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

[ExploderWizard]

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

I noticed a distinct lack of " The DM didn't allow X" as the focus of "the horror".

Perhaps the issue isn't as widespread and common as this thread is making it out to be?

 

[korjik]

There is no hostage taking here unless players allow it. If the players do not want the game the DM is offering then they are not forced to play in it.

"The door" is powerful tool for players as well. Without them the high and mighty DM doesn't have much to lord over. If a player really can't stand to be in a game without X then why not offer to run such a game?

In my experience the players who complain the loudest about any omissions of official material from a campaign are those who never want to run anything except amok in someone else's game.

If you are not willing to put on the DM hat and show the gang how things are run properly with what you want included then perhaps being so nitpicky about the preferences of the DM isn't such a great idea.

The only thing ever held hostage is a player by his/her own unwillingness to put up or shut up.

This is pretty much my view. The only thing I would add is that the DM is playing the game too, and if he dosent like the game he should not have to play it either.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

First, it's the GM's perogative to ban anything. But if I am a player who wants to play something that gets banned, it's nice to be given some more solid reason than "I don't like it." so you know their desire to ban it is for as much reason as your desire to incorporate it.

I'm certainly biased because I'm overwhelmingly a player and I often make characters for fun. So in a new campaign I can get excited for an idea and "I don't like it." (or something similar) can come off as a snap ruling that greatly affects me but has little or lesser affect on the GM.

In one campaign I wanted to play a race that was part of the core rules because they seem like an interesting and unique race to play that you don't get a chance to play in standard D&D. I don't remember the exact details so while the GM's ruling may not have been "I don't like them." but it was something as vague ("I don't think they fit into the campaign.") and final. It stinks when something (seemingly) inconsequential to the GM can scrap something that the player is passionate about.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I noticed a distinct lack of " The DM didn't allow X" as the focus of "the horror".

Perhaps the issue isn't as widespread and common as this thread is making it out to be?

Indeed.

 

[Rel]

Wow. I was busy at a job all day yesterday (a GOOD thing!) and unable to return to this thread but I'm pretty amazed at how black and white and adversarial things are being painted. Rape? Showing people the door?

To me, this thread is about a fairly specific, simple concept. And this...

It dumbfounds me, like i said above, what people have against DMs altering the availability of things in any way, but a printed Campaign Setting can get away with it, "cause they own D&D" or some such.

Make your world and if your players like it, then play it and have fun and ignore looking for a witch to burn at the stake for not doing it exactly their way by the holy word of the designers.

...has nothing to do with it. I think it is in ever single way the right and obligation of the GM to change anything and everything they like about a game or setting for the sake of making it one that they AND the players will have fun with. I don't for a moment support the notion that the GM shouldn't be changing things from how it is printed in some campaign guide book. Hell I almost never even USE a campaign guide book!

From my perspective, the simple question posed by this thread is "Why is 'I don't like it' not good enough [an answer by the GM to the players]." The answer to that question is that more communication is almost always better for any relationship than less communication is. Have any of you ever heard of a therapist or counselor who said, "What you should try and do with your spouse/family member/friend is communicate less."? Issuing denials conveys a very small bit of information ("I don't like it."). Giving reasons, even if they are very small, very brief reasons, provides more information and conveys that the other party is worthy of a bit of consideration. It helps foster the relationship.

Isn't that what we want? Even if you are gaming with people who are not "friends", assuming (as established by the OP) that this conversation is taking place at the outset of a campaign, aren't you looking at regularly spending several hours at a time with this person over the course of the next several months or years? That's a relationship! I believe it is good for everybody involved in every way to try and make it a good relationship. Good relationships require good communication.

I most certainly believe that good relationships have times when it's better not to discuss something right now. I'm (usually) smart enough to recognize that my wife just needs a hug instead of a discussion. But we need to have that discussion at some point or else that issue is still going to be hanging in the middle of our marriage where it gets in the way of the awesome stuff we want sitting in the middle of our marriage.

In gaming this is akin to the GM making a spot ruling on something in the game with which a player disagrees. I think it's good for the relationship if the GM gives a very brief reason for his ruling. I think it's fine for the relationship if the GM says, "I don't want to talk about it now because we're in the middle of the game. I'm happy to discuss it later." I think it's BAD for the relationship if the GM says, "That's my ruling. There will be no explanation. Accept it or get out."

