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

[Raven Crowking]

RC, I know it's fun to overly dramatize things, but asking, "What is it about tieflings you don't like?" is in no way akin to rape. Srsly.

Nah. You're just using the same rationalization as to why it's okay not to take No for an answer.....

But, players are required to defend their preferences all the time. After all, what is a player background if not a defense of their preferences?

Um....In my neck of the woods, a character background is a background for a character. We don't require players to submit their own backgrounds. You guys are harsh!

If a player wants to play X, he has to run it past the DM before taking it every single time.

IMHO and IME, only to ensure that it fits within the campaign milieu. The DM is not saying to Hussar, "Sorry, man....Umbran explained why he wants to play a dwarf really well, but I'm not getting why you don't want to play an elf. So, unless you come up with some better reason, you can be an elf."

Well, I think that's a matter that fits under the "no religion" rule, and we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree, but in no way does religion have to enter into it.

If you believe that desiring continued existence is more than just a preference for any reason -- religious or not -- then it invalidates your example. What the reason is need not apply.

A preference is a true statement.

In a logical system, there are two forms of true statements. One type is an axiom - these are statements that are assumed to be true, and so cannot be logically proven, or argued against - though it can be shown that some systems of axioms are inconsistent. Emotive preferences might be akin to axiomatic statements.

Indeed. And, as "these are statements that are assumed to be true, and so cannot be logically proven, or argued against" you again cut the throat of your argument. Axiomatic statements can be used by logic, but they do not arise from logic.

So, if we assume that my wife prefers to live as an axiom, then the preference to avoid strawberries follows from pure logic. The two statements, are not equivalent, but one follows from the other.

Sort of like "Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing. And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them. But the things you are pursuing? They are not the result of rationality." from the post you are replying, to, right?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5440263-post88.html

If the GM and player agree upon their axioms, then showing the logic behind other preferences can lead them into agreement, or to suitable compromises.

So, let me see here:

Preferences are axiomatic, or akin to being axiomatic.

If the GM and player agree upon their axioms, then showing the logic behind other preferences can lead them into agreement, or to suitable compromises.

But, if the GM and player agree upon their axioms (preferences), then one would also assume that there is no problem to begin with!

There are some issues in which "I don't like and I don't want to talk about it" are perfectly valid. I think that this is one of them.

Re: your points about people moving past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions." I am not so sure that it is that intentional. Rather, I think a player comes up with a character concept -- say, a half-orc fighter seeking to avenge his mother's situation -- only to find out that the DM has disallowed half-orcs from her campaign precisely because that situation. I am not so sure that the player intended to creep everyone out, but instead stumbled on an issue that bothered one particular player - in the case, the DM. Once the issue is brought to light, should we -- as players -- push the DM to justify why? Or, can we just accept "It's something I don't want to talk about?"

Indeed. There is no way to know if a reason is deeply personal without pushing, prying, folding, spindling, and mutilating. But "Sorry, I didn't know" isn't really an excuse after you've pushed, pried, folded, spindled, and mutilated......

Which is, again, why you don't roleplay with people for whom rape forms an inescapable part of their character's motivations.

It's really that simple.

Is it? Care to explain the logic of that decision in painstaking detail, until I tell you I am satisfied? Or does No mean No?

All I know is, when a DM starts banning stuff right out of the gate without explanation, I fully expect problems.

Yeah, he probably has a coherent world in mind, that he'll enjoy running games in. The bastard.

IMO, if a DM doesn't want something in his games, it is sufficient for him to simply say that he doesn't like it. However, it is seldom satisfying, especially if what he is eliminating is a fairly well-established game element and he does not give any supporting reasons for his decision.

In short, the DM has the right, but there is (usually) a broader social element to the way that he communicates his decision that he should be mindful of.

I agree with this completely.

Sorry I thought RPGs were co-operative games, so negotiation and compromise were the sort of social skills both GM's and players should be bringing to the table, not "My way or the highway!" from the outset.

"I don't run games with X, but you are welcome to do so (although I will not play in such a game)." is a compromise. You cannot force people to like what you like, or want to play in the game you are seeking.

Seek (or better, make) a game that suits your preferences. Life is too short for crappy games. And, playing a game you are not enjoying -- either because it includes X or because it does not -- makes for crappy gaming.

Also I've seen a number of people mention things along the lines of "the players are free to walk" that isn't exactly true for a number of reasons.

Friends can do other things than game.

Again, "Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing. And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them. But the things you are pursuing? They are not the result of rationality."

If you know the game disallows X, and you choose to play because you'd rather play than not (for whatever reason), you are still choosing to play. You can still choose not to.

