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

[Rel]

Was I in the wrong thread and there wasn't beverage left behind and that was another poster? Did the alcohol consumption somehow add to the story in the context of this thread?

I don't know if for some reason you've got a problem with the consumption of alcohol. If you do then I don't care and I certainly don't want it discussed in this thread. You specifically made a point to belittle that portion (among others) of the activities (I assume based on the fact that you made no mention of them that you have no problems with pizza or corndogs, so hey, there's some common ground!).

I did in fact mention that this crowd tends to leave behind beer at these events. Why anybody would imagine that extra beer would be a "litterbug" problem I suppose would relate to whether they had an issue with alcohol consumption. Again, I don't want it discussed here. Suffice it to say that I don't consider it to be a bad thing. I especially don't consider having friends come over to my house for a friendly gathering to be more of a curse than a blessing.

You answer one possible reason, but what others could be had. The point was it isn't always about "communication wins friends", that isn't what the thread is about, not the post responded to.

The thread is dealing with level of communication and what people accept, GMs specifically, when confronted with a query about the inclusion of material.

The story showed nothing about why so few appeared, just alluded to communication to be an endearing quality to make friends, which is not always what the GM is looking to do, but to make their current game work.

Which is why I said the information given has little use as helpful since it doesn't give MUCH information. How many were asked, how many didn't come, what reasons did they have for not showing up?

Again obviously more than 20 people had to have been met at all those things over the 7 year period. o what of the ones not attending, or not invited?

The whole post seemed to me to be a "I get better results than you because I am a better person", when it doesn't mention those that didn't attend, or those that weren't invited, and why they weren't invited.

I don't hold parties at my house after our Game Days as a way of gathering data and measuring what percentage of people attend. I will represent however that the number of such folks that I've met locally and from all over the country and (in the case of my trips to GenCon) world, measures well over a hundred.

Clearly not all of them live close enough to me that they can attend all of our Game Days. They are all always welcome and I hope as many as possible will attend. The turnout for the January Game Day tends to be smaller and I'd say that the total attendees this time was actually pretty close to 20. About 75% showed up at the party but some of them brought along wives and kids who didn't attend the Game Day and thus rounded out the 20ish figure that I tossed out in my earlier post.

I'm not explaining all of this because it matters to my point. I'm explaining it because you asked about it (in about as insulting and belittling a way as possible). Which further goes to prove my point that communication and consideration is more friendly than a lack of it.

You had taken Patryn to task over his limited perspective of gaming with only friends and not with people at game stores and conventions and the like, with whom he was unfamiliar. My point, which I believe is absolutely related to the core of this thread, is that treating anybody with enough consideration to answer a question is more friendly, and more likely to lead to friendship, than not doing so.

You seem to suggest that some GMs might have the attitude that, "I'm here to run a game, not to make friends." And if that is their goal then I suppose that the more taciturn approach is likely to help them in that goal. I would simply counter that, even if you're not looking for friends, you're looking for people that you're going to be spending a LOT of time with. Why not adopt a friendly tone regardless?

Lastly I'll say that there are those in this thread that seem to be interpreting my approach as one that is anti-GM and pro-player. That's not the case at all. I would give the exact same response if a GM asked a question of the player. I'm saying (and I don't feel like I can put it more simply than this) that being willing to give an answer and communicate is to the benefit of both parties because they will each have additional information.

I absolutely hold forth the possibility that the player in question will take the opportunity to stridently push an agenda that the GM doesn't want in his game. I absolutely uphold the right of the GM to run a game that doesn't cater to such an agenda. It is however my belief that a GM might learn through the course of that communication that this pushy jerk of a player doesn't need to be in his game in the first place! And wouldn't it be better to know that sooner than later?

Again, shadzar, if you care to continue discussing the general points in this thread you are free to do so. If you have any questions about my moderation above and are unclear about how to post without being jerkish then I suggest you PM myself or one of the other moderators (Piratecat is a good option).

