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

[shadzar]

And I would hope that the GMs are mature enough to differentiate between being asked "why not?" and "crying".



With all respect, the other side to why the player vs. GM mentality will never die is that so many are taught that to assume that if the players question the GM in any way, that they are by default wrong. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander: yes, players need to respect the GM, but if the GM doesn't extend them that same respect, that is problematic.

If you are who I think you are, and have been doing WW for near 15 years now, what outside of it have you GM'ed? I don't follow the twitter and blog crap of game authors, I could care les about their daily lives other than product X was something I want to buy, oh look this person happens to have worked on it.

Don't recall the timeframe I ST'ed for 100+ people either.

But I will tell you one thing, VtM has a VERY different sort of player that D&D, both LARP and TT. Maybe that has changed and WW player have become the dregs like D&D, but back them the players didn't much complain or argue of little things they wanted, and played. An ST saying they didn't allow specifically Glass Walkers wasn't even met with a "why not", but just "ok, how about this idea?" while trying to make sure the cairn didn't cause problems with the covens and such because of having to deal with the lapdog Brujahs anyway as they were viewed as housepets, but that is a different confrontation as opposed to DM v player and was a fun thing to have played out of their characteristics.

Maybe the nomenclature of ST gave more weight to the GM of Vampire, or the power insinuated in Dungeon MASTER wasn't well accepted after the rebirth of RPGs in 2000.

Either way it wasn't until around 2000 and D&D's rebirth and the player empowerment movement that these parts saw a lot of player V DM for things being disallowed.

It isnt about the players not being able to question the DM/GM/ST, but more the fact that it isn't questionsing a lot today, but that which you call "crying" from the players thinking the GM owes them something.

Now one good idea was had in this thread about players getting to choose one thing, so long as it didnt conflict with anothers players choice and involve too many other dependent parts, that they could remove or what have you form the game. The example was removing orc or something I think.

The problem is, and from my understanding it hasn't gotten better much since 3rd, that the GM puts in a LOT of work. This thread I have always talked about what I thought was things happening up front, but it could go for after the game ha begun as well. Before people sit down the first time, the GM has likely devised some idea of what to do based on the players tastes.

An example in the given somewhere around here mentioned on player wanting to throw 15 years worth of gaming away for him. When the game hasn't started yet, the GM has probably already done a fair bit of work. GM's love to write down ideas, and they probably have some stowed away and already added to it for the current/pending group.

We could stick with the Glass Walker example, but for the sake of other I will switch to AD&D 2nd as an example maybe more can relate to.

A DM doesn't need to be questioned why they don't allow "kits" or shouldn't. If they don't allow them, them someone should be smart enough to figure out that the entirety of them is not something the DM wishes to run.

Oft times it is that simple.

Sure you can question the DM, but if you pester them long enough they will get disinterested in running a game for you.

As others have said, you are not required to play.

On another forum the discussion is being had about why DMs don't allow "evil" characters, and saying DMs give no reaosn for it. In response to my "why did this person want to play one?" the response was similar many times but DMs are looked down upon for asking the players why they want to play it. "because I ran out of paladin builds", was the reason to want to play an "evil" character.

We are really broadening the topic, but it really is about disallowing things in general, but you know how those threads end up, the same route we are going here. This one just wonders why a player cannot accept a DM not liking something.

Players need to learn, or relearn in some cases, that the GM is also a player. They have a right to have fun to. They put a LOT of work into making the games obstacles and such for the other players to go through and have fun with, hopefully. So why should the GM have to use things they don't like, when those things they have a dislike for will only and ALWAYS lead to the GM becoming disconnected from the enjoyment, and with the falling interest the give, the game will become less fun for everyone else.

Ever had a GM that had a bad day, and they were not running a very fun game because of it? That is what could happen to the GM that has to deal with things they "don't like" as a part of the game on a constant basis.

