposed to doing it after the game) With "I just dont like" you as a PC can accept that or not, but you cant argue that it isnt true. Who are you to tell someone what they dont like? Also mind you a player could just as easily say "I just dont like it" and NOT want to play the game the DMs way just as easily as the DM could say "I just dont like" and NOT run a game the way the player thinks it should.

It depends on how big a point of contention it is, whether the player leaves. I have never been in a game where I liked everything. But in most of them I have liked more things than disliked. If thats the thing thats the tipping point for the PC they may leave. How significant keeping them is depends on availibilty of players. If you have a large FLGS and a lot of games, they may leave more easily, and you can just as easily replace them.

If your group is the only game in town, well thats different. But the DM wants to have fun too and they are putting in time they hypothetically dont have to -BUT so are the players. It comes up often DMs expecting players to make some compromises, accepting some aspects that they dont favor -but so should the DM sometimes. If a player was an employee paid to work somewhere they might put up with it for the money. If a DM was paid to do with it, they'd sell whatever the people wanted to buy and "the customer" would "always be right".

As for why people dont always "just leave" if they dont like it.
1. It could be the only game in town, and having that game and what they do like about it outweighs other issues.

2. They may be in it for OTHER people. They may have a friend in the game who in contrast still likes the game. If they leave the group may be impacted and they dont want to be seen as ruining a friends fun. I have known people in such situations.

3. Relating to #2; if the DM or any of the people of that group should run another/different game they may remember how the player left the LAST time and for what reasons. They may see this as making them flakey, leaving over something that they didnt have a problem with and may not invite/allow the player in their game. Leaving game depending on the reasons could have consequences for other potential games in the future. (of course, a player that wants to get out of a game could simply lie about the why. Albeit that in itself may be hard to them.)


EDIT: Random side note-I think you'd sound like an arse if you deliberately used the threat of leaving a game to try to leverage the DM into changing one or any number of things. (Although a DM could very easily not run a game a particular way and say "well I'm not gonna run it that way" and somehow I think many people would see it the same way.)

 

[Ringlerun]

Perhaps I chose the wrong prefix. Then again, I was asking why some players dislike the GM just not liking something.

I apologize for for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?

I hope i dont get flamed for this but here goes.

I believe the way the game is played has changed from the good old 80's were the GM was a ruler on high. ( i use this analogy as most games had to be house ruled and since the GM was doing all the work most players just accepted what the GM said created their characters and started playing) Also alot of players never really got attached to their characters until around 3rd to 5th level. Character death was more common in older games.

Now with the advent of later games (i will use 3rd Edition D&D as an example. i am not bagging the system so please dont flame me for this)
Players dont need a GM to oversee character creation. Everyone gets the same points to create their character. So from the start the player is putting an investment into the character. They are planning what stats to have, what skills to get, what feats to take. They are also have to plan for the future of the character. If i want feat x at level y i must have w stat and z feat. So from the beginning the players put alot of development into their characters and through that an attachment occurs. I am not saying this is a bad thing but what it does is make the GM's role more difficult if he wants to create his own setting.

As the OP said why is it a big issue if the GM excludes something because he doesnt like it. Its because players dont like having to change their characters when they have invested time in developing a character they want to play. As a GM i know how frustrating it can be to have a player bring an incompatible character to the table. And i know how annoying it is to think up fantastic character concept to have it ix-nay by the GM

Not sure if this answers the question properly or not, Its just a few meandering words on my experiences as GM and a player.