Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oryan77" data-source="post: 4676228" data-attributes="member: 18701">From my experience, it seems like the majority of people that play D&D have no problem arguing; that's the problem. My players and I have learned that it's so much funner playing our campaign when we don't have players in the group that like to argue. We have no patience for players that argue and I no longer hesitate to ask a player to leave if he/she is that type of player. I don't mind if a player questions me about a ruling or about my reasons for not allowing a name. When I give my answer during a game, then that should be the end of the discussion unless the player still doesn't understand (I do want to help them understand & I don't claim to be the best at explaining things). But, the moment they begin arguing with me about it, we have a big problem and you're being a problem player. I like discussing issues about the game, but I cannot stand arguing with someone about the game. People might not agree with me, but I don't think a DM needs to defend himself to the point where he's arguing with a problem player.Actually, his name was Chewbacca. Chewy is his nickname. Chewy is also not a disruptive name for the movie. Early in this thread someone suggested to the OP that she give the animal a real name and then it can have a silly nickname. I said I would not have a problem with that as long as the nickname made sense with the setting & the character. Are you a Jar Jar Binks fan? His silly Roger Rabbit antics seemed to have a huge impact on the failure of Star Wars Episode 1.  Jar Jar Binks did not fit in with the original feel of the Star Wars movies. His comedy relief was not the same as R2D2 & C3PO. They were light-hearted comedy, he was slapstick comedy. Slapstick comedy doesn't fit well with a movie like Star Wars. The name Marshmallow is more slapstick to me & that is not the road I want our campaign to go down.I'm the same way as you are. I don't always have the answer for my decisions right away. I go by gut feeling because one of the lessons I learned early on is that when you don't listen to your gut feeling, it almost always ends up biting you in the butt later on. Players are tricky & clever creatures, they can single handedly ruin a campaign for an entire group if you are not careful. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Yes, he's being controlling if he's trying to control the NPCs and how the world works around him. You can't seem to grasp the fact that we're not playing an open campaign as you are. You keep replying to everyone as if they are supposed to be running your type of game. The type of game I am trying to run is not a slapstick comedy type of game. So if a player is trying to turn it into a slapstick game, then he is being a controlling player. I understand that. I have not even criticized your campaign because I'm sure it is a good way to DM a campaign. You seem to keep saying this to everyone as if they should run a game like you are because "it's better". I don't think it is better; I don't think it's worse; I think it's just different. My friends have no problem at all playing the way we play and they probably wouldn't think our game would be any better playing the way you play. Who knows, maybe one day I might run a campaign like yours...I'm certainly not against that. But I'm not going to change our current campaign just because a new player wants to control parts of it. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /></blockquote>

Verification