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

[Rel]

Strawman.

Golly, that's a nice attempt to negate my point with one word.

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!

I wasn't under the impression that the OP was unwilling to discuss his reasoning out of some desire to protect a sensitive emotional subject. I was under the impression that he simply found it an annoying waste of time to have to give his reasons.

I would further posit that it's completely valid for the player to ask, "Why don't you want to discuss it?" Again, I find, "I just don't want to." to be an inferior answer to, "The subject of fantasy metals is one that I'm emotionally uncomfortable with and I'd rather not talk about my reasons for removing them from the game." It is even an inferior answer to, "I don't consider myself as the GM to have any obligation to discuss my reasons for disallowing fantasy metals from my game with the players." If that is the answer then I have just gained very valuable information from the GM that informs me a great deal about what to expect.

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.

I'll dress it up like this: I find this assertion to be wholly incorrect based on my experience. On the few historical occasions where I've found myself pushing somebody for explanations it has been because I wanted to gain understanding to our mutual benefit. It has very possibly been because I felt that the only alternative to gaining that understanding was to end the relationship. And I felt that it was worth it, to both of us, to push them for answers rather than resort to "the door".

If that seems to be an extreme reaction to the situation posed in the OP, it's probably because nobody ever clammed up on me over something as trivial as why they were excluding some element from a roleplaying game.

 

[the Jester]

As is often the case in heated ENWorld debates, this comes down to playstyle.

Some groups, and especially some gms, really do subscribe to the "DM HAS GODLIKE AUTHORITY" approach to gaming, or at least to some games (be it D&D, WoD or whatever).

Others subscribe to a more democratic, player-empowering philosophy, and again, there are systems that actively encourage this (Amber diceless, etc).

For player-empowered groups, the gm is under an obligation to explain himself when he excludes something; sometimes such groups even have a rule where each player gets to force one campaign element in whether the gm wants it or not.

For godlike gm style groups, the gm is under little or no obligation to explain himself; at the extreme, he never needs to explain any ruling, rules, exclusions, inclusions or anything else.

IME- speaking as someone firmly on the 'godlike gm' side of this particular dichotomy- this style works best when the gm chooses to explain his rulings at least some of the time. Maybe not during play but some time or other. The real necessary element is trust; the players have to trust their gm for this style of play to work, and communication builds that trust up.

Here's something else about this topic that I think is worth noting. In Ye Olde Days, a "campaign" wasn't a series of adventures one group went through, it was the milieu that served as a backdrop for (potentially) many groups. These campaigns tend to be well-developed, closer to simulations of a world than a simple series of encounters for the pcs, with a scattering of high and low level monsters, npcs, etc. throughout the world.

If a gm has been running the same campaign world for years and it has never had dwarves in it, the player expecting to play a dwarf needs to step off. They ain't there, and the reason is- THEY AIN'T THERE. Maybe the dm was just sick of dwarves back in '94 when he first started the campaign, it doesn't matter- THEY AIN'T THERE.

Finally, on the terms of the discussion, as I said, communication usually improves things if done right. Bringing the game to a halt mid-combat so that you can badger me about allowing you to play a Drow? No, and you aren't going to persuade me of anything like that. A discussion during character generation about why I don't allow Drow pcs? Sure. But when I have clearly said "No" and made it clear that I'm not changing my mind, continuing to badger me is just that- badgering. Knock it off or GTFO.

 

[Greg K]

On the homebrew question, I think yes, they would accept it, simply because you already stated a reason.

It would be nice, but WOTC boards suggests there are a lot of people that would not. They would either keep pressing the issue until you relent or agree to play and try to sabotage the game, because the could not get what they want.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Golly, that's a nice attempt to negate my point with one word.

Golly gee, thanks.

But "strawman" doesn't negate your point; it says that your point is not applicable to what the other person is arguing. And, since your post references some of mine, it is accurate at least as far as they are concerned.

AFAICT, there are two issues involved here: (1) Whether or not it is better to communicate, and (2) Whether or not one has the right to expect certain types of communication.

