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

[Umbran]

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).

Well, I think that's a matter that fits under the "no religion" rule, and we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

Preferences are emotive.

A preference is a true statement.

In a logical system, there are two forms of true statements. One type is an axiom - these are statements that are assumed to be true, and so cannot be logically proven, or argued against - though it can be shown that some systems of axioms are inconsistent. Emotive preferences might be akin to axiomatic statements.

However, for your archetypal logical system, there are an infinite number of quite logical statements that follow as true, once you assume the axioms. In fact, no logic can be undertaken *until* you assume the axioms.

So, if we assume that my wife prefers to live as an axiom, then the preference to avoid strawberries follows from pure logic. The two statements, are not equivalent, but one follows from the other.

If the GM and player agree upon their axioms, then showing the logic behind other preferences can lead them into agreement, or to suitable compromises.

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

Well, I think you're upping the ante with, "required".

They'd be outraged if you insisted they justify every tiniest detail, sure. But asking them for reasons behind a choice or two that seemed to be outside what we'd set as an expectation to start with? That should not be an issue with a reasonable player.

I get to ask some things as GM, they get to ask some things as players. Sounds even and fair to me.

 

[Hussar]

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

But, here's where it gets a bit sticky. Sure, the player trying to pick something that's wildly out of place is an easy issue to solve. What if the player (assuming D&D for a second here) wants to play a D&D monk? It's a bit out of the presumed setting, but, not too far out. After all, 12th century Europe did have some contact with the East, so, a traveling Monk from the mysterious Orient is not completely out of line.

Or a Mongol horse rider for that matter? Is that bending things too far?

Sure, it's easy to point out the far ends of the spectrum, but, there's lots of stuff in the middle that might be an issue.

If the DM says, "No monks", should the player simply accept it and move on or can he or she ask why?

No one, as far as I know, has said that the DM must change his mind if challenged. But, is it okay for players to ask?

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.

Wow, even with the caveat and explicit declaration, it still got taken wrong. I'll repeat myself for the hard of reading:

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.

I'll admit though, having a player ask me a question about a setting decision has never struck me as being a bad player. Then again, I'm not quite that much of a Big Daddy Chair DM as all that anyway. If a player really wants to play X and I have no compelling reason against X other than "I just don't like it" then I'll generally let them have it.

After all, I don't feel that being the DM gives me the right to shove my personal preferences down someone else's throat and expect them to either meekly accept it without question or leave the room.

Obviously, other people have different views.

 

[shadzar]

Big Daddy Chair DM

I tried to avoid it because of that Phrase, but you seem to want it discussed, your view of some DMs might be a root to your problems.

After all, I don't feel that being the DM gives me the right to shove my personal preferences down someone else's throat and expect them to either meekly accept it without question or leave the room.

How is the DM shoving personal preference down your throat? You chose the DM. You can chose to leave.

I still don't get this idea that the DM owes the players anything. I also don't get why someone feels they have to play in the DMs game. You chose them, if you didn't want to play in their game or trust them to do their job as a DM, why did you choose them?

You sit down as a player and give certain rights and duties to the DM. If you didn't want this person to be able to make those choices, then why choose them? Why waste their time?

Are you just unhappy unless you have something to argue about?

It isn't like you picked someone for your carpool and they have aspirations to be a NASCAR driver and put those to use on the freeway. You don't have to open the door and tuck and roll, just get up and leave the game table if you don't want to play in their game, but odds are your leaving will get around to other DMs and maybe make them less agreeable to you joining in their games.

You make the choice as a player, so accept fault for your choices rather than blame the DM.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

After all, 12th century Europe did have some contact with the East, so, a traveling Monk from the mysterious Orient is not completely out of line.

I think that the "PC is unusual/unique" device is a well-tried get-around, and there are many cases where a DM should flex to admit borderline cases with this understanding.

But only the DM can decide if something is simply too incongruous for the game, for whatever reason: this judgment is aesthetic, based on the internal consistency of the game world, and cannot always be easily communicated.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Obviously, other people have different views.

I'd even describe it as different personalities. I'm sure we all know people who can be opinionated, arbitrary, and stubborn regardless of which side of the DM's screen they're on.

I try to be fairly easy-going.

Say, there's something I have a strong personal preference against. Maybe like everyone's favorite whipping-boy of the moment, Fortune Cards...which I have an intense, emotional, largely irrational distaste of.

Say someone wants to bring Fortune Cards into my next D&D game.

My reaction would probably be, "Okay, here's the thing, I really don't like them, and would rather not use them. Maybe if you, I dunno, bring enough for everyone, we can give them a try for one session, if you really want to, but I'm warning you, I've got a bias here, and I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise. Maybe we can find a middle ground, like Paizo's Plot Twists deck or something? Just not anything sold by rarity or booster pack, okay?"

And the reaction I would expect would be something along the lines of "I'd really like to at least try them once, and we'll see how they are" or "Okay, I'll bring the Plot Twist deck next time, I like the idea of using cards," or "Nevermind, I thought they'd be cool, but if it's not going to be fun for you, I'm not that attached to the idea."

Those are all answers I can be cool with. And that's something that I feel kind of weirdly strongly about. Fantasy metals, races, and even game systems I don't feel that strongly about.

If the person's worth hanging out with, they're not going to storm off in a huffy fury because I don't like their little cardboard bits. If I'm worth hanging out with, I'm not going to throw a little hissy fit about my personal beef with the things like they should be ashamed of bringing them up.

