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

[Crazy Jerome]

Rel, if those outcomes were the only possible ones, your argument would be a lot more persuasive. In situations were those outcomes are the only highly probable ones, that argument is persuasive.

Part of the disconnect between various posters in this topic is different experiences and thus opinions as to nature of the situation in a given instance.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I'll dress it up like this: I find this assertion to be wholly incorrect based on my experience. On the few historical occasions where I've found myself pushing somebody for explanations it has been because I wanted to gain understanding to our mutual benefit. It has very possibly been because I felt that the only alternative to gaining that understanding was to end the relationship. And I felt that it was worth it, to both of us, to push them for answers rather than resort to "the door".

How is it "mutual benefit" when they've already either said "no" or theyre "not willing to talk about it"?

It's to YOUR benefit at that point not theirs.

DM: No divine casters in this game.

Me: Why?

DM: I dont want to discuss it. They just don't have a place in this particular game.

Me: Yeah, I get that. But why? [joking] Could you show me where on the doll the bad cleric touched you? [/joking]

DM: *fixing me with a gaze that would kill with NO SAVE if we were in game*
EXACTLY.

Me: *feeling like a complete heel* Oh. *slinks away*

Now that's an extreme example to be sure but not one outside of the realm of possibility. Now explain to me how pushing that was to my "mutual benefit". I got some more information, but now my DM thinks I'm an a-hole.

 

[Rel]

How is it "mutual benefit" when they've already either said "no" or theyre "not willing to talk about it"?

I didn't say that pushing for more of an answer would be to the mutual benefit of both parties. That's impossible to predict. I said that I wanted more understanding for our mutual benefit.

The conversation could go like this:

Player: I'm going to be a cleric.

GM: No divine casters in this game.

Player: Why?

GM: I don't want to go into a long explanation but it is commonly believed that the gods have abandoned the world. All divine spellcasting has ceased working.

Player: When did that happen in the course of the world history?

GM: About a year ago. Other than that it's a big mystery and I don't want to say anything more about it.

Player: Ok...so I think I'll still keep the same basic character concept that I was entering the clergy. But when the magic stopped working then I had a huge crisis of faith. My character feels personally betrayed that his god has abandoned him and is on an angry quest for why this happened.

GM: Ok that sounds like you've got a good reason to go adventuring then since you're seeking answers to this mystery that is central to the campaign.


I mean obviously (addressing Crazy Jerome's point) the exchange could have gone poorly. But I'm assuming that the GM and Player are both being friendly and both wanting a fun game. These are not, in my opinion, wild assumptions.

I will further point out that, were I the player in this scenario, I'd probably also be asking questions like, "Have you considered how the lack of healing magic might interact with the core assumptions of the combat system? What about the fact that no PC's will be able to be raised from the dead? Should we have concepts already in mind for back up characters if this game is going to be more deadly than normal?"

If the GM is not going to be willing to discuss some of this stuff then he's either prevailing a great deal on my trust and history with him or he's got me pretty worried about whether he is considering the implications of this rather significant change to the game world.

 

[Rel]

Now that's an extreme example to be sure but not one outside of the realm of possibility. Now explain to me how pushing that was to my "mutual benefit". I got some more information, but now my DM thinks I'm an a-hole.

Sorry but I forgot to address this part of the post directly.

If your GM thinks that you're an a-hole, it's probably because "Show me on the doll where the bad Cleric touched you." is kind of an a-hole thing to say to somebody you want to have a conversation with.

Nonetheless, if the underlying reasoning for the GM disallowing divine magic from the game is that, "The clergy is evil and bad. Religion is bad. I think that any world is better off without it. And I'm going to use this campaign to show the players this fact." then...well holy crap that's probably going to be a game filled with tension and a whole lot of un-fun! Whether or not the GM thinks I'm an a-hole, I'm probably better off having learned this information and getting the hell out of there!

 

[Mallus]

I'll try to be brief...

