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

[Raven Crowking]

If they dont want to/wont discuss it, arent they getting their own way, by simply avoiding any discussion at all?

Sure they are.

OTOH, this is similar to baking chocolate chip cookies and then asking if anyone wants some. The baker gets his own way as to what he wants to bake. Everyone else gets his own way as to whether or not he wants to have some.

A problem only arises where the baker demands the right to force-feed you his cookies, or the potential recipient demands that the baker makes what he wants.

I am allowed to get my way as to what I am willing to offer you. You are allowed to get your own way as to what you are willing to offer me.

I don't have to explain why I wanted to bake chocolate chip; you don't need an excuse to say "No thank you".

That said, if my motive is to bake cookies that you will want, I would be foolish to ignore what it is that you want. If I strongly dislike making peanut butter cookies, and that's all you want, well....perhaps you need a different baker, and I need a different consumer. I still don't need to explain why I dislike peanut butter cookies, nor do you need to explain why you crave them.

It depends on what "pressing" the issue is. Did they give reasons, and then the players seek to debate ad nauseum, or were they given any reasons, was their any discussion at all. If they simply say "I just dont like it" that compromising either, that just shuts everything down.

To paraphrase Dan Savage, a good GM is "good, giving, and game". But being "game" doesn't mean that you can't know what you don't like. And if you don't like something, it is okay to say so.

A good player is also "good, giving, and game". Part of being "good and giving" is accepting that sometimes No means No, without demanding the reasons.

In that case, you either accept the relationship as it is, or you DTMFA, because whatever you do to change the other person is just going to prolong both of your agony.



RC

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Strawman.

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are). You are seeking to get your own way.

People can (and do) dress that up six ways to Sunday, but in the end, it is what it is, and no rationalization changes it to something different.


RC

Wow. This is pretty much as clear and as polite as you can put this. If people dont get it they're not trying to get it. AT. ALL.

Especially THIS PART:

When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are). You are seeking to get your own way.

Part of being an adult is sometimes being able to accept what you cant change in other people. As an adult you make a choice, if a situation is untenable you can just walk away from it or you can stay cause further conflict in order to prove that youre way is the only right way or to make a point or whatever.

You're not OWED an answer to ANYTHING. Just because my friend tells me that he doesn't like Broccoli or clams or oysters and wont tell me WHY doesn't make him a dick. That's his prerogative, if he wants to tell me he will. That's called RESPECT. If that same friend as a DM tells me no divine casters in his Pathfinder game and I wanted to play a Cleric? He doesn't have to tell me why because I trust him enough that there is a reason and I'll play something else even though I love playing clerics. Why? Because I trust my friend. If it becomes apparent during play why there are no divine casters then great if not then I'll still deal. He doesn't OWE me anything.

If I'm joining a new game with a new DM and he/she hands me a guide for their game and there are no standard races just monster races, I have to make a decision. Do I want to be part of this game? No. Then I excuse myself. No hard feelings. I'm not going to sit there and be THAT douchebag who is going to argue and insist that he/she change their concept because I need to be that special snowflake. It's not a game i'm interested in playing, so I'll bounce and find another game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, it´s not ok for me to get things my own way so you get things your way?

See my response to Sorrowdusk.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That can really depend on circumstances. If my life is pretty busy with work and kids, I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to game. If I want to spend time with these friends, it may have to be around the gaming table for that night. Considering campaigns may last for years, the cost for walking can be very high. It's one of the reasons I'm still playing 4e, a game I don't like very much but other players are having some fun experimenting with. I could walk away from the game, but I'd rather spend the time with my friends. Fortunately, the DM is flexible enough that he's allowing us a lot of latitude in trying things out. Too many other constraints on top of playing 4e and I'd be pretty disappointed.

It is a poor friend indeed who refuses to spend time with you unless it's around a gaming table.

But, OTOH, I note you say "I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to game" rather than "I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to spend time with these friends", so that might be the problem right there.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would also like to point out that, as a GM, if I have pointed out the door to you, the odds are very good that you no longer get to choose. I have already chosen. I don't need Dan Savage to tell me to DTMFA, and I have no trouble filling a table.

 

[chaochou]

The GM doesn't "own" the game - it's a social activity between a group of people who have agreed to do this thing together. Doesn't make him their king or anything.

