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

[Edgewood]

I haven't read the entire thread, and if I come off sounding repetitive with other posts, then my apologies in advance. As a GM I have never felt comfortable with simply saying, "No, because I don't like it." The way I see it. The players are there for the same reasons that I am. To have fun and tell a cool story along the way. If a player brings an idea to me that doesn't jive with the campaign, or seems out in left field, I always place the burden of explaining the reason for the idea on the player. It needs to make sense in the context of our campaign and of course I will work on it with the player once they have the idea roughly planned out.

Saying no is a double edged sword to a player. Yes you may veto something you may not like or aren't "in to" but you may also be left out on a great idea. Some of the most amazing ideas, stories and placed in my campaign world called Morvia had come from players. If an idea is so terrible that it simply won't work I'll explain to the player that it would simply not work in the context and ask them to re-work it. I always see these things as an opportunity.

 

[Chzbro]

Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?

Why do I not think that's good enough? Because I just don't like it.

If that answer isn't satisfactory in this discussion, why should it be in another?

 

[Zhaleskra]

The "finding another game" aspect is fine. I'm wondering why it seems to be coming off as a problem here.

How about another rephrase: Why does the GM controlling one tiny thing automatically make him a Control Freak and a Bad GM? I ask because this is what I see hidden in "I don't like it isn't a good enough reason" posts.

Maybe this is some phenomena that only usually happens on the Internet. Like people calling people they don't know elitists for having strong preferences. Or snobs for calling those preferences "standards" and assuming they must be impossibly high without even knowing what they are.

I don't like halflings because they were created by Tolkein, whereas Dwarves and Elves have existed in mythology well before T stole the Volsung Saga, claimed it as his own work, Britishized it, and padded it with 2000 pages of filler. Hey I like detailed descriptions too, but I think T over did it. Of course, opinion and all that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Half-orcs spring to mind as a game element that often comes with some serious baggage.

I should hope that, now that they've been a core race for ... a decade? ... we can all move past this trite background requirement?

I mean, I remember way back when, when half-elves were oft stereotyped as such.

Issues that, in my experience, a lot of players do not want to have in their role-playing games.

I agree that certain things have no place in, at least, my roleplaying games. Which is why they get stopped at the door. Please see my earlier points about having "moved past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions."

 

[shadzar]

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

Oh do tell, this should be good.

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.

Follow me in the reply to the next quoted things, and no scheduling conflicts have prevented many a long game from me taking part, but it doesn't mean you can't learn people quickly.

If you'll pardon the "twitter and blog crap,"

You are welcome to it, I just don't do them, and could care less what Conan O'Brian has tweetered or blogged or whatever, nor anyone else for that matter. OK so, I know you played other things so you have seen the different types of players. Gives us a range of various games to discus this phenomena in.

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.

Here is where I disagree. With enough experience with people many can what general type of person someone is right away. As a DM it is part of your job actually to do this, as it helps you make a game that everyone will enjoy. You have to be able to read right away whether someone is liking something or not and what type of things to include or leave out. Also there are some that just wont accept any answer given. Those are not hard to spot at all.

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.

Likely if the GM cared what you thought or hid behind false pleasantries. Dog are the creatures that sniff each other's butt upon meeting, not man, therefore I am not playing social butt-kiss with anyone, as I am not a dog, but a man.

A gentleman would not force an altercation where ones honor had not been sullied.

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.

Looking down on someone? That is a classic example of how a person will not accept an answer given form a DM no matter what, because they have it set int heir mind the want to play an "evil" character and only that.

They were never given "don't like it" as the reason for disallowing "evil" but with every reason they continued to reject them, and surmised that "don't like it" was the reason.

Sadly the example given is how many people today DO play, they players play next to each other, but not with them as is evident by the direction one game took to try to make itself more "balanced" by giving everyone the same stuff no matter what class so the classes wouldn't have to compete against each other, when it fact it was the players competing, not the classes, when they should have been cooperating.

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.

But the GMs opinion doesn't always really matter. If these people aren't friends then there will likely be a grace period of when they are learning each other and their limitations. It doesn't mean a GM is going to just tell you his life story. With a seasoned group of players and friends, then "don't like" should be more than enough if you really are a friend, then you should know if that is open for discussion.

That is the whole thing about discussion. It takes two, and both parties have to be willing. I can't really see why the GMs opinion on why they don't like something will better or shape my playing in their game at all. Again there are so many options I can choose something else.

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.

Common sense has died then? Did I possibly wake up and things people do NOT like make them happy?

If one doesn't like something, then what reason could it have to add to their enjoyment of something?

Player's don't understand the GM is also a player and their to enjoy the game also? They don't understand that if someone doesn't like something, that the odds are highly in favor that they will not enjoy it?

Are we hazing the GM now with stuff they don't like?

Again players need to learn that a content GM is better for running a game than a discontent one. Be it something they don't like being in the game, a bad day at work, whatever...remove it. Don't add the thing the GM doesn't like, call of the game for the day, or do something to make the GM more ready to play and not worry about the negative stuff from work.

I guess some games an unhappy GM may make for a better GM depending on the theme of your games.

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.

Sadly If someone is asking about things a specific person likes and does not like, they left the realm of learning about the game.

