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

[GreyLord]

I don't think I've ever had a problem like this in real life. I see people state things they don't like me doing as a GM from these forums...but they don't play in my games so their opinion on what I do in my game doesn't count.

As for players, I don't really have a lack of those overall...and if they ever did raise objections...well...I don't have a problem with them walking and trying to find another game on their own.

I haven't had it happen to me, but I'VE walked out of a game...but normally it was due to personal conflicts that I had with other players instead of the game.

I'm not certain how much this happens in real life with disagreements on what the GM can or cannot allow, but if it's happening a lot, perhaps there are more problems with the group than a simple disagreement on what a GM allows or doesn't allow.

 

[Mort]

IMO 'I don't like it" is perfectly fine as an answer - it's sums up the position nicely.

The answer only becomes an issue if someone else in the group:

1) does like it; AND
2) likes it enough to make it an issue.

Because these things are (usually) purely a matter of opinion this can be tough. For example:

The DM doesn't like dragonborn, so when designing, specifically excludes them from any part of his world.

Player A, on the other hand, thinks dragonborn are the greatest thing to happen to rolepaying since its invention and is hugely disappointed because he was really looking forward to playing one.

Both are expressing a perfectly valid opinion and neither really needs a reason for their view (quite likely any reasons given would just be justifications of their gut "like" or "not like" reaction anyway).

Whether they can work this out depends on the people involved; whether player A trusts the DM to run a great campaign without dragonborn and is willing to try it, or whether the DM is willing to bend to the player.

 

[The Human Target]

The game provides a baseline of content and if its removed from a game players understandably want a good reason why.

Its totally valid.

If a DM doesn't want Tieflings in their game and I asked "Why not?" and was given the answer "Because I don't like them" I'd for sure be very off put about playing in that persons game.

Not because I love Tieflings or because I want to play one, but because I don't like the idea of arbitrarily removing things from the game on a whim of personal preference.

I think Goliaths are silly and I'd never play one, but that doesn't mean I would or should ban them from my current campaign because I have a player that likes them a lot.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Super metals just don't fit the themes of my 2 favorite D&D settings. One's Dark Fantasy, so a bit like a horror movie, though "spiritually significant" things at their various levels can make up for it. The other is Pulp Novel emulation, on basically alternate universe earth from the late 1800s to around 1945. It has magic and stuff, with limits, includes a prestige class that can do the "spiritual significance" stuff. Characters are "super" enough thanks to Hero Points that they don't need super materials. Not that they don't try.

I don't know too much about Red Steel, but I know that Baatorian Green Steel is light and strong without being a super material.

 

[Rel]

Super metals just don't fit the themes of my 2 favorite D&D settings. One's Dark Fantasy, so a bit like a horror movie, though "spiritually significant" things at their various levels can make up for it. The other is Pulp Novel emulation, on basically alternate universe earth from the late 1800s to around 1945. It has magic and stuff, with limits, includes a prestige class that can do the "spiritual significance" stuff. Characters are "super" enough thanks to Hero Points that they don't need super materials. Not that they don't try.

I don't know too much about Red Steel, but I know that Baatorian Green Steel is light and strong without being a super material.

So just tell them that.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Because in saying, "I just don't like X" the GM is making it personal, relying on only personal authority. It is saying, "I get to have it my way because I'm ME, and you aren't."

Now, occasionally the GM can play that card. Occasionally, everyone should be allowed to - I just don't like anchovies on pizza, and I'll veto them. But it ought to be done with care, and only occasionally. Done too frequently, or over someone's strong preference, it can seem a bit petty and selfish.

Having supporting logic always comes across as less arbitrary than, "just because."

 

[The Human Target]

Super metals just don't fit the themes of my 2 favorite D&D settings. One's Dark Fantasy, so a bit like a horror movie, though "spiritually significant" things at their various levels can make up for it. The other is Pulp Novel emulation, on basically alternate universe earth from the late 1800s to around 1945. It has magic and stuff, with limits, includes a prestige class that can do the "spiritual significance" stuff. Characters are "super" enough thanks to Hero Points that they don't need super materials. Not that they don't try.

I don't know too much about Red Steel, but I know that Baatorian Green Steel is light and strong without being a super material.

Those are reasons. Not reasons I agree with, but I at least can accept you've thought about them.

I guess my question as a player in your game would be- why are we even using the D&D rules (any edition) to play a style of game that could be done much better with other systems? That don't have adamantine or mithril or whatever in them in the first place?

 

[Zhaleskra]

I agree to a point that system can matter. For example, I don't think the smooth rules of HERO fit the clunky feel that I think "pulp" should have.

I could ask "why do you need a super metal when you can have a shaman imbue a weapon with the spiritual significance of your entire nation for all eternity or at least as long as a broken weapon is destined to be remade?"

 

[Rel]

I agree to a point that system can matter. For example, I don't think the smooth rules of HERO fit the clunky feel that I think "pulp" should have.

What?

I could ask "why do you need a super metal when you can have a shaman imbue a weapon with the spiritual significance of your entire nation for all eternity or at least as long as a broken weapon is destined to be remade?"

It's a perfectly valid question. But, at that point, you've entered into a dialog with the player(s) about things as opposed to offering no reason beyond personal preference. Which is a good thing IMHO.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Put simply, I think that clunky rules can sometimes be a good thing. I guess I think pulp games should feel like a B movie.