Even if answering why, odds are the players will still try to change their opinion with the latest line about how this will be different from past experiences with it, and yet it becomes the exact thing that was the reason for them to dislike it. (kenders)

Some players won't take any answer at all, unless the answer given to them is "Yes you can play it."

There isn't the power struggle until someone creates it, as the DM only has power as long as he has players (see the walking away from the game thread).

The players have all the power in the game. Without them there is no game. Yes you can play ANY RPG without a GM/DM/ST but it will be a very different experience, but you cannot DM for empty chairs.

All RPGs are homebrewed. Even RAW games have some things omitted. Since someone should know this, then just accept what isn't a part of THIS game, and wait until the next one to use it there.

I it is a new player, then I don't expect them to know all the reasons why people may not like certain things, but again I don't expect them to be just handed a PHB and left alone either. Someone should be explaining them something about the game as they are creating their character, and if given a pregen then they don't have to worry about asking for anything as they didn't really get to choose in the first place.

DMs expect the players to screw up all the best layed plans within moment where it should have taken at least half an hour, and likewise players expect the DM to make the game work.

Part of that DMs job is exclusion of things, so that the game works for the group.

It really feels like the old DM v players argument. Yes there are bad DMs, jsut don't play in their games once spotted. But all DMs aren't out to give you a bad game. If you go into the game thinking the DM is trying to screw you over to begin with, you will often carry that throughout th game. That is why I say let it die. Let and teach people to trust the DM they chose to run the game for them. When you feel the game isn't working out, you can just leave it.

If the ST doesn't like Sabbat, then pick a Camarilla.

All games have so many choices, such as the "evil" discussion, just wanting this one thing is likely to end, and most times does, in that player becoming a disruption.

You are ALL GM and players working to make a cooperative game, so cooperative for the whole to have something, rather than one to have something.

 

[VictorC]

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.

Perhaps, instead of just saying you don't like it, you could give the well thought out reasons why you don't like it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But I will tell you one thing, VtM has a VERY different sort of player that D&D, both LARP and TT. Maybe that has changed and WW player have become the dregs like D&D,

All of your posts make so much more sense, now.

Moving on ...

Not liking it often tells you all you need to know. Otherwise you are just trying to psychoanalyze the other person and their likes and dislikes?

"Because I said so" often tells you all you need to know, too. That doesn't make it a satisfactory answer when given to an adult, either.

And I'm not psychoanalyzing anyone, I'm trying to understand a friend and their preferences and their objections to something, in this case, specifically as it applies to a roleplaying game.

But, based on your posts, you have a long history of not actually playing with groups of long-standing friends; our experiences could not be further apart, and therefore your "DM Uber Alles" reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Perhaps, instead of just saying you don't like it, you could give the well thought out reasons why you don't like it.

"Because I said so" often tells you all you need to know, too. That doesn't make it a satisfactory answer when given to an adult, either.

So... what constitutes a "well thought out" and/or "satisfactory" answer? Is any reason given good enough so long as there is a reason? What if it is just a gut feeling? Or, something they can't quite express? Or, what if they just don't like to talk about why they don't like something?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The GM may run any game he desires, any way he desires, so long as he can find one or more players willing to play in his game.

The player may run any PC he desires, any way he desires, so long as he can find one or more GMs willing to accomodate him.

Neither one of them needs to explain why their preferences are as they are. Certainly, there is no "logic" to preferences....any claim to the contrary falling far more into the realm of "rationalizing" than "rational".

And, as Porky Pig says, "That's all, folks."


RC

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So... what constitutes a "well thought out" and/or "satisfactory" answer? Is any reason given good enough so long as there is a reason? What if it is just a gut feeling? Or, something they can't quite express? Or, what if they just don't like to talk about why they don't like something?

First, we're talking about roleplaying games - preferably played with people you consider to be friends. The chances of "I'm disallowing this because I don't like to talk about it" being a valid reason is so miniscule as to be disregarded; we're assuming we've moved past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions. (For people who can't get past that point, the "Stories of How I Left Games That Sucked" thread is thataway.)

