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

[Cyronax]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say Raven Crowking has said.

Everyone is allowed to attempt to seek the gaming experience that they want. GMs, players, everyone.

A GM is allowed to propose any game he likes, and, if he can find players willing to follow the proposition, to run it.

A player is allowed to propose any PC he likes, and, if he can find a GM willing to follow the proposition, to run it.

But "No Means No" is an absolute barrier in this case, beyond which none should cross. Both sides have an absolute right to determine what gaming they are willing to offer, and what gaming they are willing to accept.

If you want to run campaign X, you are right to propose it, and right to run it if you can get players.

If Bob doesn't want to play in campaign X, he is right to not do so. Even if Bob is your friend.

If Bob wants to play in campaign Y, he is right to propose it, and right to play in it if he can get a GM to run it.

If you don't want to run campaign Y, you are right not to do so. Even if Bob is your friend.

It is absolutely wrong, in this circumstance, for Bob to try to force you to run campaign Y, or for you to try to force Bob to play in campaign X. Sometimes it is better not to play at all.

It is okay for Bob to ask you why you are not interested in campaign Y; it is not okay if his motive is to find a way to force you to do so. Such as, for example, by wearing down your resistance with multiple questions, until you just get so tired that you give in.

I hope that position is clear.



Good, because I am ready to talk about Warforged Ninja now.

In the thread where this arose, I (and others) explained in painstaking detail why (1) a warforged ninja did not fit the setting, (2) how a warforged ninja in the setting would automatically steal focus and attention from the other PCs (which we didn't think fair to those players), and (3) how allowing a warforged ninja would open the door to other character concepts that could have these same problems.

There are those in this thread who say they simply want to know the reasons. Well, in this case, the reasons were given. Multiple times. And, still, the warforged ninja has been unable to go to his well-deserved rest without still being argued about as an example where the DM should bend.

And we are not even talking about a real game.

If you really want to understand why sometimes a GM will simply say No, and will assume that -- regardless of what the player says -- there is more involved than simply knowing the reasons, you need look no further.

Finally, as should be relatively obvious, if there are 1,000 elements that can be used to throw together a campaign, different groups of those elements can create novelty that will last far longer than any human lifetime.

OTOH, if every campaign must use all those elements, you have only a single set. Eventually, everything seems to look a lot like everything else.

Me, I'd rather game in a world with some form of cohesive vision, from either side of the screen. I've never seen a kitchen sink (even with a good GM) that came close to the cohesive vision a more judicious pruning can create (even with an average GM). YMMV.

(I find a cohesive setting with a good GM even better, and a great GM can make anything work....But, Hussar's poll, mentioned upthread, would tend to indicate that most GMs are not great.)


RC

Yes precisely Raven Crowking. Good points all of them.

I agree with you that not everyone should allowed to attempt to seek the gaming experience that they want. GMs, players, everyone should have some denial of their basic interests in order to further the needs of the game as a whole.

A GM often required to propose a self-limiting game he may not like in order to find a certain calibre of players. Just like you said.

A player is allowed to propose any PC he likes, but sometimes they have to rein in their most base desires -- in your case it seems PC backgrounds involving certain unsavory activities.

But does "No mean yes" as you have said earlier in the thread? Or is it "No means no"? Is it an absolute barrier in this case, beyond which none should cross? In this case I really must disagree with you. But moving on to another point.

What If Gerald wants to play in campaign A, but he can't find a DM? So he tries campaign H instead because he is able to find a stable group.

And yes I agree with you: it is absolutely not wrong, in this circumstance, for Gerald to try to force some elements of campaign A into ths campaign H. Or maybe campaign B as well. Its all about being creative and being true to your inner compass.

Is that more clear when I fully explain it Raven Crowking?

C.I.D.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Jerome, but it is possible for that segregation to come so early, that some things of the view outside of it are missed, correct?

It isn't that gamers can't choose who to game with, but in discusions like these, a missing view ay just make the image a little less focused on what others are speaking of. Blurred if you will.

Sure, but now you are walking right on the edge of the very line we've been discussing. IMHO. I mean, if someone wants to know why we self-segregate, why can't, "I just feel like it," be a good enough answer?

Some busybody is always trying to broaden our horizens for us. Some of it is useful and can be taken as such. Push me out of my comfort zone, make me go to the party even though I'm not very social, because you knew that I'd like a few of the people there. If I feel up to it, cool. OTOH, if its some generalized "people should get out and do things to broaden their horizens" and not really taking me (the actual, real me) into account, then it is actually this guy doing the very thing that he accuses me of. I always want to say, "So if generally broadening one's horizens is good, and you spend all your time going to social events to meet people, why don't you broaden your horizens and come hang out with a homebody for an evening?" I don't say it, because when it is true, the other guy would never understand the point.

