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

[shadzar]

It would be reasonable for the Player and GM to have some conversation about what monsters are likely to be common in the game world.

Why? Players don't design the game world.

------------------------------------
I think many people may be overlooking something here with regards to this "communication" trek they are on.

"Why" in response to "i don't like it" isn't the first question, but at least the second.

Let's look at a whole conversation:

DM: I don't like it
Player: Why?

But how did we get here? There had to be at least one question before. The one to which "I don't like it" was the answer to. So I see it progressing more like this which actually puts this "why" looking for more information to be a 3rd question in a line of question:

Player: Can I have X?
DM: No.
Player: Why?
DM: I don't like it.
Player: Why?

Doesn't look very much like communication to me, already looking very close to badgering the DM at this point.

I also don't think it possible if the conversation went something like this:

DM: In this world there will be dragonborn and goblins, but no kobolds, <interrupted>
Player: Why?

That already shows signs the player would be disruptive for not waiting until the end of the description where they might have found out more had they kept there questions to the end.

"I don't like it", was already an attempt to qualify the reason the player wasn't allowed to use X.

I don't play 20 questions, I play D&D. Those that want to play 20 questions may do so, but trying to quantify that for all, is not within their rights.

There is way too much stuff to get done to allow too many questions form players if you intend to play a game. "Can I have/use...", is always allowed, and asking for a reason why not after that is sometimes allowed, but once you have ben given a reason by the DM, anything after that is badgering. To me that means this player will be problematic and disruptive during the game.

Different people have different levels on how far they can be "pushed". A fair and honest answer given is more than enough.

Take into account this player is trying all sorts of things some the reason being "I don't like it", some being things that will be found out later, some being this "communication". Let us say this player has tried to ask if they can have 10 different things. All are little things, but things not allowed. Now not only has that player wasted an hour of the DMs time ,but the DM too has wasted an hour of everyone else's game time for this one player.

So all this "communication" stuff is way off track of the topic.

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

Simply put, it is good enough. But some will not accept it at all.

 

[FireLance]

Why? Players don't design the game world.

In the first place, the players' characters have presumably lived there for some time and if they (say) have never even heard of kobolds, then the ranger PC should not be picking kobolds as a favored enemy.

More importantly, the statement is simplistic and ignores the many ways in which players can directly or indirectly influence the game world to create a better play experience for both the players and the DM. It can be something as simple as the player of a character with an uncommon race inventing unique customs and traditions for it, or as subtle as the DM changing aspects of the game world's history to take into account elements of the characters' backgrounds.

The DM who thinks that his game world cannot be improved with player input is either very, very good, or very, very deluded.

 

[pemerton]

On the whole I'm on the "communication is good, and things will probably be better if people give reasons" side of the discussion.

That said, outside of conventions, which I haven't been to for many years now, I don't play with people I don't enjoy spending time with in any event.

When my current 4e game started a couple of years ago, each of the players was (and still is) a friend whom, at that time, I had known for around 15 years or more. I'd also RPGed with all of them, some recently, some not so recently. Before the first session, I emailed around a primer document which said, basically: (i) the game will be set in the default 4e world; (ii) you can use FR 4e stuff as well, but convert any god or other cultural references to default 4e; and (iii) in your PC background, give yourself a reason to be adventuring and a reason to really dislike goblins.

None of the players queried any of this. We'd agreed to play a 4e game, after all, and I think they trusted me (as GM) to provide a reasonable gaming experience that would at least start with some goblin bashing. They knew that I had ideas for using an old Basic D&D module, Night's Dark Terror, for the game, and at least one of them knew that the opening scene in that module is defending a homestead from goblin raiders.

If one of the players had said, "I really don't want to play a goblin bash, can it be kobolds instead?" I think I could have accommodated that without much trouble - though I personally think it would be an odd request.

If one of the players had said, "I really want to play a PC who pretends to hate goblins, but in fact is going to betray the other PCs at some point" I think I could have accommodated that as well, although with a bit more effort - I don't mind a bit of intra-party rivalry, but it has to be handled carefully, especially in 4e which is a very party-focused game.

If one of the players had said, "I want to play a goblin" I think I would have had to say "I really don't have an idea of how to make that work in a 4e game, especially as the only low-level module I have that seems like it will be good for 4e is a goblin-bash".

