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

[Raven Crowking]

Shad. RC.

Simple questions: Where in the Abyss are you getting the impression that I personally condone badgering the GM for his reasons? Where are you getting the impression that anyone condones badgering the GM for his reasons?

To use your phrase, RC, I think you're both doing quite a bit of "reader filtering" of this conversation.

Any "you" in my posts is a generic "you", not you personally.



RC

 

[ShinHakkaider]

You caught me. You sussed me out.

Clearly, hidden beneath my almost 30 years of GMing experience, I have always harbored a decidedly anti-GM slant.

Hey, 28 years of GM experience here as well and those were your words, not mine.

GM gets to give a "bad" response once.

Player gets to be a bad player up to "twenty times".

That's grossly slanting towards players.

I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong. But hell, the Dm could be having a bad day and snap at a player over something that he'd thought that he made very clear earlier on. And according to your statement he's a bad DM. Sorry, but as that guy who is DMing about 95% of the time that sounds like a bit of anti-DM sentiment.

Then again, I'm the guy who believes that the DM is doing most of the work in terms of prep and getting everything together and running the game. So yes If present you with some changes and you go "well why cant I have an adamantine weapon" and I go "because it's broken." and you open your mouth to argue I'm gonna stop you and say "Look, that's it. This is how it's going. You can either understand and stay or not understand and go. But in this I'm not budging."

You all would call me a dick DM. Me, I'm saving time arguing a point that I'm really just set on. You're arguing the point because it's something that you eventually want for your PC and I'm saying that it's something that I dont want in the game world.

The game I'm running right now I have a player who wanted to run a Assimar character. I'm not big on non-standard races, but I thought about it and said would it really break the game to allow him to run this PC? No? Then sure why not. This led to another player wanting to run a Tiefling PC. I said no problem I let the other player run a Aasimar right? Then at some point later on there was talk about possibly playing a thri-kreen or a Minatour or some craziness at the table and I shut that idea down with the quickness.

When I assemble a group to play I have two page document, letting them know what's allowed, the basic guidelines and assumptions as it were. For the most part most things that are core are allowed. If they want something out of core they can ask and I'll let them know yes or no. To be honest, despite all this protesting I usually discuss why I allow or dont allow somethings. But there are some players where you see the gears turning and they're trying to work an angle that you're not interested in playing. For me those are the ones that get the verbal stiff arm because no matter how accommodating you're willing to be in explaining yourself they're just going to keep pushing.

 

[Rel]

One trick ponies paid for a single job don't thematically fit with an adventuring party, and when they take other "jobs" while part of the group, they can cause WAY too many problems for the group.

Ah. Those are good reasons. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But the designers don't have to give them, and when they don't they are still accept and the rules played with happily.

Actually, they did a lot of explaining. They did a lot of explaining that I, in particular, didn't like. They did a lot of explaining that I, in particular, didn't like, and I nether accepted nor played happily with the rules.

Indeed, the same happened with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

And, I know that there were explainations because those explainations, and my reactions to them, started me on the road to writing my own ruleset.


RC

 

[shadzar]

Shad. RC.

Simple questions: Where in the Abyss are you getting the impression that I personally condone badgering the GM for his reasons? Where are you getting the impression that anyone condones badgering the GM for his reasons?

To use your phrase, RC, I think you're both doing quite a bit of "reader filtering" of this conversation.

Did I say that?

If you have not experienced it as a GM, then congrats, if you have not observed it happen to any GM, then I am just reminding people it does happen, and in some areas more often than not. Not the condoning, but the badgering.

So It should be included in a discusion where it could be one cause of a DM not wanting to answer some players because of how many times htey HAVE been badgered about anything, let alone disallowing something simply for "not liking it".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But the designers don't have to give them, and when they don't they are still accept and the rules played with happily.

[...]

In either case, you don't call a designer right away to ask them, maybe you can call customer support now to do so if you want some made up answer jsut as good as your GMs

No group I've ever played in has trusted the designers implicitly. There's always been houserules of some form or another. In modern times, I've even gone on message boards and chatted with various designers about why they made certain decisions for the rules; somtimes, I agree with them, and leave the rules as is, and sometimes I don't, and change them (or ask my GM to change them).

The designers of 4Ed were questioned, extensively, on why certain things were removed from the core rules or altered.

So, basically, your tangential point is demonstrably wrong - and is, basically, a red herring. The fact that I don't call up Ryan Dancey or Gary Sarli or Corey Reid is immaterial when discussing whether or not saying "What is it about the spiked chain you don't like?" to Andrew or Matthew or Connie is acceptable.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Any "you" in my posts is a generic "you", not you personally.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; so answer the second part?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Tell me what "for his reasons" means, and I probably do [EDIT: have an answer for your question].

Email me if you want to discuss the benefit of the doubt. I have the strong impression that discussing it within the thread will get me threadbanned or worse.

ravencrowking at hotmail dot com.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

As for making off color jokes with my friends, we're HORRIBLE. We say things to each other that would make the Devil blush! We'll make jokes about each other's mothers, hairlines and reproductive equipment. Also we freely question why each other decide to ban certain things from our roleplaying games. It's merciless.

I would tell you about the running joke involving a vagina tax and a PC Tiefling Inquisitor of Abadar in our Curse of the Crimson Throne game, but my players invoked the Fight Club rule regarding this.

"First rule of the Vagina Tax, DONT TALK ABOUT THE VAGINA TAX."

Oh crap, here they come now...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hey, 28 years of GM experience here as well and those were your words, not mine.

GM gets to give a "bad" response once.

Player gets to be a bad player up to "twenty times".

That's really not what he said at all. You can stretch it to that, if you wanted to make a point, but that's twisting words - and all but you, here, realize that.