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

[Dausuul]

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.

And what if your answer is, "I don't like Mongolian steak?" Should you be required to justify your dislike of Mongolian steak?

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

It's a non-gender-specific singular pronoun; shorthand for "his or her."

 

[Greg K]

I have no problem with a DM saying "No, I don't like it". The DM is entitled to run the campaign he or she wants to run. Players are free to play or walk.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Actually, it is.

It's ... and I'm going to pick the wrong word here, but it's tautaulogical. It doesn't provide supporting information. It doesn't engage in conversation. It isn't the sort of thing you say to friends; it's a dictatorial uttering.

I was just going to post something exactly like Rel's point, so I'm glad he did it for me.

"Do you want to go get Italian for dinner?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"I just don't like it."

The last line doesn't tell us anything; it could be that you don't like the taste of tomatoes, or you're alergic to oregano, or you've only had microwave Italian and think it's all bland, or something, but because you've decided to, effectively, end the conversation, we'll never know whether or not you'd enjoy this fantastic sirloin with marsala sauce at the little place I love down the street.

In the end, "I just don't like it" fails to satisfy because it is, at root, a lazy, cop-out answer. There is a reason you don't like it, and hopefully we've all done enough self-thinking to go at least beyond the first level, to what it is about the subject that bothers you. The OP at least elaborated a little bit in one case - he doesn't like adamantine and mithril because he thinks "they are the most overused fantasy materials."

But, even then, is it the names he has a problem with, and having them called, I dunno, tungsten steel and aluminum would make him happy, or is it the idea of weapons- and armor-grade super-hard metals and super-light metals existing at all? (Which, being a modern person, I might have a slightly hard time with, because we've got them floating around "for realz" - and even way back when, there's tales of Damascene steel.) Is it the specific mechanics? Is it okay if you have to have a spellcaster with you when you work them, or can only forge weapons from adamantine / -ium when working at a specific, magical forge?

 

[Greg K]

In the end, "I just don't like it" fails to satisfy because it is, at root, a lazy, cop-out answer.?

It can be a lazy cop-out, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes, people just can't find the words to explain what it is they do not like about something.
I can tell you that some foods I don't like, because of texture, seasoning, smell, the thought of what I am eating makes me sick, etc. With other foods that I dislike, I can't specify why. I just dislike it.

 

[KidSnide]

Maybe it's because I've been GMing for so long, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to set the aesthetic of the game. (In fact, I think it's the GM job.) For example, I think it's completely reasonable for a GM to say that "starsteel and spidersilk" are the special materials of this world instead of adamant- and mithril. Or, a GM could run an Athas-like world with no orcs or gnomes, or a world where drow are planned as the secret paragon antagonist and thus off-limits to heroic PCs.

I think the issue is one of communication. The GM needs to communicate the campaigns aesthetic well enough for the PCs to buy in. Or, alternatively, the GM could talk over the campaign with the potential players and design something that everyone wants to play. However, at the campaign creation level (which includes the most important question of all: "who are the PCs?"), I don't think it's the GMs job to say "yes" - I simply think it's the GMs job to create something that everyone wants to play.

Of course, there is always tension between strong editorial control by the GM and freedom of creativity for the players. I simply think that campaign creation (as opposed to active gameplay) is the time when GMs have the strongest interest in editorial control because they are setting the baseline. Similarly, the players have the weakest argument for freedom of creativity because - before the campaign has started - players don't understand the context and are in a weak position to make well-chosen creative decisions.

-KS

 

[Greg K]

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.

The above, in my opinion is only true if the DM leaves everything open. Barring that, the GM and players should be communicating about the campaign the GM has in mind along with any house rules and restrictions on character generation that the GM will be instituting before the player starts developing a character concept let alone starts creating the character. Then, once the campaign is known, the player should discuss the concept with the GM before creating it.

After character creation the GM should give the character sheet a once over- if not for anything else, to see what it is capable of.

 

[Rel]

Maybe it's because I've been GMing for so long, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to set the aesthetic of the game. (In fact, I think it's the GM job.) For example, I think it's completely reasonable for a GM to say that "starsteel and spidersilk" are the special materials of this world instead of adamant- and mithril. Or, a GM could run an Athas-like world with no orcs or gnomes, or a world where drow are planned as the secret paragon antagonist and thus off-limits to heroic PCs.

I think the issue is one of communication. The GM needs to communicate the campaigns aesthetic well enough for the PCs to buy in. Or, alternatively, the GM could talk over the campaign with the potential players and design something that everyone wants to play. However, at the campaign creation level (which includes the most important question of all: "who are the PCs?"), I don't think it's the GMs job to say "yes" - I simply think it's the GMs job to create something that everyone wants to play.

Of course, there is always tension between strong editorial control by the GM and freedom of creativity for the players. I simply think that campaign creation (as opposed to active gameplay) is the time when GMs have the strongest interest in editorial control because they are setting the baseline. Similarly, the players have the weakest argument for freedom of creativity because - before the campaign has started - players don't understand the context and are in a weak position to make well-chosen creative decisions.

-KS

I very much agree with you here.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the OP but I was under the impression that it was talking about a game already in progress. It has long been considered wise counsel to adopt a "say yes" attitude at that point.

But I very much agree that it is the GMs job to prohibit some things during campaign design in order to set a certain tone, provided that that tone is generally accepted by the players.

 

[BryonD]

Rule 1: The DM can do whatever they want, for whatever reason they want.

Rule 2: The DM must make the overall game (including everything under Rule 1) so good that the players are completely happy with Rule 1. Any DM breaking Rule 2 loses the right to be DM.

 

[Zhaleskra]

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

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

Milan, MICHIGAN.

It's a non-gender-specific singular pronoun; shorthand for "his or her."

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?

I'm actually just fine with special materials, the various special "color coded" steels I find more interesting than adamantwhatever or mithril, and even they will be overused in time.

I am happy that 3e suggested when changing rules to ask "why am I changing this?"

 

[Barastrondo]

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?

I think there's a bit of distance between "wanting to push a GM who is clearly uncomfortable with something" and "asking for a more detailed reason for why a GM is clearly uncomfortable with something." (Assuming it's not clearly sensitive subject matter like incest or something, of course.) For instance, if a GM has a more elaborate reason for not liking mithril -- feeling that it's just too often seen, as stated -- then the player has that information to go on, and can use it to make a better informed decision. Say, to suggest "well, what about another light yet strong material, like superhard volcanic glass?" Without knowing why the GM objects, the player has no knowledge about whether any compromise is even possible: just that the player is free to walk if the ruling isn't amenable.

Of course, I'm kind of the "it's never a bad idea to talk more about what people do and don't like about a game" philosophy, so.