To some extent the players have to take me as they find me, if only because my time, resources and imagination are limited. And if they press me, I'm not ashamed to explain that these are the constraints I'm working under. I've never had an experience where a player insist that s/he is owed more time, resources or creativity.

 

[shadzar]

Many people have no choice but, pemerton, to play in a group with non-friends, due to real life constraints.

I think many people forget that.

If you are playing wiht people that don't know much or any about the game, then answering the same questions over and over get tiresome FAST. Likewise all those questions for a beginner game aren't needed.

The "why this", or "why not that"" only impedes gameplay.

You cannot waste time to build trust or friendship when your task is to run the game for everyone with one person constantly asking questions that are moot.

In the first place, the players' characters have presumably lived there for some time and if they (say) have never even heard of kobolds, then the ranger PC should not be picking kobolds as a favored enemy.

But that has nothing to do with a conversation around both designing the game world, just the ranger player accepting kobolds don't exist, so don't waste the mechanic writing them down.

The players input doesn't change a thing, because the DM already decided kobolds don't exist.

Even Rel said the monsters are not objectionable for the DM to just decide if present, as their inclusion or not is the province of the GM.

So the later thing contradicts that.

If we assume the DM decides what monsters would be present and says no kobolds up front, then that didn't change in the scenario. So what discussion is there? The ranger just needs a race to write down. If kobolds aren't in, then pick something that was NOT listed as not present. Best probably to pick another common monster type rather than an obscure one that might never be seen, like maybe pick gnomes. RAWR!

Influence =/= design. Unless the PCs are spawning kobolds or something, it doesnt affect the design, just as you said, influences the world. What it started as is unchanged, only what happens after.

a character with an uncommon race inventing unique customs and traditions for it

This could quite easily fall into ridiculous backstory territory. A player deciding for an entire race what the customs are, yet another player doesn't get to be rich form the start because they were born of nobility and jsut adventuring to learn about the world.

Maybe customs for their little village they grew up in, but does that village still exist, and will it be a part of the game? This is all better for another thread related to backstories.

The DM who thinks that his game world cannot be improved with player input is either very, very good, or very, very deluded.

OR

Has players with very poor ideas.

The design of the game isn't for the players, unless they ask someone to run Module #1957 for them. When they found the DM that will, there is no need for further communication about anything because you already picked the train you wish to ride, so no sense in complaining about the rails then.

Player info about game design often leads to the end of the game that DM is running, because basically people will start thinking of a new game, and lose interest they had in the current one. Or the DM just becomes the player slave to include and change things on their whim.

When you pick a DM to run a game, if you didn't say anything else, it is your fault for not specifying what game you wanted to play be it 3.5, 4th, sword and sorcery, high fantasy, hoards of kobolds, Pathfinder, etc.

Which leads both of these together as indicated the same about lasting group of friends, that the trust issue is the main thing. When that is lost the game soon fails. If you didn't trust the DM to run a fun game, then why pick, or join in his game?

Lets say a game existed with friends and you had been playing a while and someone wanted to invite a new friend. They really like kobolds as an enemy of their ranger but everyone had already agreed tot he DMs no kobold world. Should this player just accept the DMs choice of no kobolds that everyone else agreed to or ret-con the world to add kobolds for him?

MAybe that initial "conversation" goes something like this:

DM: Welcome...intros game...no kobolds exist....continues intro of game
New Player: I always pick kobolds for my rangers enemy.
DM: Well they aren't in this world, you will have to pick something else.
NP: Why?
DM: Because I don't like them.
NP: Why not?

If I were this DM I would be ready to show them the door. Another player invited them and should have explained things about the game to them so my time wasn't wasted. Now after I had to explain things and will ahve to add thi player to the group at a good time and trying to figure out how to do this best and quickest I am being questioned about the design of the game?

Lets say the DM responded:

DM: Because I have never liked them.

Here the DM has shown a social cue. They repeated a previous response to a similar question asked a different way. This shows this person is NOT willing or interested in discussing it. Should the player pres further, then they are no longer being polite, or just very socially inept.

So is this all really a control and trust issue? DM is given control when you chose them or sat at their table. You charged them with the task of making things work. If you don't trust them, you can just walk away and do without a game, rather than remove the game from the equation and turn it into something more personal.

