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

[shadzar]

shadzar, try this. Two possible ads for the same D&D game, same DM, same players. Alternative universe if you will.

1. "No tieflings."

2. "No tieflings. No gnomes unless the players make a compelling case for including them."

As I understand your points, tieflings are equally banned in both games. Exactly equally banned. So far I'm with you. But I also understand you to mean that for all players showing up they should get the same impression; that it should be equally understood regardless of which add is used, that tieflings are not permitted, period.

Correct.

Whereas I would be a lot more receptive to certain queries in the first case than in the second. Because not only do you have legitimate curiousity and all the other reasons that Rel, Hussar, and others have been championing, but you've also got an add with a two word restriction. There's not much context to it. In the second add, the gnome restriction being explicilty somewhat more open correspondingly strengthens the tiefling ban.

Strange. I would think the second would get more queries since I can easy get the question resulting from it be asked "Why might you allow gnomes but not tieflings?"

To which I would probably roll my eyes and answer "I don't like them".

The first is simple, direct, and to the point. there is no going around you ass to get to your elbow with it.

I just cannot see why one would be presented with something so straightforward and not just be able to accept it and move on.

I wouldn't present the second one, but did use it in part as an example.

I guess it boils down to how people were raised and taught as they were brought up.

After a certain age I stopped with the childish asking of "why" to everything and learned some things are just to be taken at face value.

I really don't have the interest in getting into other people's mindsets about every little thing. Nor interest in others that enjoy that sort of thing. There are soap operas and those silly reality TV shows for with "gossip fence curiosity".

Someone tells me "no tieflings" then I accept that and will join all other things, time, etc permitting. If I don't I won't join. If I go and there is someone their trying to add tieflings when the game was advertised "no tieflings", if I wanted the "no tieflings" game that much, I will not remain longer while another player adds them in any way. If i have no opinion and am just fine with or without tieflings I am libel to remain.

So the first case I view like this with the 3 types of people.

1-Players wanting a game with "no tieflings", myself include as that is what I advertised
2-Players who don't care either way
3-Players who want tieflings

Group 3 is in the wrong place because they will upset/disrupt the game sought form group 1.

"You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

I want to be able to please the MOST people all of the time, and don't like the people trying to displease them, and as DM have a job to remove group 3 form the equation, or if the majority is somehow in group 3, will remove myself from it.

Which is why if I were in the habit of running pick up games in stores, and experiences were a little fuzzy, I'd never put out an ad with "No tieflings" in it by itself. If tieflings are all I want to restrict, and I'm that serious about it, I'd put something like, "No Tieflings, Period. No exceptions. Don't even think about asking to play one."

Over wordiness does NOT make things clearer...my own long winded posts should prove that.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I think players are against the "no cause I said so"

If you had been here earlier, you may have noticed that many people in this discussion have dismissed "I don't like X = because I said so" as a straw man.

On another subject, let's say hypothetically that I am running a 4e game except no Tieflings. Why? I do not like the way 4e Tieflings read, 3e initially reset tieflings to their PS boxed set version just converted for the edition, until they started getting weird with the other bits of the tiefling not being human. Which could easily lead me into a rant about not retconning half-whatevers from core races to templates.

I like the 2e initial tiefling, the Planewalker's Handbook Tieflings, and the initial 3e Tieflings. After that I feel it gets too silly, or in 4e's case too front loaded with even more baggage than simply having some percentage of lower planar blood.

To keep this going, instead of "I don't like them", what if I said "not in this particular adventure/campaign, maybe later"?

 

[DragonLancer]

I am very late to this but still willing to throw in my two cents.

I think players are against the "no cause I said so" for the same reason most players do not tolerate the "I am DM I am the LAW" attitude that some DMs take.

Both set the tone that the DM is most important than the player and with all the egoes most people deal with at work no one is in the mood to deal with a DM with a boss complex.

