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

[Zhaleskra]

I'm trying to wrap my head around why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something. Especially when the GM gives zir reasons.

For example, I don't like metals that start with "adamant-" or are pronounced "mithril" (regardless of actual spelling) because I think they are the most overused fantasy materials.

 

[Morrus]

Yikes, lots of negatives in one sentence makes it hard for me to parse. Lemme try:

why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something

They DON'T think "I DON'T like" is NOT a reason to NOT allow something. That's four, so I think they cancel out as two pairs of double negatives?

So the question is Why do some players think I like X is a valid reason for a GM to allow something?

Well, it is a valid reason. It might not be one that the GM accepts, but "I like something" is as good a reason as any to include something; and "I don't like something" is as good a reason as any not to do so.

It depends on the context, really. Your "metals" example sounds overly picky to me; I'd laugh and move on. If they really pushed it, then I'd be questioning what was wrong with them; maybe rename it to "Xthranite" to keep them happy or something, but that would just me being sarcastic.

If it was something more substantial - "I don't like horror themed games" - then that's a discussion to be had. The GM shouldn't run a horror-themed game for a group of people who dont' like horror-themed games. I mean, what's the point? We're all there to play a game we like.

But no, the metals example is just a player being a bit of an ass. I'd not be worrying about the game here, I'd be worrying about the ability of the person to interact with others in a mature social fashion.

 

[Reynard]

I guess the question would be do these specific names not exist in your setting, but mechanically identical replacements do, or do you hate super hard and super supple metals?

More broadly: "I don't like it" is perfectly valid, but so is "I am going to play with a different GM."

 

[Zhaleskra]

Perhaps I chose the wrong prefix. Then again, I was asking why some players dislike the GM just not liking something.

I apologize for for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?

 

[Morrus]

Perhaps I chose the wrong prefix. Then again, I was asking why some players dislike the GM just not liking something.

I apologize for for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?

OK, I totally parsed it wrong. So the GM is saying they don't like something, therefore not including it in their setting?

Again, depends what it is. The metals issue is so trivial as to be inconsequential. If the GM is changing the game so much that it's not the game the group wants to play, then he can't force them to play his game. That said, if the players want to define the actual setting, why have a GM?

I guess the adamantine example just sounds silly to me (I don't know if that's the actual situation your'e facing or just an example you plucked out of the air). It doesn't seem worthy of comment from players, unless they're trying to be difficult. If it was something like "All players have to play elves" that's noteworthy, and requires discussion before the game to make sure everyone has turned up to play the game they want to play. We're all there just to have fun with our friends, after all, right?

The GM doesn't "own" the game - it's a social activity between a group of people who have agreed to do this thing together. Doesn't make him their king or anything. But objecting to minor trivial changes seems overly antagonistic; that change doesn't fundamentally change the game you're playing.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I guess the adamantine example just sounds silly to me (I don't know if that's the actual situation your'e facing or just an example you plucked out of the air). It doesn't seem worthy of comment from players, unless they're trying to be difficult. If it was something like "All players have to play elves" that's noteworthy, and requires discussion before the game to make sure everyone has turned up to play the game they want to play. We're all there just to have fun with our friends, after all, right?

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.

The GM doesn't "own" the game - it's a social activity between a group of people who have agreed to do this thing together. Doesn't make him their king or anything. But objecting to minor trivial changes seems overly antagonistic; that change doesn't fundamentally change the game you're playing.

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.

 

[Aeolius]

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.... 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.

Then the player should look for a more compatible game. Heck, I don't allow core races at all, in my game. To clarify, as the game is set underwater, I allow them for as long as they can hold their breath. If someone wants to play a stock human in my game, the character is required to take one of two prestige classes; Anchor or Bait.

 

[Bluenose]

Players sometimes get an idea in their heads for what they want to play. When the GM says no, some who are particularly set on something will argue about it, and try to get an exception made. If they're particularly obsessive about a particular idea, some will walk rather than accept that they can't play it. Sometimes when they've put a lot of work into the character already, I can see their point.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Sometimes I haven't quite said no. I've said things akin to "this game doesn't exactly have rules for that and I'm not sure I'd be good at coming up with them". Player wanted to make a trick knife thrower, but World Tree doesn't really have "cover" rules. On the other hand, it's not high magic, but everyone has some: so magic rich, really. Had I thought about it more, I probably could have been creative with cantrips to help the concept work.

I had also had a player who wanted to be an absolute atheist. Atheism does exist on the World Tree, but not quite as it does in the real world especially because the gods are an observable fact. His angle was to be an extreme feather caster (the magical equivalent of speeding on streets), cheating the gods out of their cley. I later did come up with some ideas how this could work, which disadvantage would be appropriate, but that was well after the adventure tanked.

 

[Reynard]

It's all about communication. If you invite folks to play D&D and one of them shows up with a tiefling warlock, it's your fault for not specifying 2nd Edition Dragonlance. Especially when dealing with new groups, it is important to establish any rules that diverge from the Core.

However, I agree with the OP from the perspective that the GM is under no obligation to allow or include things that he doesn't "like". People have preferences, and the GM's preferences do outweigh the players' because the GM has to do a lot more creative work. If your GM thinks Dragonborn are stupid, you should either choose a different race or a different GM.