My advice to players: respect the person running the campaign.

My advice to DM's: respect the people playing in the campaign and don't shut down their creative input unless you have a damn good reason. If you do have the aforementioned damn good reason, share it with them.

When you get right down to it, I see D&D primarily as a creative outlet. It's why I DM. It's why I'm an inveterate homebrewer. I like to make shi stuff up.

Why would I want to deny a player the chance to do the same?

What would the benefit of that be?

(one caveat: I'm assuming a traditional D&D kitchen-sink setting/campaign. If a DM is trying to run a tightly-themed game, set say in 17th century France or Middle Earth, then what I wrote is dramatically less applicable, though I would have to ask why someone would use D&D to run a campaign like that, which kinda flies in the face of most of D&D's default conventions/assumptions)

 

[catsclaw227]

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).

You have said this more than two or three times in this thread, yet I am not sure it's true. There are many posts where I could come away with the opposite understanding.

I have gotten the impression from a lot of posts that this exchange is perfectly acceptable:

DM: "I don't allow XX in this campaign."
Player: "Interesting, I am curious why, because I had a great character concept."
DM: "Because, I said so." [or] "I just don't like it."

[and if the player asks why they don't like it, they are whiny or are unacceptably pressing the DM]

While this maybe within the GM's right, I don't believe that it is an acceptable response in an environment where the table is trying to establish a social contract, one that should be about having the most fun for everyone.

If a DM has a campaign guide and character creation guidelines, that is better, but if a player has an idea about a class or race not listed in the accepted options, it's still OK for a player to ask about it.

Doing so does not assume that they are trying to get their way. They might be trying to discover an explanation, either in-game or meta, that will help them understand why. Not every player that asks why is antagonistic.

Another thing I think is getting lost is the difference between "questioning the DM" and "asking for an explanation or further clarification". The first might come across as challenging the DM's right to how they built their world. The second is merely seeking greater understanding as to the DM's thought process.

Again, in the first case, persistent questioning is NOT acceptable. But in the second case, better communication will almost always net a better result. The ultimate result being that both the player and DM is satisfied with the outcome of the discussion.

Why is it hard to understand that better communication is... well... just.... Better!

Asking a question is not browbeating the DM.

NOTE: I am a DM about 99% of the time. And it bugs me a 1000 ways to Sunday when a player is constantly pressing me to play a concept that doesn't make sense in the campaign world just because he thinks it givz awesum powerz. But if they are wondering why because they had a good idea in mind, then that's OK.

It's really not hard to distinguish the difference between the two.

 

[Barastrondo]

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

Which is why I say "don't play with people like that" is better advice to a GM than "call on your right to not have to explain yourself."

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!

We've got email. Phones, too. And admittedly, I like to game with people that I would (and do) hang around with when I'm not gaming with them. Again, I really value communication as the grease that keeps gaming cogs turning. If a game didn't allow for that -- if it were with people I wouldn't hang out with or give my email address to otherwise, or who have no interest talking to me outside of actual game night -- I would expect a number of problems to arise.

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.

Sure. In fact, I think we're both coming at this from similar angles: people not understanding a GM's rights is pretty related to my "communication makes things better" philosophy. From the start, my major point of disagreement is that although assuming that a GM must kowtow to the players' whims is bad, so too is assuming that players are incapable of understanding a GM's point of view. When they are, it's insulting to treat them as if they aren't. When they aren't, again, why play with them?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So...let me tell you what I think you're saying and you can tell me if I'm right:

You're saying that, "I don't like it." is inferior to almost any other answer one could give, but it's still acceptable.

Erm. Not exactly.

In most cases, "I don't like it." is inferior to almost any other answer one could give, but it's still acceptable. However, it is impossible from the outside to predict where the "not most cases" lie.

One of the first things a therapist will teach you (and EN World mods, for that matter) is to walk away when you're feeling heated, rather than saying something you might regret. If someone is annoying you by repeatedly questioning every setting decision, then, effectively, "I don't like it" is like walking away.