But having a discussion at some point will IMHO always be better than not having a discussion at some point. The "why" that we do things is important to others. It makes the relationship deeper and opens the opportunity to us to work together to make things better. Without that "why" we are unable to gain further understanding and any working together is purely accidental.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Have any of you ever heard of a therapist or counselor who said, "What you should try and do with your spouse/family member/friend is communicate less."?

Strawman.

And one covered at length upthread (although perhaps you missed it while away).

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.

Have any of you ever heard of a therapist or counselor who said, "What you should try and do with your spouse/family member/friend is, when they don't want to talk about something, force the issue."?

(If so, please report said therapist or counselor!)

Obviously not. A therapist or counselor will want you to take personal responsibility for what you do, not to encourage you in forcing others to confrom to your demand/expectations.

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.

Communication is good. Knowing when to not force communication is just as important.

In short, there is a big difference between you communicating better (good) and you trying to force others to do so (bad).

As any reputable therapist or counselor will tell you!

And trying to force others to do so is not so that they gain a benefit; it is so that you do. It is both selfish and offensive.

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



EDIT: And, if the goal is really to have a discussion "at some point", then respecting the other person now, and allowing him to choose if & when he is willing to discuss it, is always a winning strategy over trying to force the issue. Assuming lives are not at stake, anyway!

 

[Bagpuss]

To stay IS a choice, so is to leave.

Of course but my point is for some people it is Hobson's choice, rather than a case of well if they don't like this DM they can find another.

And for some a Morton's Fork put up with a authoritarian DM or stop hanging out with a group of friends.

Presenting "my way or the highway" as the only options, creates a false dilemma as most DM's are actually open to negotiation and cooperation. It's at least worth trying.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As a counter question to the OP I would ask, why is the fact that something appears in a rulebook considered to be good enough?


DM:OK guys lets talk characters.

Player: I got an idea for a really cool cleric. I'm gonna...

DM: No clerics. At least no clerics with spells or clerical abilities.

Player: Wha.... They are a core class, you can't just ban them.

DM: They don't exist. The game is set in Krynn pre-war of the lance.

Player: Ok cool.

Why is not allowing clerics suddenly cool because an "official" world says so?

What if the DM simply said that in his world clerics lost their powers long ago and nobody knows why? Would the player just accept that at face value?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Presenting "my way or the highway" as the only options, creates a false dilemma as most DM's are actually open to negotiation and cooperation. It's at least worth trying.

Of course it is worth trying!

And, of course, most of the time, a good GM is willing to engage in negotiation and compromise. Again, a good GM is "good, giving, and game". That means that a good GM isn't going to say No without reason, even if he is unwilling to discuss that reason.

And a good player is also "good, giving, and game", and is therefore unlikely to press the issue if the GM feels strongly about it, unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so.

In fact, in over 30 years of gaming, I've never seen a good (good, giving, and game) GM point a good (good, giving, and game) player to the door. Nor have I seen a good player press a good GM when the answer was No, even if the GM didn't want to discuss reasons at that time.

No, IME and IMHO, we are far into the realms where we are discussing either a bad GM, a bad player, or both.

And, IME and IMHO, no game is better than a bad game. Which actually does make the door the ideal solution, as far as I am concerned. Regardless of which is the bad egg, getting out of the situation is the best result one can hope for.



RC

 

[Coldwyn]

As a counter question to the OP I would ask, why is the fact that something appears in a rulebook considered to be good enough?


DM:OK guys lets talk characters.

Player: I got an idea for a really cool cleric. I'm gonna...

DM: No clerics. At least no clerics with spells or clerical abilities.

Player: Wha.... They are a core class, you can't just ban them.

DM: They don't exist. The game is set in Krynn pre-war of the lance.

Player: Ok cool.

Why is not allowing clerics suddenly cool because an "official" world says so?

What if the DM simply said that in his world clerics lost their powers long ago and nobody knows why? Would the player just accept that at face value?

That one is simple. All implications are known. When you play Krynn as written, you know what you can expect, you know the reasons, you can plan and play accordingly. The last two things are the most important.

On the homebrew question, I think yes, they would accept it, simply because you already stated a reason. But you should be prepared for a lot of questions regarding other divine spellcasters and the healing ablities of bards. If, for whatever reason, only clerics are thus affected, I´d guess you´ll earn a lot of queer looks, though.