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

[Zhaleskra]

The PC races in Diomin are Arak, Gnolaum, Hearthom, and two human cultures: Tirasim and Zeredite. One of the human cultures is usually not allowed based on the tone of the game. As written, the Tirasim are the good humans and the Zeredites are the evil humans. Another villain race, the Gadianti, isn't even presented until near the end of the book. Even so, I have considered allowing Zeredite PCs in a heroic toned adventure, as long as the player has a really good reason why his character would be in lands where everybody hates his culture's guts. Gadianti, being cat people, where everyone else is mostly human is going to be a lot harder to explain the rare "good" gadianti.

 

[Dice4Hire]

So, basically it jsut boils down to...

"Do you trust your DM?"

If it is a DM I have played with before, I go with his or her restrictions. If not, I might be fore leery, but will give the DM the benefit of the doubt.

If the restrictions are a foreshadow to the DM being a control freak, I can always leave.

 

[Zhaleskra]

If it is a DM I have played with before, I go with his or her restrictions. If not, I might be fore leery, but will give the DM the benefit of the doubt.

I understand not really having a reason to trust an unknown DM. But if you don't know the DM, do you really have a reason to not trust her?

 

[Greg K]

After all, Giant Eagles are a staple of that setting, and, presuming a 3e D&D game, monster characters are also typically fair game.

Anecdotal. My anecdotal rebuttal is "not in any campaign that I have seen".

 

[billd91]

I understand not really having a reason to trust an unknown DM. But if you don't know the DM, do you really have a reason to not trust her?

No you don't, but you don't know much about the DM either. Asking why about things will help you get to understand them and their vision of the game.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I understand not really having a reason to trust an unknown DM. But if you don't know the DM, do you really have a reason to not trust her?

I did say 'give the benefit of the doubt."

 

[The Shaman]

Anecdotal. My anecdotal rebuttal is "not in any campaign that I have seen".

Running a game set in Middle-earth =/= everything written by The Professor is suitable for a player character.

 

[pemerton]

The why is always obvious. Either you find out during play as the game is meant to be, if not in the background of the world.

The background document tells you what you know. "Why is X like Y?" is a question that is (much more often than not) best resolved by game play.

Maybe. If the question is part of an attempt by the player to grasp the GM's "aesthetic vision" for the gameworld, then a purely ingame answer may not be the best one or the best way. (Obviously it would depend on exactly what is communicated by the GM in play. And also on how smooth play is likely to be if the player is not sure about the GM's aesthetic vision.)

Lets reverse that, who does a player think they are to come to a game advertised "no tieflings" with the intention to play or try to include tieflings?

As I and others have pointed out, a person can ask "why the ban" without wanting to play a tiefling at all. They might want to know why tieflings are banned as part of the process of trying to understand the game that the GM is hoping to run.

For example:

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.

I would guess that in a large majority of cases, the "why?" is simply a clarification to understand the game world better.

He asked a question. When he got a pretty unsatisfactory one, he asked again. This is wasting time and starting an argument? Really? He's actually engaqed enough into your setting that he wants to know some of the reasoning behind your decisions, but your automatic assumption is that he's trying to pick a fight.

No you don't, but you don't know much about the DM either. Asking why about things will help you get to understand them and their vision of the game.

What is your objection to a player asking "why" as part of an attempt to get a better handle on the game the GM wants to run?

 

[shadzar]

They might want to know why tieflings are banned as part of the process of trying to understand the game that the GM is hoping to run.

Does it really matter?

Herein lies the problem again...

If they are so hung up on a why about the tiefling being banned, then odds are they have other problems within the game I will not want to deal with.

What is the incessant need to know "why", when all you need is "what"?

Do you think your cashier at the grocer can tell you why the price of milk is what it is?

Someone showing inability "to accept" that early on has always been the case to cause later disruption in my games.

So I toss the question back "Why do you need to know why?"

 

[pemerton]

"Why do you need to know why?"

For the reason I and others said - because you are trying to understand the GM's vision for the game.

Do you think your cashier at the grocer can tell you why the price of milk is what it is?

I don't find this a very helpful comparison. The cashier is not making a decision about a shared entertainment experience. The GM is.