• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer
Yeah, this is the heart of the problem. There is a huge difference between:

1. "Why did you take out X. I'm really curious, because this affects my understanding of the campaign world, how I make my character, etc," versus ...

2. "Why did you take out X. Explain yourself!"
Yeah, tone and attitude make the difference. A candid but polite "I don't like it. I'd let you play it, but I know I'd subconsciously favor the other characters over yours" is acceptable, while an emotional "X is stupid, so I don't like it' is a big fat red flag.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Raven Crowking

First Post
Tone and attitude make a big difference on either side.

It's one thing if the tone and attitude of the player comes across as polite and curious, and another if it comes across as rude and demanding. No one has a right to know what is happening in another person's head. Obviously, there are often good reasons to share, but the decision always resides with the person sharing.

(Whether or not you want to hang out/play games with a person may, obviously, be affected by the decisions they make!)

Or maybe it's just that I'm old enough to remember when a concept of person privacy wasn't unusual at all......?


RC
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
Again, even if this conversation doesn't lead to the inclusion of Kobolds in the campaign (which I think is entirely up to the GM), you've shown the player some consideration AND you've each gained a greater understanding of the other's thought process. I believe that can only be to the benefit of the game going forward.

Assuming, up front, good faith (and resulting reasonable courtesy) on both parts, then yes.

I think the only part where I really disagree with anything you've said in this topic is that I get the impression that you think we ought to so assume, even when the other person is firing off all kinds of signals that indicate that good faith is probably not present.
 

Rel

Liquid Awesome
Assuming, up front, good faith (and resulting reasonable courtesy) on both parts, then yes.

I think the only part where I really disagree with anything you've said in this topic is that I get the impression that you think we ought to so assume, even when the other person is firing off all kinds of signals that indicate that good faith is probably not present.

I'll admit that I'm a big believer in giving the benefit of the doubt.

If I were kicking off a campaign and a player approached me about something I excluded, with a clear tone that was angry and demanding, I'd probably still give them an answer beyond "I don't like it." But I would also say that my "Bad Player Threshold" would probably be a lot closer to 2 questions than to 20.

I'm speaking mostly from a hypothetical basis because I tend to be very good at selecting players who are not jerks. And I'm also pretty good at dealing with jerks when they crop up unexpectedly. I find that quickly making them understand that their behavior is not acceptable and they are on a short path to being excluded from the game tends to make them shape up.
 

Cyronax

Explorer
Tone and attitude make a big difference on either side.

It's one thing if the tone and attitude of the player comes across as polite and curious, and another if it comes across as rude and demanding. No one has a right to know what is happening in another person's head. Obviously, there are often good reasons to share, but the decision always resides with the person sharing.

(Whether or not you want to hang out/play games with a person may, obviously, be affected by the decisions they make!)

Or maybe it's just that I'm old enough to remember when a concept of person privacy wasn't unusual at all......?


RC


Yes precisely RC. Well said as usual.


C.I.D.
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
I'll admit that I'm a big believer in giving the benefit of the doubt.

If I were kicking off a campaign and a player approached me about something I excluded, with a clear tone that was angry and demanding, I'd probably still give them an answer beyond "I don't like it." But I would also say that my "Bad Player Threshold" would probably be a lot closer to 2 questions than to 20.

I'm speaking mostly from a hypothetical basis because I tend to be very good at selecting players who are not jerks. And I'm also pretty good at dealing with jerks when they crop up unexpectedly. I find that quickly making them understand that their behavior is not acceptable and they are on a short path to being excluded from the game tends to make them shape up.

Gotcha. That's where we are different. I'm also good at selecting players who are not jerks. I'm not at all good at dealing with jerks. Well, I come out ok, in that I know that with my personality, I'm merely going to make them madder if I try to deal with them. So I don't, and then I move on without worrying about it. But they don't get anything particularly useful out of the exchange. I deal with jerks by ... refusing to deal with them. :heh:
 

Rel

Liquid Awesome
Gotcha. That's where we are different. I'm also good at selecting players who are not jerks. I'm not at all good at dealing with jerks. Well, I come out ok, in that I know that with my personality, I'm merely going to make them madder if I try to deal with them. So I don't, and then I move on without worrying about it. But they don't get anything particularly useful out of the exchange. I deal with jerks by ... refusing to deal with them. :heh:

I should probably be more clear that I have only ever dealt with jerks at one-shot games at Cons or the game store and even then only very rarely. I of course would exclude any jerks from an ongoing game.

One thing I've found is that some jerks can be dealt with by harnessing their jerk powers for the forces of Good.

There was this one guy who used to come to the NC Game Days and always wanted to play in my games (hey, who can blame him? I run fun games!). His problem was that he was into gaming for the big explosions. The bigger the explosion and the more of them there were, the happier he was. He would frequently attempt to hijack the scene and try to guide it toward a big explosion.

My way of dealing with him was to quickly shut him down if he tried to hijack a non-explosion-focused scene for the purposes of exploding it. But then I'd let him run wild in an explosion frenzy when such scenes were appropriate. Meanwhile, everybody else at the table could basically try and come up with ways to let this guy get himself killed. They got the visceral joy of maneuvering the explosion guy into getting himself killed and he certainly brought some energy to the scenes where there was the blowing up of stuff.

I will note that other groups were less generous with this guy. I heard one story of a game where they were about to enter a room with a Vampire and the plan was for everybody to hold their action until the Cleric got a chance to do some anti-Vampire thing (turn undead or throw holy water or something like that). The Explosion Guy won initiative and charged into the room. On the Cleric's turn he shut the door behind Explosion Guy's character and the entire rest of the party calmly waited outside while Explosion Guy's character was very quickly killed by the Vampire. Then, after the screams had died out, the party entered the room, executed their original plan, and defeated the Vampire.

Explosion Guy kept asking, "Can I come back as an undead?"

GM said, "Nope."


I'm a little fuzzy as to whether the Explosion Guy asked, "Why not?" GM would probably have said, "I don't like you." ;)
 

Raven Crowking

First Post
My view is also probably coloured by the fact that, in over 30 years of gaming, I have never seen a good result come from pushing a GM after he had firmly said No, but I have seen good as a result of the GM deciding that the conversation was over.

YMMV, and certainly will, if your experiences are different.


RC
 

Zhaleskra

Adventurer
Yeah, tone and attitude make the difference. A candid but polite "I don't like it. I'd let you play it, but I know I'd subconsciously favor the other characters over yours" is acceptable, while an emotional "X is stupid, so I don't like it' is a big fat red flag.

My version would be "sure I could let you have stuff made out of adamantium, but I know in my gut I'd feel the same way about your character as I do about people who's favorite X-man is Wolverine, which is not a favorable opinion."
 

Aeolius

Adventurer
My version would be "sure I could let you have stuff made out of adamantium, but I know in my gut I'd feel the same way about your character as I do about people who's favorite X-man is Wolverine, which is not a favorable opinion."

Perhaps Wolverine was not the inspiration:
600full-adam-ant.jpg
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top