As you say,

Then there is the fact finding a group to play at all in many areas is pretty hard, if the alternate to gaming with X group is not gaming at all, players and DM's are both likely to make compromises to meet each other wants/needs.

A highly authoritarian DM is likely to find he won't have a group to game with if his reasons aren't made clear and he makes it a choice of "like or leave."

This is certainly true, and is certainly a consequence one must deal with when choosing what one prioritizes. But, one still has a right to choose what one prioritizes. That is, IMHO, an absolute right. And it is a choice.

But I think the case of Umbran's wife shows that not all preferences are therefore unconstrained by reason. Assuming that Umbran's wife, for example, has a preference to live (as most of us do) then it is rational for her to cultivate an aversion to strawberries. This doesn't tend to show that preferences aren't emotive (in the relative sense) - rather, it shows that the contents of emotional states are subject to reason (at a minimum, constraints of consistency).

Again, "Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing. And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them. But the things you are pursuing? They are not the result of rationality."

From the post Umbran was responding to.

What is all the fuss about? "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting something. There does not need to be any underlying logic to support something as arbitrary as a preference.

We like and dislike things for a variety of reasons not all of which can be expressed in a laundry list of logical data.

A DM is always free to exclude something from the campaign as long as this information is shared before play begins. Players are likewise free to turn down such a game if what it excludes would ruin their good time. At that point we have a DM without players and players without a game. If everyone involved would like a game then a reasonable compromise needs to be reached.

When all is said and done playing these games is not a job. We play to have fun. No one should feel pressured into either running or playing a game in which that fun would be diminished.

Bingo.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can definitely appreciate that. (And I sorta agree, too - I really like 4E's many alternate materials for magical armours because it gets around that omni-presence.) Even if I didn't, at least I now know that you probably won't say know to other "magic metals" on principle.

But I think it's relevant that you had to explain it to get people to go "Ah, I get it", and that just saying "I don't like it" created confusion and queries.

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

 

[Barastrondo]

Likely if the GM cared what you thought or hid behind false pleasantries. Dog are the creatures that sniff each other's butt upon meeting, not man, therefore I am not playing social butt-kiss with anyone, as I am not a dog, but a man.

Dogs also engage in dominance challenges. As a dog owner, I have to say that "because I said so" is pretty similar to dog behavior.

Sadly the example given is how many people today DO play, they players play next to each other, but not with them as is evident by the direction one game took to try to make itself more "balanced" by giving everyone the same stuff no matter what class so the classes wouldn't have to compete against each other, when it fact it was the players competing, not the classes, when they should have been cooperating.

Well, in the interest of brevity, this gives me a chance to sum up how I generally feel about the whole situation: I don't think that refusing to answer questions in any more depth is a particularly good tactic; I'm not saying it's not within the GM's rights, I'm just saying it's not a tactic I would ever recommend.

In the case of players who are decent human beings, refusing to discuss preferences hurts the group's ability to make informed decisions. About the only thing it adds is time-saving (or perhaps it bolsters the GM's pride), but I find that to be an unfortunate lost opportunity to communicate.

In the case of players who are as stiff-necked and selfish as you describe (but thankfully, not as common in my experience as you describe), I would instead recommend the tactic of finding other, more reasonable players. I find it leads to better gaming overall.

And I don't by default think that players are stiff-necked and selfish. It's just not been my experience that the majority of them are that way. Of course, I'm counting those players who started out a bit more stiff-necked but became more open-minded once they actually started engaging in dialogues about the game outside the game as "less stiff-necked." And, of course, as part of the reason I stick by "communication is good."

 

[Hussar]

What is all the fuss about? "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting something. There does not need to be any underlying logic to support something as arbitrary as a preference.

We like and dislike things for a variety of reasons not all of which can be expressed in a laundry list of logical data.

A DM is always free to exclude something from the campaign as long as this information is shared before play begins. Players are likewise free to turn down such a game if what it excludes would ruin their good time. At that point we have a DM without players and players without a game. If everyone involved would like a game then a reasonable compromise needs to be reached.

When all is said and done playing these games is not a job. We play to have fun. No one should feel pressured into either running or playing a game in which that fun would be diminished.

I guess that's where my problem lies. The DM is holding the game hostage for his preferences. You can either accept what he wants or leave, there's no compromise there. And, some people here are loudly decrying even the attempt at compromise.

I honestly think that's massively abusing the priveleges of being a DM. "Do what I want or get out" is not exactly the most mature method of dealing with a disagreement.

Again, I'm not assuming that either the DM or the player are being jerks here. Both honestly believe what they are saying. Both have the best interests of the game in mind as well.