Remove the religious connotations from it if you want, but I would think the "Serenity Prayer" applies here.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference between them.​

 

[Cyronax]

Why? Players don't design the game world.

Why?! As Raven Crowking mentioned earlier, its so that players can pick languages for their characters. That's one reason enough. The DM doesn't need to tell the players more than the common monster races, I'll give that, but its still part of the game world. Players need to place their characters as interacting entities within your creation.


C.I.D.

 

[Rel]

You cannot waste time to build trust or friendship when your task is to run the game for everyone with one person constantly asking questions that are moot...

...The design of the game isn't for the players, unless they ask someone to run Module #1957 for them. When they found the DM that will, there is no need for further communication about anything because you already picked the train you wish to ride, so no sense in complaining about the rails then.

You've painted a much clearer picture of your view of the GM's role with this post. Thanks.

 

[Cyronax]

You've painted a much clearer picture of your view of the GM's role with this post. Thanks.

Yes it is always important to push art for arts sake before pleasure in hobbies. Shadzar continues this patriotic and ultimately self-segregating goal. This is what made America the hub of innovation in the past century. I ultimately mean this as a great compliment.

C.I.D.

 

[Cyronax]

Many people have no choice but, pemerton, to play in a group with non-friends, due to real life constraints.

I think many people forget that.

If you are playing wiht people that don't know much or any about the game, then answering the same questions over and over get tiresome FAST. Likewise all those questions for a beginner game aren't needed.

The "why this", or "why not that"" only impedes gameplay.

You cannot waste time to build trust or friendship when your task is to run the game for everyone with one person constantly asking questions that are moot.



But that has nothing to do with a conversation around both designing the game world, just the ranger player accepting kobolds don't exist, so don't waste the mechanic writing them down.

The players input doesn't change a thing, because the DM already decided kobolds don't exist.

Even Rel said the monsters are not objectionable for the DM to just decide if present, as their inclusion or not is the province of the GM.

So the later thing contradicts that.

If we assume the DM decides what monsters would be present and says no kobolds up front, then that didn't change in the scenario. So what discussion is there? The ranger just needs a race to write down. If kobolds aren't in, then pick something that was NOT listed as not present. Best probably to pick another common monster type rather than an obscure one that might never be seen, like maybe pick gnomes. RAWR!

Influence =/= design. Unless the PCs are spawning kobolds or something, it doesnt affect the design, just as you said, influences the world. What it started as is unchanged, only what happens after.



This could quite easily fall into ridiculous backstory territory. A player deciding for an entire race what the customs are, yet another player doesn't get to be rich form the start because they were born of nobility and jsut adventuring to learn about the world.

Maybe customs for their little village they grew up in, but does that village still exist, and will it be a part of the game? This is all better for another thread related to backstories.

OR

Has players with very poor ideas.

The design of the game isn't for the players, unless they ask someone to run Module #1957 for them. When they found the DM that will, there is no need for further communication about anything because you already picked the train you wish to ride, so no sense in complaining about the rails then.

Player info about game design often leads to the end of the game that DM is running, because basically people will start thinking of a new game, and lose interest they had in the current one. Or the DM just becomes the player slave to include and change things on their whim.

When you pick a DM to run a game, if you didn't say anything else, it is your fault for not specifying what game you wanted to play be it 3.5, 4th, sword and sorcery, high fantasy, hoards of kobolds, Pathfinder, etc.

Which leads both of these together as indicated the same about lasting group of friends, that the trust issue is the main thing. When that is lost the game soon fails. If you didn't trust the DM to run a fun game, then why pick, or join in his game?

Lets say a game existed with friends and you had been playing a while and someone wanted to invite a new friend. They really like kobolds as an enemy of their ranger but everyone had already agreed tot he DMs no kobold world. Should this player just accept the DMs choice of no kobolds that everyone else agreed to or ret-con the world to add kobolds for him?

MAybe that initial "conversation" goes something like this:

DM: Welcome...intros game...no kobolds exist....continues intro of game
New Player: I always pick kobolds for my rangers enemy.
DM: Well they aren't in this world, you will have to pick something else.
NP: Why?
DM: Because I don't like them.
NP: Why not?