Moving onward, the definition of a satisfactory answer will depend on what it is the GM is outlawing, but will in all cases indicate that he's put some thought into what he's removing from the game and why.

If, for instance, he's getting rid of spiked chains, then the answer "Because I think the combination of attacking at reach and adjacent, it being a tripping weapon, and the overpoweredness of the trip rules to begin with make it an unbalanced weapon; also, it looks silly," is a superior answer to "Because I don't like it." It also says that, in this DM's campaign, you should stay away from trip-focused characters - and dedicated grapplers may want to be careful, as well.

 

[billd91]

So... what constitutes a "well thought out" and/or "satisfactory" answer? Is any reason given good enough so long as there is a reason? What if it is just a gut feeling? Or, something they can't quite express? Or, what if they just don't like to talk about why they don't like something?

Communication will get us all on a better level of understanding each other and the ground expectations for the game. That, as far as I am concerned, will always trump "Because I said so" and other short form answers like "I don't like it".

A GM can run the sort of game he wants to play. A player can look for and play in the sort of game he wants to play. But without intercommunication between the two, they won't know a thing about what either wants and what that means for the game's expectations.

And the general platitude that GMs and players can get what they want means pretty much nothing if they can't agree or negotiate out a mutually agreeable compromise.

 

[Mort]

If, for instance, he's getting rid of spiked chains, then the answer "Because I think the combination of attacking at reach and adjacent, it being a tripping weapon, and the overpoweredness of the trip rules to begin with make it an unbalanced weapon; also, it looks silly," is a superior answer to "Because I don't like it." It also says that, in this DM's campaign, you should stay away from trip-focused characters - and dedicated grapplers may want to be careful, as well.

While the 2nd answer is certainly more intelectually satisfying, it might not be more honest - and instead could be a rationalization flowing from "I just don't like it."

The following is heavily generalized to keep in line with the no politics rule:

Quite a few years ago one of my best friends was at a barbeque hosted by a Supreme Court Justice. There had been a recent case about the use of a certain device, this justice had written the majority opinion and was clearly the driving force behind it. The opinion was a masterpiece of explanation touching on legality, reliability and many other factors.

My friend was curious and asked the judge about the opinion, which factors were the most significant etc. The judge looked at him and said "At the end of the day, I just don't like it, everything else flowed from there."

 

[Barastrondo]

If you are who I think you are, and have been doing WW for near 15 years now, what outside of it have you GM'ed? I don't follow the twitter and blog crap of game authors, I could care les about their daily lives other than product X was something I want to buy, oh look this person happens to have worked on it.

Among other things, I started running a D&D campaign that began with a one-shot when I came down for my interview, resumed when I got the job, and has been going off-and-on in various forms over three editions ever since. Champions has been another long-term favorite. If you'll pardon the "twitter and blog crap," I signed up for ENWorld back in the days before the 3rd edition release, and had a hand in several Sword & Sorcery products; that's why my handle on this board is taken from Hollowfaust: City of Necromancers instead of a Storyteller game. Before the rise of Vampire, most of my college games were Hero System, D&D or Teenagers from Outer Space. I played a lot (a lot) of other games, but these are the non-WW games I've run most consistently.

But I will tell you one thing, VtM has a VERY different sort of player that D&D, both LARP and TT.

In my experience, there are a whole lot of people who enjoy both sorts of game. Most every game I've played has been with people who have enjoyed horror, fantasy, superheroes, post-apocalypse, science fiction and comedy in their own separate games. I'd be hesitant to try inferring a person's personality from the sort of game she preferred.

It isnt about the players not being able to question the DM/GM/ST, but more the fact that it isn't questionsing a lot today, but that which you call "crying" from the players thinking the GM owes them something.

I disagree. I think the line between questioning a call and feeling entitled is based on the individual player. I also think you can't tell the difference if you don't talk to the player in question.