I just hate the idea of passing down the commandments from on high and my response to any criticism is, "Well, there's the door if you don't like it."

 

[Raven Crowking]

I guess that's where my problem lies. The DM is holding the game hostage for his preferences. You can either accept what he wants or leave, there's no compromise there. And, some people here are loudly decrying even the attempt at compromise.

I honestly think that's massively abusing the priveleges of being a DM. "Do what I want or get out" is not exactly the most mature method of dealing with a disagreement.

Again, I'm not assuming that either the DM or the player are being jerks here. Both honestly believe what they are saying. Both have the best interests of the game in mind as well.

I just hate the idea of passing down the commandments from on high and my response to any criticism is, "Well, there's the door if you don't like it."

Strawman.

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are). You are seeking to get your own way.

People can (and do) dress that up six ways to Sunday, but in the end, it is what it is, and no rationalization changes it to something different.


RC

 

[Sorrowdusk]

Strawman.

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are). You are seeking to get your own way.

People can (and do) dress that up six ways to Sunday, but in the end, it is what it is, and no rationalization changes it to something different.


RC

If they dont want to/wont discuss it, arent they getting their own way, by simply avoiding any discussion at all? It depends on what "pressing" the issue is. Did they give reasons, and then the players seek to debate ad nauseum, or were they given any reasons, was their any discussion at all. If they simply say "I just dont like it" that compromising either, that just shuts everything down.

 

[billd91]

Friends can do other things than game.

That can really depend on circumstances. If my life is pretty busy with work and kids, I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to game. If I want to spend time with these friends, it may have to be around the gaming table for that night. Considering campaigns may last for years, the cost for walking can be very high. It's one of the reasons I'm still playing 4e, a game I don't like very much but other players are having some fun experimenting with. I could walk away from the game, but I'd rather spend the time with my friends. Fortunately, the DM is flexible enough that he's allowing us a lot of latitude in trying things out. Too many other constraints on top of playing 4e and I'd be pretty disappointed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess that's where my problem lies. The DM is holding the game hostage for his preferences. You can either accept what he wants or leave, there's no compromise there. And, some people here are loudly decrying even the attempt at compromise.

I honestly think that's massively abusing the priveleges of being a DM. "Do what I want or get out" is not exactly the most mature method of dealing with a disagreement.

Again, I'm not assuming that either the DM or the player are being jerks here. Both honestly believe what they are saying. Both have the best interests of the game in mind as well.

I just hate the idea of passing down the commandments from on high and my response to any criticism is, "Well, there's the door if you don't like it."

There is no hostage taking here unless players allow it. If the players do not want the game the DM is offering then they are not forced to play in it.

"The door" is powerful tool for players as well. Without them the high and mighty DM doesn't have much to lord over. If a player really can't stand to be in a game without X then why not offer to run such a game?

In my experience the players who complain the loudest about any omissions of official material from a campaign are those who never want to run anything except amok in someone else's game.

If you are not willing to put on the DM hat and show the gang how things are run properly with what you want included then perhaps being so nitpicky about the preferences of the DM isn't such a great idea.

The only thing ever held hostage is a player by his/her own unwillingness to put up or shut up.

 

[Coldwyn]

Strawman.

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are). You are seeking to get your own way.

People can (and do) dress that up six ways to Sunday, but in the end, it is what it is, and no rationalization changes it to something different.


RC

So, it´s not ok for me to get things my own way so you get things your way?
Forcing a certain vision on how the world should be and interacted with it on the players is ok then, insofar as it really affects the players for a long time, possibly longer then you as gm spent on making up the setting? Nope, I don´t buy that.
And for the "You can always quit that game"-answer, that´s really the ultimate expression of my will over yours.

 

[shadzar]

Well, in the interest of brevity, this gives me a chance to sum up how I generally feel about the whole situation: I don't think that refusing to answer questions in any more depth is a particularly good tactic; I'm not saying it's not within the GM's rights, I'm just saying it's not a tactic I would ever recommend.

This is the crux of the matter. Some would say the GM doesn't have that right.

In a model world everyone would have time and such to talk about these things in depth all the time if it was something that allowed for discussion, but sadly finding time to game for many doesn't leave all that time. I doubt anyone in this thread is gaming while responding, or at least hope not. If you are put down the phone or laptop and return to your group and pay attention!

The majority of these questions come not to "stiff-necked" GMs, but when the time to play is and wastes other peoples time.

Just people learning to accept it is the GMs right, which you never really said wasn't, but now get where some are coming from with the discussion, is one major obstacle.

Not so much as a right many times except for those things they don't like enough that would cause them to DM poorly, but a duty to make sure that the DM is able to run a coherent game that is fun for all.