When you ask things of others of a personal nature such as "why not" to "don't like it", you are passing judgment on them. Then it comes to who has the authority to decide ones likes and dislikes.

I don't know about tabletop games as I don't know if such a degree exists for them, but computer design games require a psychology and/or sociology course to understand these things so that the game is presented in a manner that doesn't come out and make judgment calls on its players. I know D&D loves to judge its players and determine who is worthy or not and probably set the bad atmosphere for all this to happen.

If you cannot accept the GMs first answer, then you don't have to play in their game. As someone posted around here, no game is better than playing in a bad one.

The problem is not everything need be communicated. Some things people need to just learn to accept. We are dealing with both types of people in gaming, extroverts and introverts.

The place to communicate abou the game is its rules, not the GMs personal likes and dislikes. Just accept thing GM doesn't like all the things you may. Again there is so much for any game, you can pick something else.

Also consider the GM might not like you that much to explain ANY reasoning with you, but they are willing to run a game for you. Best not to make them unwilling or you might as well have just found someone else to begin with.

I have tried not repeating other's responses assuming you read them, but I guess I should...

Some people may not be able to say exactly why they don't like something. They just can't find the words to express it.

Some details about the game you don't need to learn until later.

Sometimes you might jsut not NEED to know.

 

[shadzar]

And if the judge had stopped at, "I just don't like it," his peers on the SC, other judges, future barristers, etc., would have found it an ultimately unsatisfying (and, dare I say, infantile? useless?) opinion.

It is infantile to not like something without giving your reason to the world?

Clearly "don't like it' is biased and in some jobs that is not likely to be helpful, but a GM has the right to his biases.

The thing is though, the game works just fine with tieflings and drgonborn and whatever else.

So if you're going to remove an integral part of the assumed game (hey both races are important enough to the new D&D setting to be in the PHB1) to me a DM should actually have a reason other than "just cause I personally don't like them" and explain why to the players.

The game work just fine without them so why ever add them?

You made the assumption you were wanted to make, that the game needs them. No they were added to sell products. The game does not need tielflings or dragonborn.

If you remove them is the game unplayable? Was the game unplayable for 25 years before they were included in the PHB?

This is an exact case of the players wants taking precedent over the games needs.

Yes the player ha a right to want to play something, but it doesn't mean every DM is going to give them that option because the DM might not want that.

When a players wants outweighs the games needs, that is the first and a good sign that player will become a disruption to the game at some point. These "special needs" or "special attention" players only add problems to the game.

There's nothing wrong with removing stuff- but using DM fiat as an excuse to not explain yourself to me is silly.

I myself don't like explicitly silly stuff in my games (like a dwarf fighter named Rocky Balboa or the like), but I explain to any new players why I don't like that stuff and ask they not do it in my game.

The reason isn't DM fiat. Therein lies the problem of people not viewing the DM as a person, but a tool. DMs are people. They may have a reason, but maybe it isn't any of your business.

Say you have a game club with several DMs available and have posted on a bulletin board the character rules. You don't go question, why cant some of the things be used, you just pick another DM and try the one you like most.

Stop trying to play soap opera and play the RPG instead.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How about another rephrase: Why does the GM controlling one tiny thing automatically make him a Control Freak and a Bad GM? I ask because this is what I see hidden in "I don't like it isn't a good enough reason" posts.

Because, generally, the defenders of your side of the equation are making "The GM's word is law!" arguments for accepting the thin rationale?

Also, the GM isn't "controlling one tiny thing." He's controlling all kinds of things. The question is why, of all the things he has in his toolbox, he has to disallow something from the players', and then why he won't even discuss it. If he has a good reason for it, then, everyone being friends, we can talk about it!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umbran,

I lost my reply to you. Short version: No, that is not a counter-example.

Either not dying is more than a preference (and your point is invalid), or it is a preference (and there is no rational reason to prefer continued existance over dying).

Preferences are emotive. Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing. And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them. But the things you are pursuing? They are not the result of rationality.

And, no, any expectation that a person must (or even should) explain his or her preferences to you....so that you can decide if they are valid or not, or maybe convince him to change his mind.....is not polite. It is off the edge of rude and into the realm of offensive.

I can imagine the outrage if it were suggested that players be required to defend their preferences in making characters they want to play!


RC

 

[FickleGM]

Umbran,

I lost my reply to you. Short version: No, that is not a counter-example.

Either not dying is more than a preference (and your point is invalid), or it is a preference (and there is no rational reason to prefer continued existance over dying).

Preferences are emotive. Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing. And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them. But the things you are pursuing? They are not the result of rationality.

And, no, any expectation that a person must (or even should) explain his or her preferences to you....so that you can decide if they are valid or not, or maybe convince him to change his mind.....is not polite. It is off the edge of rude and into the realm of offensive.

I can imagine the outrage if it were suggested that players be required to defend their preferences in making characters they want to play!


RC

So, do you also mean that it is rude for one to ask why?

 

[Raven Crowking]

It isn't rude to ask why; it is rude not to take No for an answer when the other person doesn't feel like explaining why.

There are times in life when it is worth being rude.

IMHO, this isn't one of them.