A DM doesn't need to be questioned why they don't allow "kits" or shouldn't. If they don't allow them, them someone should be smart enough to figure out that the entirety of them is not something the DM wishes to run.

Oft times it is that simple.

To very loosely borrow a sentiment from a favorite book: "A DM is not beholden to explain himself to his players. A gentleman would be delighted to discuss the matter with them."

Which is not meant as a judgment on the moral character of GMs who don't explain themselves, but I think the courteous thing to do is to talk things over.

On another forum the discussion is being had about why DMs don't allow "evil" characters, and saying DMs give no reaosn for it. In response to my "why did this person want to play one?" the response was similar many times but DMs are looked down upon for asking the players why they want to play it. "because I ran out of paladin builds", was the reason to want to play an "evil" character.

And I think it's foolish for anyone to look down on someone for asking a question like that, GM or player. If we don't ask for clarification, how exactly are we expected -- as players or GMs -- to play nicely off one another?

I was talking with co-workers today about how some people play like three-year-olds: they play next to each other, not with one another. It seems a crying shame to approach an RPG like that.

Players need to learn, or relearn in some cases, that the GM is also a player. They have a right to have fun to. They put a LOT of work into making the games obstacles and such for the other players to go through and have fun with, hopefully. So why should the GM have to use things they don't like, when those things they have a dislike for will only and ALWAYS lead to the GM becoming disconnected from the enjoyment, and with the falling interest the give, the game will become less fun for everyone else.

Some players do need to learn or relearn this. But many players don't. They know this already. And I flatly disagree that a player who asks "Why not?" is most likely a player who does not think of the GM as a person with a right to enjoy himself as well. Such a player is literally asking for more information on the GM's opinion. They may be doing it for poor reasons, but are the odds really in favor? I don't think so.

Some players won't take any answer at all, unless the answer given to them is "Yes you can play it."

True. But I don't see how holding forth on "Because I don't like it" is a better solution than talking things over in more detail, realizing that you wouldn't be happy playing with players who don't want to listen to you anyway, and adjusting the plans for the game accordingly.

It really feels like the old DM v players argument. Yes there are bad DMs, jsut don't play in their games once spotted. But all DMs aren't out to give you a bad game. If you go into the game thinking the DM is trying to screw you over to begin with, you will often carry that throughout th game. That is why I say let it die. Let and teach people to trust the DM they chose to run the game for them. When you feel the game isn't working out, you can just leave it.

I'm all for that. I simply think it goes both ways. If your players ask a question, trust them to be trying to learn more about the game, instead of assuming the worst and expecting that they're trying to push some sort of entitled feeling on you. There's just nothing wrong with the practice of communication. If you have terrible players who don't listen to your reasoning, then perhaps you shouldn't run for them -- but how can any GM ever know if the players are that bad or not by refusing to answer questions? You can never know if someone will take your reasoning to heart if you refuse to provide it.

 

[Umbran]

Neither one of them needs to explain why their preferences are as they are.

Neither one has to, no. Put it is kind of polite to do so, and may lead to constructive discussion or compromise.

Certainly, there is no "logic" to preferences....any claim to the contrary falling far more into the realm of "rationalizing" than "rational".

Oh? Really? *Any* claim otherwise? Absolutes can generally be disproven with single counterexamples. I hope you'll allow me one slightly excessive one to make the point:

My wife prefers to not eat strawberries. The fact that she's deathly allergic to strawberries (as in, "I cannot breathe and may die if I don't get medication") doesn't stand as a logical reason for that preference? She's rationalizing an emotional dislike of strawberries to the point of anaphylaxis?!?

Now, I'll grant that a great many preferences probably have no logic behind them beyond personal aesthetics. And yes, humans do have a tendency to make non-rational decisions, and to rationalize afterward. But some preferences really do have logic behind them, and expressing reasons when there's a conflict is usually a good thing.