I know this is a game about pretending to be fairy elves in the gumdrop forest slaying the five fabulous fruit flavors of dragons and all, but I get the feeling that some gamers need to frickin' grow up and chill the heck out.

It's only a game, d00ds.

 

[Jacob Marley]

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.

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."

This trite background requirement was part of the reason that half-orcs were not among the races in the first 4th Edition Player's Handbook; as evidenced by James Wyatt here, and the full article is here for those with a DDI account.

There are plenty of people out there to which the issue of how half-orcs came to be is anything but trite. Do they really need to explain why? There are some issues in which "I don't like and I don't want to talk about it" are perfectly valid. I think that this is one of them.

Re: your points about people moving past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions." I am not so sure that it is that intentional. Rather, I think a player comes up with a character concept -- say, a half-orc fighter seeking to avenge his mother's situation -- only to find out that the DM has disallowed half-orcs from her campaign precisely because that situation. I am not so sure that the player intended to creep everyone out, but instead stumbled on an issue that bothered one particular player - in the case, the DM. Once the issue is brought to light, should we -- as players -- push the DM to justify why? Or, can we just accept "It's something I don't want to talk about?"

 

[Sorrowdusk]

This trite background requirement was part of the reason that half-orcs were not among the races in the first 4th Edition Player's Handbook; as evidenced by James Wyatt here, and the full article is here for those with a DDI account.

There are plenty of people out there to which the issue of how half-orcs came to be is anything but trite. Do they really need to explain why? There are some issues in which "I don't like and I don't want to talk about it" are perfectly valid. I think that this is one of them.

Re: your points about people moving past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions." I am not so sure that it is that intentional. Rather, I think a player comes up with a character concept -- say, a half-orc fighter seeking to avenge his mother's situation -- only to find out that the DM has disallowed half-orcs from her campaign precisely because that situation. I am not so sure that the player intended to creep everyone out, but instead stumbled on an issue that bothered one particular player - in the case, the DM. Once the issue is brought to light, should we -- as players -- push the DM to justify why? Or, can we just accept "It's something I don't want to talk about?"

Half orc creation besides rape - RPGnet Forums

i.e.

If orcs can spend time with similarly motivated humans without any more enmity than between any other evil characters, why shouldn't it happen consensually? I see no reason why it'd be THAT rare ... people do weird things. Some people might actually find orcs attractive, you never know ... others might think of it as some sort of breeding program (hybrid vigor super-orc-men!) I can even see evil humans (powerful ones, of course) being the exploitative partners... you never know what sort of weird kinks practicing evil magic for years can cause.

 

[shadzar]

Or, can we just accept "It's something I don't want to talk about?"

Many people can't but it isn't even that hardcore of an issue that can cause it. What if the DM just doesn't like a lot and is biting his tongue enough to play with some of the stuff the players want to, and just one more thing they don't like pushes them over the edge.

You question, and you find out that 50% of the game the GM doesn't like and would have rather removed, and then the players are stunned, and the game becomes hard for anyone to play.

I will deal with LOTS of stuff form the players character ideas and such, but when I draw the line, it is there. For whatever reason, odds are I would NOT play in many of the games I have run, because I do not like LOTS of the elements those I run games for do as a player. Since I am not a player, I don't have to deal with it a a PC party member, so hey it is there game. But still it sits there in my mind.

So if you the players get to choose their character and design it, why can the DM not do the same? Both have veto powers over the others playing piece in the game, but one side always wants more more more MORE.

Taking Vampire as an example because many wont come with loaded thoughts on it, STs gathered to decide where to take the story, and it was decided that since people often wanted to play Sabbat, that we would throw the concept in for the Seneschal known to be so by the Prince.

Let's just say this is something the rest of the players did not like and almost destroyed the game. The choice wasn't made likely to add this, but many didn't like it, but still felt the inclusion needed ot be made at one point for the sake of the game.

This is the tough job of a DM/ST/GM, and sometimes they DO put up with things they don't like, when given a flat no they "don't like it", it doesn't have to be as drastic as trumped up backstories for half-orcs* that you can easily throw away from day one, but they could just as easily be something small that would bother the game.

*There are plenty of other ways to explain half-orcs and half-elves other than Tanis' stoy and such. Who said it could never be consentual like half-dragons?

 

[ppaladin123]

Half orc creation besides rape - RPGnet Forums

i.e.

Yeah I never understood that....half-elves obviously emerge out of love. Half-orcs? Well obviously there is rape involved. Do we really need to assume rape? Can't you have a setting in which half-orcs are the product of consensual relationships? Can't you have a setting where half-elves emerge out of rape and pillaging?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This trite background requirement was part of the reason that half-orcs were not among the races in the first 4th Edition Player's Handbook; as evidenced by James Wyatt here, and the full article is here for those with a DDI account.

This, of course, represents an absolute failure of imagination.

There are plenty of people out there to which the issue of how half-orcs came to be is anything but trite. Do they really need to explain why? There are some issues in which "I don't like and I don't want to talk about it" are perfectly valid. I think that this is one of them.

Which is, again, why you don't roleplay with people for whom rape forms an inescapable part of their character's motivations.

It's really that simple. It is exactly ...

... about people moving past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions."

I don't play with people for whom rape comes up in their forms of entertainment. While we admit to the possibility that there are evil people in the roleplayed world, and that Bad Things Happen (TM), it does not come up during play. Similarly, children are neither molested nor tortured.

Perhaps this makes our roleplaying "shallow" to some among the Real True Roleplaying crowd; I prefer the terms "light" and "friendly," and am quite happy down here with the "dregs."