 

[catsclaw227]

I'm saying (and I don't feel like I can put it more simply than this) that being willing to give an answer and communicate is to the benefit of both parties because they will each have additional information.

I find it mind-boggling that, after 19 friggin pages of posts, this is still difficult for some people to comprehend.

 

[Aramax]

Not out of air, out of a lack of completing communication. And it wasn't even those two metals. That was my fault for not saying "this setting doesn't necessarily have lycanthropes" when I noticed a short term player with a lot of silvered weapons.



I agree, the GM's authority is by the consensus of the group. Here, I have seen at least one person object to the lack of Dragonborn in a campaign because the GM--who is not me--didn't like them.

In a HARP game I was in, the GM did not allow Gryx because he doesn't like them. Most of the other players didn't either. I have no real strong opinion on that race.

Your general thesis is sound,but I probobly would have put SOMETHING in the world for him to use his silver weopons on(undead?)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I find it mind-boggling that, after 19 friggin pages of posts, this is still difficult for some people to comprehend.

I don't think it is hard to comprehend, or that it is bad advice.

But I think there is a major difference between this and what the OP asks.

After all, examples have been given in this thread where (1) fuller explainations are deeemed inappropriate at the time (by the individual being asked to explain), (2) fuller explainations fail to resolve the situation, or (3) both.

It's like asking, "Why can't I go out the front door?" and being told "Well, you could go out the back door". And, certainly this is true, but it doesn't answer the question.

Moreover, even if the poster saying you could go out the back door has 1001 reasons why going out the back door is better than going out the front door, it still doesn't answer the question.

When a person asks "Why can't I go out the front door?" you can say, "Why would you want to?", but no matter how many reasons you have not to want to, at the end of the day, the question is still unanswered.

If there is anyone in this thread who is, in general, anti-communication, I hope that person will please respond and identify him/herself. [EDIT: On re-reading this post, I realize that this is a rather forlorn hope. Anyone who is anti-communication is by definition unlikely to respond and communicate this information! ] Otherwise, I hope we can stop assuming that anyone who wants (for whatever reason) to go through the front door is therefore anti-back door. Perhaps they use the back door 99 times out of 100, but think that there is that 1 in 100 chance when it should be okay to go out the front.

That shouldn't be hard to comprehend, either.

Can't we simply assume that most of us assume good communication is good, and then answer the question: Why can't the DM occasionally simply say No to something because he doesn't like it (with no further reason necessarily forthcoming)?


RC

 

[Zhaleskra]

Your general thesis is sound,but I probobly would have put SOMETHING in the world for him to use his silver weopons on(undead?)

Or I could have said "this particular campaign doesn't have lycanthropes, but that doesn't mean they don't exist in the world." And there is something special that happens before the end of the third part of the adventure.

I also could have allowed him to replace those weapons with something similar of equal value. Masterwork weapon by a Gnolaum friend? That'd work.

There is no reason the PCs couldn't go on to do other things after the campaign ends.

I'll give you a hint: it will actually make players happy to have their characters captured. That's all I can say without revealing too much.

 

[the Jester]

I'll give you a hint: it will actually make players happy to have their characters captured. That's all I can say without revealing too much.

Did they tell you this, or are you assuming?

Because in my experience, this is VERY rarely true.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Did they tell you this, or are you assuming?

Because in my experience, this is VERY rarely true.

I'm assuming based on what happens after they get captured. And then what happens after that*. That's all I can say without spoiling the reveal.

*I will be making a handout to be passed out at this point. At the very bottom of which will be the words "if you are the last player to receive this note, it's time for a game break. Something really cool is about to happen."

Also, this adventure is deliberately set up with the possiblity of unbalanced encounters. So I might have to say something like "There are 4-6 of you, I have more than enough some of whom are higher level than you to capture you/take you out. Would you prefer to roll the battle or would you like to just roll with it?" At which point, I'd do which ever one got the most votes.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

For a long time -- at least a decade of my GMing life -- it was very difficult for me to articulate exactly why I despise psionics in D&D. (And I'm pretty good with words.)