The DM's word IS law. People need to accept that the game is a group effort where everyone needs to enjoy themselves, but it is the DM who says what is and isn't. If the DM says that tieflings or mithril don't exist in his game then the don't exist. No point arguing about it or trying to do the "well, I have this idea..."

Hopefully though, the group has got together before hand to agree on what campaign setting and/or houserules to be used, but ultimately I feel that the DM gets the final say. Players may want what they want, but the DM has to enjoy the game he is running and catering to the random whims of players may not be what he or she wants.

The DM is the one person at the table who has final say, but they shouldn't be an asshat about it.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

If you had been here earlier, you may have noticed that many people in this discussion have dismissed "I don't like X = because I said so" as a straw man.

On another subject, let's say hypothetically that I am running a 4e game except no Tieflings. Why? I do not like the way 4e Tieflings read, 3e initially reset tieflings to their PS boxed set version just converted for the edition, until they started getting weird with the other bits of the tiefling not being human. Which could easily lead me into a rant about not retconning half-whatevers from core races to templates.

I like the 2e initial tiefling, the Planewalker's Handbook Tieflings, and the initial 3e Tieflings. After that I feel it gets too silly, or in 4e's case too front loaded with even more baggage than simply having some percentage of lower planar blood.

To keep this going, instead of "I don't like them", what if I said "not in this particular adventure/campaign, maybe later"?

If as DM you said no because they did not fit in your campaign then that would be fine. A tie fling would for example not fit well into a gothic campaign or a campaign where the outer planes did not exist.

If on the other hand the reason was nothing but inane personal opinion, cause you thought for example the fluff was lame, then I would laugh at you and expect a better reason or leave. If its about fluff and wha you personally feel is lame then do I have to get permission on dire flails, some of the more unusual magic items, and anything else that might not be pretty enough for your game world?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The DM's word IS law. People need to accept that the game is a group effort where everyone needs to enjoy themselves, but it is the DM who says what is and isn't. If the DM says that tieflings or mithril don't exist in his game then the don't exist. No point arguing about it or trying to do the "well, I have this idea..."

Hopefully though, the group has got together before hand to agree on what campaign setting and/or houserules to be used, but ultimately I feel that the DM gets the final say. Players may want what they want, but the DM has to enjoy the game he is running and catering to the random whims of players may not be what he or she wants.

The DM is the one person at the table who has final say, but they shouldn't be an asshat about it.

No, it is not. The book is law unless the DM in advance makes changes that he announces. The DMs word is law if a rule is very unclear and the table cannot come to a consensus or find some errata for it. The DM is law on what happens in his campaign world outside the view of the players.

The DM is not the arbitrary law of everything just because he sits down behind the screen. I have been there I quit a group because "I am DM and I am the law" meant his completely wrong interpretation on the fly while gaming was automatically set in stone.

 

[Rel]

To keep this going, instead of "I don't like them", what if I said "not in this particular adventure/campaign, maybe later"?

I think that's a perfectly fine answer. That answer conveys additional information even though you're not saying it out loud. For example I interpret from that answer that you don't have a blanket "I don't like it" feeling about tieflings because you didn't say, "No, never." I might ask further if you felt that the aesthetic of tieflings clashed with your vision of the campaign so that I could try and design a character in line with that vision.

 

[catsclaw227]

No, it is not. The book is law unless the DM in advance makes changes that he announces. The DMs word is law if a rule is very unclear and the table cannot come to a consensus or find some errata for it. The DM is law on what happens in his campaign world outside the view of the players.

Actually, I disagree with this. And, if I recall correctly, every edition of the game has a paragraph in the DMG or the PH that states in some form or another that the book is NOT law, and that the DM is the final arbiter.

Yes, the books have the rules, but rules =/= law.

The DM is not the arbitrary law of everything just because he sits down behind the screen. I have been there I quit a group because "I am DM and I am the law" meant his completely wrong interpretation on the fly while gaming was automatically set in stone.