If I were this DM I would be ready to show them the door. Another player invited them and should have explained things about the game to them so my time wasn't wasted. Now after I had to explain things and will ahve to add thi player to the group at a good time and trying to figure out how to do this best and quickest I am being questioned about the design of the game?

Lets say the DM responded:

DM: Because I have never liked them.

Here the DM has shown a social cue. They repeated a previous response to a similar question asked a different way. This shows this person is NOT willing or interested in discussing it. Should the player pres further, then they are no longer being polite, or just very socially inept.

So is this all really a control and trust issue? DM is given control when you chose them or sat at their table. You charged them with the task of making things work. If you don't trust them, you can just walk away and do without a game, rather than remove the game from the equation and turn it into something more personal.

Remove the religious connotations from it if you want, but I would think the "Serenity Prayer" applies here.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference between them.​

Ever so my friends. Shadzar, you eloquence and your brevity do justice to your arguments.

I wonder if perhaps unfortunately you might be overlooking the possibility of Raven Crowking's earlier posts. Let me be specific, the post about player characters' "freewill".

C.I.D.

 

[shadzar]

If that is what you call it with your cut-and-paste attempt to twist words Rel, then so be it.

Best to read things that are said in context than remove them to make things up, unless you are going into broadcast journalism to be the next Bill O'Rielly.

Okay, clearly we need to have a little talk. Suspending you from the thread until we do. ~ Piratecat

When you view those two parts of the larger post you quoted and hacked up for your own meaning as the independent things they were discussing, THEN and ONLY THEN, might you have any kind of picture of my views.

Why?! As Raven Crowking mentioned earlier, its so that players can pick languages for their characters. That's one reason enough. The DM doesn't need to tell the players more than the common monster races, I'll give that, but its still part of the game world. Players need to place their characters as interacting entities within your creation.


C.I.D.

Someone writing kobold down for a language on their sheet isn't designing the game world, they are just wasting a slot of their languages when they know kobolds don't exist.

I think this has gone far off track of the original concept. We are now not talking about a DM not allowing something because they "don't like it", but campaign design itself, and I think it is throwing people off the main topic a bit.

So how does it work that a DM saying "no kobolds because I don't like them", allows the players to in some way design the game by writing kobold down for a language spoken or preferred enemy on a character sheet?

Does it make kobolds now a part of the game? Can a player them write down 5 million gold on the sheet to help the DM design the game too?

The things written on a character sheet aren't there to design the game, but define the character. The game was already designed. Adding kobolds where they never existed will not be something easy to do, and tkaing them away should a new player come along, could mes up if people already have that as a language of preferred enemy choice.

The characters shape the existing world, but the DM designed the world. If the players wanted some things specifically in it and there was no objection from the DM, then odds are they will eventually show up. If the DM said things doesn't exist, then odds are they wont exist in the future either.

Now to go try to find the post on languages that I must have missed at some point to see what was said in it.

 

[Cyronax]

If that is what you call it with your cut-and-paste attempt to twist words Rel, then so be it.

Best to read things that are said in context than remove them to make things up, unless you are going into broadcast journalism to be the next Bill O'Rielly.

When you view those two parts of the larger post you quoted and hacked up for your own meaning as the independent things they were discussing, THEN and ONLY THEN, might you have any kind of picture of my views.



Someone writing kobold down for a language on their sheet isn't designing the game world, they are just wasting a slot of their languages when they know kobolds don't exist.

I think this has gone far off track of the original concept. We are now not talking about a DM not allowing something because they "don't like it", but campaign design itself, and I think it is throwing people off the main topic a bit.

So how does it work that a DM saying "no kobolds because I don't like them", allows the players to in some way design the game by writing kobold down for a language spoken or preferred enemy on a character sheet?

Does it make kobolds now a part of the game? Can a player them write down 5 million gold on the sheet to help the DM design the game too?

Yes Shadzar. I agree.

I don't know what to make of Bill O' Reilly. He's normally too focused on his own world. He lacks the empathy required to interact with other individuals.


What I want to know is why languages like 'kobold' aren't turned over to Thieves' Guilds around the game world. Clearly kobolds are one of the under-races correct, Shadzar?


C.I.D.

For reference, folks, polluting a thread with sarcastic non-sequiters is something we don't want to see. If you think you can't get along with someone and don't care to actually discuss it, please just put them on ignore. - Piratecat