So my response, by necessity, was, "Because I don't like them. They don't exist in my campaign."

Players were free to accept that, and play, or not accept that, and not play.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, even now that I have a much firmer grasp on why I dislike psionics-in-D&D so much and am able to articulate it if I choose to do so. I simply don't believe there's any obligation, from social contract or even just nice-guy-ness, to explain it, any more than I am entitled to an explanation from a player why she plays nothing but elves or humans.

 

[shadzar]

You had taken Patryn to task over his limited perspective of gaming with only friends and not with people at game stores and conventions and the like, with whom he was unfamiliar. My point, which I believe is absolutely related to the core of this thread, is that treating anybody with enough consideration to answer a question is more friendly, and more likely to lead to friendship, than not doing so.

As mentioned in another thread, it isn't always about "friends" when one DMs, but about someone running a game so that others may have a game.

I don't DM because I have some need for more friends. I DM so that others have a game to play it. Sometimes games I really didn't like as a stand-in for a DM who was a friend, but for players I didn't know and could really care les about. The only thing that mattered to me was I was the only one available to take the task at hand, so did the job.

So I don't see it being about this thread because the thread isn't about "how to make more friends as a DM", but about "why some people can't accept 'dont like it' from a DM, be they friend or new acquaintance."

So again the view from the "friends only" section of the bleachers doesn't show what people are talking about, as well the view from "trying to make these players into friends" doesn't show it, and actually dismisses a portion of DMs that do it because there is no one else, and for the sake of there being a game, no matter who is playing.

Also your story didnt say anything but you met them, not what position you held during the game, so it doesn't offer that to the discussion. Were you the DM at the game stores? I would assume you were at Cons since several posts today indicate so.

So how often and how many did you run games for people at game stores? Which game stores?

You experiences could be just a few similar people, not viewing the whole of gaming like the initial person I responded to.

I mentioned two other NC based cons that you did not mention, nor respond to. Have you done things at those to see what kind of people were at them? Or are you self-segregating yourself from them, such as the initial person by playing only with those that are friends, so basically, and quite possibly unintentionally, viewing it with blinders on?

Also are you segregating yourself only to RPGs, and dont see gamers in general that show evidence of this behavior? Where the person running the game has set forth some rules based on whatever reason, and players hen-peck them about it.

Being dismissive of those who are doing it to make sure it is done, only acts as a disservice.

It would be great if the game was popular enough in all areas for people to be able to make friends with enough people to game with, but that isn't the case. Sometiems you have to do things so that the job gets done, in those cases, the job comes first before these emotional ties.

You also seem to hint at a posibility that if one running a game for people that are not friends, they view those people as enemies. that is not true, if it is the case. It may just be the person doesn't need anymore friends for gaming or other. Not everyone seeks to have the entire world be their friend, nor needs it. (See the thread about finding a good group)

You seem to suggest that some GMs might have the attitude that, "I'm here to run a game, not to make friends." And if that is their goal then I suppose that the more taciturn approach is likely to help them in that goal. I would simply counter that, even if you're not looking for friends, you're looking for people that you're going to be spending a LOT of time with. Why not adopt a friendly tone regardless?

What I get for replying to parts as I read them.....

What is not friendly about not wishing to explain the reasoning behind your likes or dislikes to total strangers?

I would say it more unfriendly to be sticking your nose into someone's business so deeply you just met. Which brings back to the first part of your post, Yes I do have a problem with it and thank you for not directly asking about it, since you DID take the social cue and recognized and didn't ask further. Which is what this thread really is all about. Someone infers or says directly they "don't like" something, then don't push the subject. Now if players within a game were as wise to take that social cue and not push elements for whatever reason, we probably wouldn't have this thread at all.

Lastly I'll say that there are those in this thread that seem to be interpreting my approach as one that is anti-GM and pro-player. That's not the case at all. I would give the exact same response if a GM asked a question of the player. I'm saying (and I don't feel like I can put it more simply than this) that being willing to give an answer and communicate is to the benefit of both parties because they will each have additional information.

