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

[FickleGM]

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.

I mostly agree (EDIT: the last sentence is where I would disagree with you, but only in a couple circumstances. EDIT #2: I'm not disagreeing with it being your opinion. ).

 

[Zhaleskra]

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

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!

You seem to be missing the fact that it has been explained, SEVERAL TIMES, on purpose. There's only one solution for that. Welcome to my ignore list. You will never leave it.

EDIT: Normally I don't tell people they're being added to my ignore list, but I have run into people on other forums who get upset to learn they're being ignored.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sometimes, No means No.

You don't have the right to browbeat someone, physically or verbally, into doing what you want simply because you want it. You are not forced to play in the game. You cannot force others to play the game the way you want.

It is not rude to say No. It is not rude to feel No is adequate. It is not rude to refuse to engage in a "dialogue" intended to make you realize that you really mean Yes.

Please tell me that most of us are not so socially inept as to miss the implications here.


RC

 

[FickleGM]

Sometimes, No means No.

You don't have the right to browbeat someone, physically or verbally, into doing what you want simply because you want it. You are not forced to play in the game. You cannot force others to play the game the way you want.

It is not rude to say No. It is not rude to feel No is adequate. It is not rude to refuse to engage in a "dialogue" intended to make you realize that you really mean Yes.

Please tell me that most of us are not so socially inept as to miss the implications here.


RC

I tried to physically browbeat somebody once, but my brows weren't bushy enough.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You seem to be missing the fact that it has been explained, SEVERAL TIMES, on purpose. There's only one solution for that. Welcome to my ignore list. You will never leave it.

EDIT: Normally I don't tell people they're being added to my ignore list, but I have run into people on other forums who get upset to learn they're being ignored.

Zee ironies, zay are too mush.

Also, that used to be a warnable offense. I don't know if it still is; you might want to check the Ts&Cs. At any rate, I'm not particularly miffed.

RC, I know it's fun to overly dramatize things, but asking, "What is it about tieflings you don't like?" is in no way akin to rape. Srsly.

 

[shadzar]

Please tell me that most of us are not so socially inept as to miss the implications here.

Sadly it seems some, or many, are just that as they cannot take the social cues that draw a line on some things to create that "personal comfort zone", but think they have the right to push ANY issue just for their further edification.

 

[billd91]

Sadly it seems some, or many, are just that as they cannot take the social cues that draw a line on some things to create that "personal comfort zone", but think they have the right to push ANY issue just for their further edification.

Oh, right. Because everyone who asks someone the reasons behind their preferences is always pushing their issues over the GM's rights. Why is it that no matter what's being argued, people feel the need to assume the worst in a position?

A GM is free to not give answers, but I'd have to be concerned that being too taciturn would injure his game unless the players already trust him, in which case pursuing the question of preferences may not have been necessary in the first place. And he would have nobody to blame but himself. As I've said before, communication is better than lack of it.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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

But, players are required to defend their preferences all the time. After all, what is a player background if not a defense of their preferences? If a player wants to play X, he has to run it past the DM before taking it every single time. A player who comes to the table with a character created without the DM's knowledge could quickly find himself rolling up a new character as the DM decides that the PC is too overpowered (or underpowered, or doesn't fit with the campaign etc.)

In what way is a player not required to defend their preferences?

-----------

I look at this like this. I hate elves. I've hated elves for a long, long time. I hate elves because every elf I've seen played, or nearly so, has been a human that can see in the dark. There's never any schtick that defines the character as an elf. Dwarf? Halfing? Dragonborn? Sure, I see those players bringing stuff to the table all the time that defines that character as a member of that race. They make that character easily identifiable as a member of a particular race.

Elves? I have almost never seen it.

But, and here's the but. I don't ban elves from my table. Why? Because I know that there are people out there that can do justice to an elf character. Who am I to tell the players that their character just doesn't measure up to my standards? I am nowhere near that arrogant. Well, maybe I'm close, but, still.

To me, when a DM says, "There's no X, because I just don't like X" that raises HUGE red flags. For one, what else doesn't he or she like that hasn't come up yet but might affect what's going on down the road? For another, where does it stop? After all, "I don't like elves, so you can't play an elf" isn't so far from "I don't like your character doing X, you can't do X".

Not that that will necessarily be true. It very well might not be true. The DM could be a fantastic DM with this one small hangup. But, that worry is going to pop up in my head because every single poor DM I've played with started with the line "I don't have X in my game because I don't like it".

Not that banning X makes you a poor DM. Let's nip that little misread in the bud right here. DM's most certainly can ban whatever they like. But, when a DM stands up in the Big Daddy Chair and rules from on high, I'm going to be much more reluctant to sit at that table.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

It's fine to just say "no."

Many DMs have a very nuanced vision of their world, and it's impossible to describe the "why" of everything.

(If only players were even interested in the "why" of everything.)

I think that an intended feel can be conveyed in a few words and that specific gaps can be filled in later.

E.g.:

Humanocentric low magic 12th century Western European feel. Nothing stupid, please.

And people should not be surprised when their half-dragon favored soul in magical plate armor with an orcish double axe* is politely declined.


But I only play with people I know and like - and who know that I'm not out to screw them out of arbitrariness or whimsy.

I suppose it might be different with an alternative social contract - i.e. between gamers who are not necessarily friends - but I can't really speak to that as that sort of game has never interested me.



*Stupid

 

[shadzar]

To me, when a DM says, "There's no X, because I just don't like X" that raises HUGE red flags. For one, what else doesn't he or she like that hasn't come up yet but might affect what's going on down the road? For another, where does it stop? After all, "I don't like elves, so you can't play an elf" isn't so far from "I don't like your character doing X, you can't do X".

Over analyze things much?

No seriously.

But as to your next part, did you think that since you are assigning the "poor DM" to "dont like it so dont allow it", maybe the DM is assigning the "why dont you like it" from a player as an indication of a poor player?

Shoe, other foot; other foot, shoe.