And it is rude. Never underestimate the ability of attempted politeness to completely torpedo understanding.

I don't like turnip greens or chicken liver. I can only handle so much spice in my foods. I grew up in the south, were it was not uncommon to get invited to a meal where you had cornbread, liver, and turnip greens--with super hot pepper sauce to make the greens taste "good" and to obscure the taste of the liver for the half of the table that also didn't like it. Especially in the '70s, when meat was expensive.

I don't like it, but I can eat it--to get some nutrition, such as it is, and be polite. "Eat what is set in front of you and don't complain," that was the injunction. If you served it to me now, you'd never even know that I don't like them. (After getting to know me, I'd eventually tell you, if you kept serving it.) So we go along like this, and everything is acceptable, if not roses.

Then you try to serve me yellow squash. The last time I ate it, I was ten. I turned green and threw up all over the table. This convinced my otherwise "food strict" parents that perhaps squash was an exception. You serve it to me now. You tell me a polite way to handle this:

You: I noticed you missed the squash.
Me: No thanks, it isn't my favorite (notice the waffling).
You: (jocular) You really need a yellow vegetable.
Me: That's true, but I don't like it much (stronger but still waffling).
You: Why?
Me: Just can't handle the flavor for some reason (being vague).
You: Is it the texture?
Me: (Curbing my temper) No, I was made to eat it for two years as a child, and it was very much the flavor. I like Zuchinni just fine. (notice more explanation given, as we are now starting to actually argue about it, it taking two to argue).
You: Maybe your tastes have changed, here try some more (shoves it in my face).
Me: (Goes off into a "You can't handle the truth!" style rant that makes Nicholson look tame, with graphic details of the throw-up incident, that turns everyone at the table pale and ruins the meal completely.)
You: (hurt) Gee, I was only asking a question.

Take out squash and replace it with another vegetable I don't much like, and nothing bad happens. This doesn't change the fact that if you dick around with me about squash, and refuse to back down, it is going to end badly.

Sometimes when someone doesn't want to give you a reason, they can see the trajectory of the conversation, and they'd really rather not go there. Just because they were ok with the same conversation about elves, clerics, vorpal swords, green dragon breath, and minotaur rogues--it doesn't follow that you really want an explanation for their views on Dark Sun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

First you ruin literatue NOW Wembly Fraggle? What is wrong with you man!

Next up.....Linda Carter as Wonder Woman.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is that more clear when I fully explain it Raven Crowking?

I am not sure if you are trying to be funny, or if you are trying to break The Rules? Should I be laughing or calling a moderator?

EDIT: You know what? I'm going to give you "best possible reading" and assume that you just have a strange sense of humour. Not exactly a rarity among gamers, and no harm done.

RC

 

[shadzar]

Nope sorry Linda will not be the new Wonder Woman on NBC....

Sure, but now you are walking right on the edge of the very line we've been discussing. IMHO. I mean, if someone wants to know why we self-segregate, why can't, "I just feel like it," be a good enough answer?

Edge? I thought I was staying fully in the circle of what we are talking about. I don't care why others segregate themselves, just noting that some may have forgot they have, and may be missing the view from the other side of the fence by not walking around it to see what is there.

I don't care and don't mind if they do, but in the interest of understanding what others se, some may just need to experience it, since the words on the screen aren't providing enough weight to that side of the argument that says, those people outside of their direct circle of influence exist. IE: the blinders.

So segregate all you want, don't play games with people you don't like or with people you don't like, but you should at least take the opportunity to see them so you might be able to understand them when they come up in topics of discussion.

See what I mean?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION], I wasn't saying you were off-topic. You are squarely on the topic. I was saying that you were pushing right up to the edge of pushing catsclaw for an explanation the same way the OP was feeling pushed for an explanation.

"Just peak over this fence and see the other side" for a few minutes is fine most of the time. However, when it isn't fine, it isn't ok at all.

Not that I should necessarily be casting stones, since I was going right up to the same edge discussing why some creative types don't typically understand what drives other creative types. However, I like to think the line is drawn at pointing out the fence, versus "pushing" people to look over it. The fence is there, whether they want to look over it or not. The initial "self-segregating" post sounded a lot like, "you ought to be looking over the fence," to me. That's all.