But why is it unacceptable to just take the answer? Why is an honest answer not acceptable, because your need to know more about the "reasons" behind it leave you with an empty feeling.

As someone else said, to communicate MAY offer more beneficial to at least one party, it doesn't always do so for both parties involved.

Why can't someone not liking something be enough for you (in general as always), to accept their decision?

This is mostly psychological. What is your need for knowing more?

Since we are discussing "reasons", would you care to share your specific reason or reasons and DM not liking something would not be enough for your personally? Is it because it doesn't give enough information for you? Is it because you feel they aren't being friendly enough for you? Is there some other reason?

There is really a lot of psychology going on revolving around all this we all are discussing. But all in all it is still personal preferences. A DM with a preference against something, and players with a preference to know more about the DMs preference.

Which one's preference gets the greater weight?

I absolutely hold forth the possibility that the player in question will take the opportunity to stridently push an agenda that the GM doesn't want in his game. I absolutely uphold the right of the GM to run a game that doesn't cater to such an agenda. It is however my belief that a GM might learn through the course of that communication that this pushy jerk of a player doesn't need to be in his game in the first place! And wouldn't it be better to know that sooner than later?

Possibly, but if shown that the "pushy jerk" wont be allowed to push, then like all bullies, they are likely to leave of their own accord when they do not get a reaction, or they are likely to change their ways and not try to bully but become a better player.

Again the psychology and all that coming into play.

Again, shadzar, if you care to continue discussing the general points in this thread you are free to do so. If you have any questions about my moderation above and are unclear about how to post without being jerkish then I suggest you PM myself or one of the other moderators (Piratecat is a good option).

I have been discussing the general points, and also trying to explain why I view your anecdote as not related so you would know, as well others, and I could try to figure out how it is related.

Maybe you are seeing jerkish as tone does not translate via text, but I am as calm and enjoying the discussion, save that that part I dislike, so maybe you should PM myself if you think there is something you said but maybe I missed?

I am looking at all things in the thread from the same light as the one where I continued "Random Designer Shadzar" as a variable.

Maybe you misread or misinterpreted something I wrote, and will be more than happy to discuss it. We have one point out of the way already I think with these last two posts.

Otherwise I am still curious about those "non friend" places you were, as to whether you may have segregated yourself from some gamers from being in very specific focused places, such as that of Patryn.

Did you DM at the game stores? Whose idea was it? Have you attended a Mace or Stellercon? Have you ran games for either?

These sorts of things can help the position of many, as well show if the different views of gamers are causing the different, well, views. (Hope that makes sense.)

 

[catsclaw227]

Can't we simply assume that most of us assume good communication is good, and then answer the question: Why can't the DM occasionally simply say No to something because he doesn't like it (with no further reason necessarily forthcoming)?

The DM certainly can simply say no. As stated, it is acceptable because at the end of the day the DM should have the final say about worldbuilding (and such). Maybe I should re-qualify that it is generally considered preferable if the DM would communicate more than a simple "no" or "because I said so".

For a long time -- at least a decade of my GMing life -- it was very difficult for me to articulate exactly why I despise psionics in D&D. (And I'm pretty good with words.)

So my response, by necessity, was, "Because I don't like them. They don't exist in my campaign."

And if someone asks why, a perfectly fine answer would be "I dunno, it's hard to articulate why the idea of psionics bugs me, but it's enough that I don't want it to exist in my campaign world."

Almost every player I know would accept this politely and move on.

If a d-bag player persists, then you are starting to get a pretty good idea what you'll be in for with this player and you may have an entirely different problem to deal as a result.

A response I got from someone once was: "I've already done a lot of work on the campaign and to shoehorn X in - even though it goes against the tone of the world - wouldn't be worth the effort for me."

That's basically a "because I don't want it", but it helped me understand that a certain tone and verisimilitude is important to him.