The OP involves (2), whereas your reply involves (1). I don't think anyone is arguing against your point re: (1), but I don't see how it is applicable to (2).

I wasn't under the impression that the OP was unwilling to discuss his reasoning out of some desire to protect a sensitive emotional subject. I was under the impression that he simply found it an annoying waste of time to have to give his reasons.

Again, I have to call strawman.

This is a seperate issue.....Unless you are going to argue that I have a right to expect certain types of communication which is stronger than your right to disengage from something you find annoying.

Take this outside of gaming, and I think it becomes very, very clear how obnoxious the behaviour we are talking about is.

And it may very well be that the GM's behaviour in this case is also obnoxious to you. So be it. People have the right to be obnoxious; they do not have the right to force others to put up with it.

Heck, the "Ignore" feature on EN World (and many, many other places) exists for just such a reason.

I would further posit that it's completely valid for the player to ask, "Why don't you want to discuss it?" Again, I find, "I just don't want to." to be an inferior answer to, "The subject of fantasy metals is one that I'm emotionally uncomfortable with and I'd rather not talk about my reasons for removing them from the game." It is even an inferior answer to, "I don't consider myself as the GM to have any obligation to discuss my reasons for disallowing fantasy metals from my game with the players." If that is the answer then I have just gained very valuable information from the GM that informs me a great deal about what to expect.

Again, though, this is a strawman.

AFAICT, no one is arguing that "I just don't want to" is a superior answer to anything. The discussion is about whether or not it is an acceptable answer.

So, to all of the points you made in your last post, and above, I'll happily agree. With the sole exception that they speak to what is being discussed.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It would be nice, but WOTC boards suggests there are a lot of people that would not. They would either keep pressing the issue until you relent or agree to play and try to sabotage the game, because the could not get what they want.

EN World suggests the same thing, IME.

I remember the warforged ninja discussions very well........

 

[Rel]

AFAICT, no one is arguing that "I just don't want to" is a superior answer to anything. The discussion is about whether or not it is an acceptable answer.

So, to all of the points you made in your last post, and above, I'll happily agree. With the sole exception that they speak to what is being discussed.

So...let me tell you what I think you're saying and you can tell me if I'm right:

You're saying that, "I don't like it." is inferior to almost any other answer one could give, but it's still acceptable.


If I'm understanding you correctly then I'd counter by saying the purpose of places like ENWorld (to my mind) are to let us exchange ideas that will make our games better. Therefore it is appropriate to respond to a thread such as this by askiing, "You could give that answer, but why would you since almost any other answer would be better?"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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).

Beat me to it, but this is so key. Some people repeat, "we'll just talk about it until we work it out," like a mantra. But like any effective tool, communication works really well--right up until the moment that it doesn't.

I believe that repeating that mantra as a mantra is ultimately actively detrimental to good communcation, because it creates false expectations.

If the DM and I just talk about this, he will either accept elves in the game, and I can play my character, or I'll accept his reason and feel good about not playing this particular character I had in mind. It may work out that way. In fact, it often does--often enough that you'll start assuming that it always does. And then it will happen--probably not in the game, but something more serious, like your job or your family. It turns out that you don't like or understand his reason well enough to let it go. And he isn't moved to change by the discussion.

In the game, it is relatively easy. You can bow out. Or at least you can, if you don't have those false expectations. If you have those false expectations, you are at an impasse. Either the world has to change, or your expectations have to change. Guess which one has a chance of actually happening?

Which brings up another thing, and it is definitely related to the point. Don't ask a question for which you are not prepared to accept the possible answers. By "accept", I mean "hear it, and do what is necessary" And that does not necessarily imply that you have to think out all the possible answer ahead of time (though that might be useful in some cases). Rather, it means that you aren't so wedded to an outcome that you can't adjust. Consider this real example that happened in our group:

I asked if they would like to try a superhero game for awhile. One of the players said if we did that, he would bow out for the duration. Why? He didn't like superhero gaming.

Since when I asked the question, it was an honest question, I could accept that answer. If the other eight players had been really excited about the possibilities, we'd probably have done it for a short while. But no one else really cared that much. Neither did I. I was just throwing it out there (along with some other ideas) to see what reaction they would get. That is effective communication, including that players' clear statement of a preference.