 

[shadzar]

shadzar, I wasn't saying you were off-topic. You are squarely on the topic. I was saying that you were pushing right up to the edge of pushing catsclaw for an explanation the same way the OP was feeling pushed for an explanation.

"Just peak over this fence and see the other side" for a few minutes is fine most of the time. However, when it isn't fine, it isn't ok at all.

Not that I should necessarily be casting stones, since I was going right up to the same edge discussing why some creative types don't typically understand what drives other creative types. However, I like to think the line is drawn at pointing out the fence, versus "pushing" people to look over it. The fence is there, whether they want to look over it or not. The initial "self-segregating" post sounded a lot like, "you ought to be looking over the fence," to me. That's all.

Wasn't taking it as accusatory. Not ought to look, but HEY LOOK OUT FOR THE FENCE!, cause some may not have seen it int he first place.

I think [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] sums it up pretty good in a way, in another thread...

I've tried the FLGS route. It doesn't work. What you find is that you end up attracting the gamers that have been kicked out of every gaming group that they've ever been in.

I am still trying to find, if there is, a better word for self-segregating...but can't think of one.

 

[catsclaw227]

Then you try to serve me yellow squash. The last time I ate it, I was ten. I turned green and threw up all over the table. This convinced my otherwise "food strict" parents that perhaps squash was an exception. You serve it to me now. You tell me a polite way to handle this:

You: I noticed you missed the squash.
Me: No thanks, it isn't my favorite (notice the waffling).
You: (jocular) You really need a yellow vegetable.
Me: That's true, but I don't like it much (stronger but still waffling).
You: Why?
Me: Just can't handle the flavor for some reason (being vague).
You: Is it the texture?
Me: (Curbing my temper) No, I was made to eat it for two years as a child, and it was very much the flavor. I like Zuchinni just fine. (notice more explanation given, as we are now starting to actually argue about it, it taking two to argue).
You: Maybe your tastes have changed, here try some more (shoves it in my face).
Me: (Goes off into a "You can't handle the truth!" style rant that makes Nicholson look tame, with graphic details of the throw-up incident, that turns everyone at the table pale and ruins the meal completely.)
You: (hurt) Gee, I was only asking a question.

OK -- as an example to emphasize gametable...

Replacing "You/player" and "Me/DM" and about the third or fourth "You" and you're getting into "d-bag player" territory. I agree with Rel's scale. But the variances may fluctuate depending upon how quickly the player's "asking questions" starts becoming "trying to convince me". And at what antagonistic level.

I can go cold-hearted DM in two questions, but if the discourse is good there's nothing to lose in having a discussion about your game world. It might be productive. (without allowing it to escape into metagame info that the players and PCs shouldn't know.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I want to share 2 real life examples...


1) Ken...and the paliden

I got into a 2e game mid run (around 3 or 4th level) and asked if I could play a paliden... (mind you I did not know the DM, only 2 of the players) he said no, so i asked why...and got "Becuse I said so". I almost walked, but I played for 2 or 3 levels as a fighter (archer). During that time another player (my best friend) told me the reson the DM disallows palidens was becuse he read a book once that had each god having only 1 paliden, and that was more of an avatar. when my archer got pasted by a whight level draining... so I asked if I could play a 'lesser holy warrior' and just use the paliden rules...

he said no again, so I droped it. but a little over a year later both that gm, and I played in a game...and guess what he played... a paliden of Azuth.

he finaly told me he had no problem with palidens, he just likes to denie each player atleast 1 thing every now and again to prove who is in charge...


2) me and the mutants and masterminds

I had a sheild like org in my superhero game. It was supose to be an 'anti viglanti' task force that was very much int eh grey side. They never went after heroes that were good guys, except half heartedly when already having the villian in prision.
However they showed up like clock work in almost every super fight...way sooner they would be expected.

I had all my players ask me how it was possible and I told them all the same thing "you have to find out in game" One player quite becuse I would not answer them...

well just 3-4 games after that player left was a time travel set of games...and they found out, when they where forced into setting up an elabrate plan to stop an invasion comeing in there own time...and they did exactly what I had hoped and set up a covert group that would become my sheild... and when they set it up, they uploaded all the logs of there tech hero...then went back in to there time... and it was 2 games after that before they relized they themselves gave them the info to intcept every fight...




sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't

 

[Zhaleskra]

Zhaleskra, could you clarify your question please?

Why does "I don't allow X, for reason Y, break the deal?" Basically, why is it so important that the game include all the published elements?

As for the capture scenario, it gives the players the chance to go down fighting or just do as the module says. I'd also remind them to think about horror movie tropes.