One of the first things that being a parent will teach you is that this is sometimes necessary. Because children can and will use "Why not?" as a sort of verbal weapon.

One of the things one learns as a GM is that some players will do the same thing.

As I noted upthread, by the time "because I don't like it" appears in the conversation, it is almost certain that either there is a bad (badgering) player involved or a bad GM. Someone who is actually curious about why you don't like something is far less likely to be annoying that someone who wants reasons to drive their own agenda.

Frankly, if the player was merely curious, I doubt this thread would exist. If the player is merely curious, and the GM is annoyed by that (respectfully addressed) curiosity, then perhaps being shown the door is actually a service to that player. Before he gets too involved with that GM.

There is also a time and place where "But why not?" is appropriate, and a time and a place where it is not. All things in their season.

If I'm understanding you correctly then I'd counter by saying the purpose of places like ENWorld (to my mind) are to let us exchange ideas that will make our games better. Therefore it is appropriate to respond to a thread such as this by askiing, "You could give that answer, but why would you since almost any other answer would be better?"

If you start with "You could give that answer", then the rest might actually help the poster, who has a question about player behaviour rather than his own.

I would also note that, to some degree, your question is answered in the OP. Being asked repeatedly to justify your design decisions/preferences can be annoying.

Methinks its the age-old trust issue all over again.

Do I, as gm, trust my players to respect my role and treat my creation as I intended it?
Do I, as player, trust my gm to have a clue what he´s intending with the rules and not just using his position to enforce his will on me.

Methinks you've nailed quite a bit of it here.

I would add, common courtesy need yet apply, and if the answer is No to these questions, either as GM or player.....run! You can find a better game. Or better no game at all.

IMHO. YMMV.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have gotten the impression from a lot of posts that this exchange is perfectly acceptable:

I obviously missed that/those post(s). Care to link?

In any event, I believe I covered that possibility.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5440960-post159.html

And, of course, most of the time, a good GM is willing to engage in negotiation and compromise. Again, a good GM is "good, giving, and game". That means that a good GM isn't going to say No without reason, even if he is unwilling to discuss that reason.

And a good player is also "good, giving, and game", and is therefore unlikely to press the issue if the GM feels strongly about it, unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so.

In fact, in over 30 years of gaming, I've never seen a good (good, giving, and game) GM point a good (good, giving, and game) player to the door. Nor have I seen a good player press a good GM when the answer was No, even if the GM didn't want to discuss reasons at that time.

No, IME and IMHO, we are far into the realms where we are discussing either a bad GM, a bad player, or both.

And, IME and IMHO, no game is better than a bad game. Which actually does make the door the ideal solution, as far as I am concerned. Regardless of which is the bad egg, getting out of the situation is the best result one can hope for.​

 

[catsclaw227]

I obviously missed that/those post(s). Care to link?

Seriously? I am not going to go back and search through 12 pages of posts... And I said I got the impression. That's why I didn't go back and line up a series of quotes of anyone.

In any event, I believe I covered that possibility.

I am not saying that YOU agree with no communication. In fact, you have a few posts here where you encourage discussion between player and DM.

I simply stated that there are other posts that seem to imply that it is acceptable, in the context of a group game, for a DM to take the attitude of "my way or the highway" without any communication as to why.

Otherwise, why would so many other posts from respected EnWorld members get the same impression I had gotten, and responded with "more communication is generally better than none".

One of the first things that being a parent will teach you is that this is sometimes necessary. Because children can and will use "Why not?" as a sort of verbal weapon.

Well, this is why I don't play with gamers that use "Why not?" as a verbal weapon. I've seen it and not put up with it. But this is how these people often are in many other aspects of their life...

But just because when someone asks "Why not?" it doesn't mean that it's a tool to be used as a verbal weapon. Most of the time, it's a simple, innocent, question.