And this is why I believe that better communication at the table helps the game. Just because a person asks "why?", doesn't mean they are trying to hijack the game or force their preference on anyone. Actually, I would guess that in a large majority of cases, the "why?" is simply a clarification to understand the game world better.

 

[Umbran]

If you think for one moment that signs found in gaming are not related to other parts of life, then YOU are the one needing to gain perspective.

And, as noted - the vast majority of people aren't automatons, that behave the same way in all situations. Now, maybe they'll always be that way at the gaming table, but a threat to all of society? That's not, in my opinion, a reasonable extrapolation.

You are sadly still working inside the vacuum

No, I am not. I think instead I prioritize things differently from you. I am willing to allow the new player some leeway for a bit, where you are not.

You may want to learn a bit...

You ought to stop assuming you know what others do or don't know about. Disagreeing with you is not a sign of ignorance, it is a sign of disagreement.

While I'm a calm individual, others posters may have taken you to task for that kind of statement. Other moderators might well take it as part of a pattern of behavior indicating that you're looking to be insulting.

I could illustrate this very well using your position on the forums, where you already DO, if that is your tasked position, do that pattern recognition and prevent "harm" to the enjoyment of others. Unless I misunderstand the position of the green names here.

Well, interestingly, the moderators here usually require someone establish a significant pattern of behavior before we do much about the poster in question. So, that illustration would argue against your point that single actions, like asking "why?", are grounds for banning from the table.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Back to my original example restrictions, beyond being in my mind the Borg of fantasy materials, I dislike super metals because unless I'm playing something like the Ratchet & Clank video games (where gratutiously unnecessary firepower is the point), I want your character to be special by his personality, skills, and such. Not his Infinity+1 swords.

 

[Janx]

And, as noted - the vast majority of people aren't automatons, that behave the same way in all situations. Now, maybe they'll always be that way at the gaming table, but a threat to all of society? That's not, in my opinion, a reasonable extrapolation.



No, I am not. I think instead I prioritize things differently from you. I am willing to allow the new player some leeway for a bit, where you are not.



You ought to stop assuming you know what others do or don't know about. Disagreeing with you is not a sign of ignorance, it is a sign of disagreement.

While I'm a calm individual, others posters may have taken you to task for that kind of statement. Other moderators might well take it as part of a pattern of behavior indicating that you're looking to be insulting.



Well, interestingly, the moderators here usually require someone establish a significant pattern of behavior before we do much about the poster in question. So, that illustration would argue against your point that single actions, like asking "why?", are grounds for banning from the table.

amen.

I just popped in here to see why this thread is still alive and long. And what do I see? The same dude poking at Umbran as in some other thread. Umbran's response in both places has been pretty respectful and tactful.

If shad's saying somebody's behavior is indicative of a pattern, I suspect he's demonstrating a pattern untactfully challenging others statements. I think that's gonna cause problems.

Though i'm a sucker for thread forkers, I much prefer they stay on the main topic, and people take their forks outside.

So, to the OP's title topic:

Parents don't expect to have to explain "Why" to children. Pretty much true in any dictatorial regime. Nothing wrong with a dictatorship if it's done fairly, respectfully and for the good of the populus.

As human beings, we're all used to asking "Why?" on a whole ton of things. Some of us learn that not all reasons aren't knowable, or in the case of dealing with other people, the other person doesn't know. They just know they have a preference, and that's how they want it. If they're in control, then sometimes you just gotta take it and get on with life.

As a player or GM in a D&D campaign, your threshold on "taking it" can be described with a simply ecomonics supply and demand X.

You got a graph with and X. One line is the supply of GMs, the other line is demand of players for GMs. where those 2 lines meet is the "Price" you gotta pay. That price is the level of that GM's foibles and quirks that you may have to put up with.

Only 1 GM in the area, then you may have to put up with a lot of unanswered "Why?" and other crap. Got a lot of GMs, then you can always find another GM who's not such dink. Thus, the price of crap you have to put up with is lower.

Seriously? 30+ pages?