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

[Zhaleskra]

Well thats what it comes down to when all the BS is stripped away.

What I find amusing somewhat is the way people seem to be wielding that mantra like a threat.

You know what? I'd rather have a small group of people that I actually want to game with than a large group of people I'd rather not be around in general.

 

[The Human Target]

Yes, I did lose my cool. And you know why? Because people ARE telling me I'm a Bad GM for forbidding something well before the game even starts. You're judging me without knowing what's really going on, and there are several books that say that's "bad juju".

Another reason I lost my cool is because of people who keep posting the "you can forbid, but they can walk" chant. Yeah, we covered that. On the first page. TWICE.

Lets try and get back to the original question.

And keep in mind that if I was playing in your game and you banned mithril or adamantine I wouldn't actually care.

Why is explaining to your players "I don't think they fit in my game and I'll be replacing them with something even cooler!" so hard?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

You know what? I'd rather have a small group of people that I actually want to game with than a large group of people I'd rather not be around in general.

Many (most?) folks feel the same way. Telling people, "No. You can't do that, because I don't like it." is a good way to get into the latter group, rather than the former group.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What I find amusing somewhat is the way people seem to be wielding that mantra like a threat.

It would only be threatening to those who submit to crappy gaming rather than finding another group or running a better game themselves.

You know what? I'd rather have a small group of people that I actually want to game with than a large group of people I'd rather not be around in general.

Umm.. Yeah. This seems to be a no brainer choice.

 

[Zhaleskra]

In a way, I was laughing at their attempts to use it as a threat.

Mithril. Let's take Diomin: ain't no elves, so ain't no mithril. Replace elves with dwarves and adamantwhatever is covered too.

And yes, there is other "cool stuff".

 

[Rel]

You know what? I'd rather have a small group of people that I actually want to game with than a large group of people I'd rather not be around in general.

I'd rather have a really big group of people who are all fun to game with and who will stand around my basement listening adoringly to my long winded, but ultimately hilarious, anecdotes about something vulgar that happened while we were playing Fiasco!

Mostly because they tend to leave large quantities of beer at my house when they go home.

 

[Cyronax]

In a way, I was laughing at their attempts to use it as a threat.

Mithril. Let's take Diomin: ain't no elves, so ain't no mithril. Replace elves with dwarves and adamantwhatever is covered too.

And yes, there is other "cool stuff".

Zhal. Can I call you Zhal?

I wondered what your thoughts were if I planned and ran an all kobold and dragonborn campaign. If I disallowed all other races, despite about half of my players desires to play minotaurs, am I a bad DM?

I am conflicted. I want a certain type of campaign, and as RavenCrowKing has said, anyone who doesn't agree with the DM is right. But what if the DM is actively trying to stoke a new setting. I'm so confused. This thread makes me angry, yet interested.


C.I.D.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Zhal and Zhale are fine.

Why do they want to play minotaurs when you told them it was a kobold and dragonborn campaign?

Thanks for bringing a little humor into this thread.

 

[Hussar]

I don't want to have to ban anybody from this thread so I'm telling you all in advance that none of you are allowed to say to shadzar, "Show me on the doll where the bad game designer touched you."

ROTFLMAO.

/snip

I tried an experiment years ago replacing gold with steel bits, and people that had not played the setting thought I was crazy for coming up with such a thing. Later when told it was a published setting somehow they instantly accepted it and took back all their accusations of me making some crazy adventure.

This is my proof that people will see the published things a ok, while DM creations to instantly be questioned.

New players don't often question so much either as they don't have preconceptions of what exists or who is right or wrong, which is why I mentioned earlier to avoid the GM v player to new players. Some things you just have to learn for yourself.

So settings too, not jsut my point of adventures, are more often more readily accepted from the designers than form the DM running the game for you.

The designers are trusted more than the actual person in front of you.

There's a reason that designers are trusted more though. Look at the number of horror stories out there. I polled En World a while ago to see what percentage of people would characterize the majority of their DM's as bad, and almost a third of respondents said that most of their DM's have been poor.

So, it's not really surprising that people might put more stock in the words of Monte Cook or Gary Gygax or David Noonan than me, particularly if they're new to my group. After all, if they are new to my group, I haven't built any trust yet. But those game designers are authorities - they wrote the game, so hopefully they knew what they were doing.

Add to that some really attrocious experiences where the DM didn't think through the consequences, or simply didn't care, of the changes that he made and it's not really surprising that players might side on the side of RAW.

Especially if the DM refuses to give any explanation for his changes.

Yes, I did lose my cool. And you know why? Because people ARE telling me I'm a Bad GM for forbidding something well before the game even starts. You're judging me without knowing what's really going on, and there are several books that say that's "bad juju".

Another reason I lost my cool is because of people who keep posting the "you can forbid, but they can walk" chant. Yeah, we covered that. On the first page. TWICE.

Zhal, I cannot say anything about anyone else, but I certainly do not think you are a bad DM for banning something. Banning something is perfectly fine. If the players were constantly badgering you, then, yeah, they're wrong. OTOH, if they asked you politely for reasons and your only response was, "Because I say so" then a bit of sensitivity training might be in order.

I don't know which situation is true, and likely, it's somewhere in between those two.

But, apart from any other argument I might make here, let me be 100% crystal clear. Banning or removing elements from the game is 100% the prerogative of the DM. Always has been and AFAIC always will be.

 

[The Human Target]

So what are your players reasons for wanting mithril and adamantine in the game?

How do they feel about no dwarves or elves?

Have you explained what neat stuff these things will be replaced with?

How important are these things in other games they've played?