Suppose though, that the question was not "honest". Suppose that I was really excited about running such a game, but I didn't say that. I just threw it in with some other things to make it look casual, but as the one steering the conversation, I was going to really push that possibility hard. Wait, you say, but that isn't effective communication. Yeah, it isn't. And every now and then, the same thing happens with people "just wanting a reason" for why the DM isn't allowing X or your character idea or whatever. Bullcrap. The player didn't just want a reason. The player feels a lot more strongly about it, but if they said what they really wanted, in plain language--you know, good communication--then they might not be able to argue or weasel or come on an internet forum and complain about getting no--because that would be being honest with themselves.

Churchill said (paraphrasing) that real (aka lasting, satisfactory) compromise was impossible unless and until all sides knew what they wanted and stated it clearly (aka communicated it well enough that the other sides understood what they wanted). Well, same thing in small gaming compromises as with the more important stuff.

If you really, really want a game world where you can play character X, in this kind of story, then say that--at the appropriate time. (Hint, this is during pre-campaign discussions, not after I've spent several months putting together a campaign document, trying to accommodate all the preferences on the table so far.) If you just want to badger me after the fact, under the guise of "being reasonable"--well, I've been wise to your BS since middle-school, and I ain't no spring chicken no more, no way.

You'll note that I have none of this problematic issues with any of the people in my current group. There is a reason for that, too.

 

[Coldwyn]

It would be nice, but WOTC boards suggests there are a lot of people that would not. They would either keep pressing the issue until you relent or agree to play and try to sabotage the game, because the could not get what they want.

Methinks its the age-old trust issue all over again.

Do I, as gm, trust my players to respect my role and treat my creation as I intended it?
Do I, as player, trust my gm to have a clue what he´s intending with the rules and not just using his position to enforce his will on me.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Somehow, "where on the doll did the DM touch you" doesn't say enough.

You are reading way too much into forbidding things. Many of you are ignoring the fact that these are things that are mentioned before my door even becomes a factor.

I GM a lot more than I play because I buy the games I want to play. Once I get other people to like them, I have a chance to play as a player.

I do think that we are in danger of an entitlement society that thinks the world just owes them stuff.

The GM says he will run a game in way A, you accept that game, the GM owes you that.
You as a player say you want to run such and such a character in so and so an environment, a GM agrees, then AND ONLY THEN does he owe you that.

 

[Rel]

Somehow, "where on the doll did the DM touch you" doesn't say enough.

Frankly that's just insulting. And I say that not as a moderator but as somebody who is trying to give a meaningful answer to a question you posed. I guess I won't make that mistake again in future threads.

You are reading way too much into forbidding things. Many of you are ignoring the fact that these are things that are mentioned before my door even becomes a factor.

I GM a lot more than I play because I buy the games I want to play. Once I get other people to like them, I have a chance to play as a player.

I do think that we are in danger of an entitlement society that thinks the world just owes them stuff.

The GM says he will run a game in way A, you accept that game, the GM owes you that.
You as a player say you want to run such and such a character in so and so an environment, a GM agrees, then AND ONLY THEN does he owe you that.

How does any of that change the notion that give a reason is better than not giving a reason?

If you give a reason then yes, it's possible that the player might make a counter argument. That might end with you having to tell that player, "Well I'm sorry you don't like my reasons but this is the way it's going to be in my campaign." That's FINE. But at least you have given the player the consideration of explaining your ideas and hearing theirs. Net result: Improvement.

But it might instead end in the player saying, "You have very good reasons for disallowing this. Your explanation has given me greater insight into the sort of game you're trying to run. I'm on board with this and I'm now actively looking for ways to embrace and encourage that theme." Net result: Improvement.

OR it might even possibly end with you saying, "Wow, Player, I had not considered the counter arguments you pose. Those are very good reasons and my opinion has changed. I think that allowing this thing will make the game better and I'm glad I took the time to explain my reasons." Net result: Improvement.