Exactly.

A DM derives their authority from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.

 

[Coldwyn]

[MENTION=428]RaveN[/MENTION] Cowking:

Like I said earlier: Move over to my place and you´ll relearn what a luxury it is the even find players. I think you´ll change your mind on gm-right pretty quick.

 

[Hussar]

Strawman.

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are). You are seeking to get your own way.

People can (and do) dress that up six ways to Sunday, but in the end, it is what it is, and no rationalization changes it to something different.


RC

Really? No one is shutting down conversation? How about the person you just posrepped?

If I'm joining a new game with a new DM and he/she hands me a guide for their game and there are no standard races just monster races, I have to make a decision. Do I want to be part of this game? No. Then I excuse myself. No hard feelings. I'm not going to sit there and be THAT douchebag who is going to argue and insist that he/she change their concept because I need to be that special snowflake.

Note how it's being painted. Anyone who complains is automatically a douchebag who needs to be a special snowflake. How is this not completely shutting down any compromise? ShinHakkaider is basically saying that the DM rules from on high and the players should put up and shut up or get out.

It has nothing to do with being owed anything. It's about basic social interaction. If the DM rules X, I should not be browbeaten into submission if I question that ruling. Now, if no compromise is possible, sure, I have to decide if I want to play this game or not. Fair enough.

But that should not be the first step. That should be the last one.

Oh, and on this little tidbit:

and I have no trouble filling a table.

in all likelyhood, no one in this thread does either, so, trying to make it sound like you have the best answer because you've managed to keep people at your table isn't exactly saying anything. Heck, look at the horror stories thread going on right now. Most of those horror stories include people who STAYED at those tables.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I'd facepalm but I'd end up with a headache after some of these replies.

 

[Raven Crowking]

[MENTION=428]Like I said earlier: Move over to my place and you´ll relearn what a luxury it is the even find players. I think you´ll change your mind on gm-right pretty quick.

Unless you live 500 miles from your nearest neighbour, I suspect my mind wouldn't change.

I've lived in a lot of places. I've introduced D&D to places. I've got no fear about being able to draw players. And I've got no fear about spending my time in other pursuits if I do find myself 500 miles from my nearest neighbour.

Really? No one is shutting down conversation? How about the person you just posrepped?

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

Now, read that again, and tell me what it has to do with what you are asking, because, AFAICT, you're doing the comparing apples and gamma ray bursts thing.

(1) A person can ask the reason.
(2) The person being asked doesn't need to supply a reason.
(3) Perhaps, if the person being asked wishes to explore the topic, he will do so. In this case, a compromise might be possible.
(4) It (2) occurs rather than (3), anyone who attempts to press the issue is pretty much a douchebag.
(5) The mature, non-douchebag thing to do is to either accept the relationship as it is offered (limitations and all), or DTMFA. Anything else simply prolongs everyone's agony.
(6) If you don't believe me, ask Dan Savage.

trying to make it sound like you have the best answer because you've managed to keep people at your table isn't exactly saying anything. Heck, look at the horror stories thread going on right now. Most of those horror stories include people who STAYED at those tables.

Really? I thought those were horror stories about people who LEFT those tables. Heck, that's indicated by the bloody thread title!



EDIT: The best compliment I ever received as a DM was when I ran into some folks talking about D&D in an elevator. The DM was talking about one of his new players in a very complimentary way. As we got talking, he started telling stories about how this player once had this "truly great DM" (his words, not mine). As we talked, I began to recognize bits and pieces of what he was talking about. So I asked the name of the new player, and he had been one of mine. So I asked the name of the DM, and he was me.

But, then, I've had players from places I lived over 20 years ago find me on the Internet to tell me what a great DM I was. And at least one is still using campaign materials I provided to continue a game I started, back when I lived in California.

And there are still plenty of people who's rpg itch I don't scratch. Nor do they have to explain why they'd prefer another game. Sitting at my table doesn't obligate you to explain your preferences to me, or to anyone else. If you imagine that sitting at my table obligates me to explain my preferences to you, well, there's the door.

And, no, if you feel that sitting at my table obligates me to explain my preferences to you, the door is non-optional. I have no interest in playing games with someone I wouldn't want to otherwise spend time with, and I don't spend time with douchebags.



RC