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

[pemerton]

1: The DM is always right.
2: When the DM is wrong, see Rule 1.

I would regard these rules as true of a con game, or something similar like a game with strangers at a club/store.

But in a long-running campaign I think the GM can be expected to listen to and respond to the players. I routinely take advice from my players before making a difficult ruling, for example.

 

[The Shaman]

IME when it gets to, "No, here, let me show you a reference for how wrong you are," you've probably blown it already.

Some dms are amenable to this sort of thing, but I would not count on it, ESPECIALLY if you argue about it during the session.

I've broached stuff like this with a couple of referees over the years, and in my experience taking a minute to chat during a break or a phone call (not email) between game-nights works best.

I think referees should be amenable to discussing stuff and should make a point of creating opportunities to do so, but it may be a short conversation. As RC pointed out, a rationalization need not be rational. My dislike of kobolds is wholly irrational, and I recognize it as such, but the fact that it's irrational doesn't make it something I should be expected to discard; you can't convince me to like kobolds any more than you can convince me to like Hostess Snowballs.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose, like most things, there are no hard and fast rules here. For example, I'd probably, based on the description, not be a player very long in Shadzar's campaigns. That style of Dming does not appeal to me anymore and I have no interest in that style of game anymore. But, hey, to each his own.

OTOH,

IME when it gets to, "No, here, let me show you a reference for how wrong you are," you've probably blown it already.

Some dms are amenable to this sort of thing, but I would not count on it, ESPECIALLY if you argue about it during the session.

This gets sticky. I make rules mistakes all the time, but, I'm perfectly ammenable to being corrected. I actually encourage my players to know the rules so I can ask them questions. Fortunately, this works in my group. But, I've seen this go south really, really fast. Some DM's get really bent out of shape when you hold up a rule book and say, "No, that thing you just said is in the rules? It's not there."

I've never quite understood that approach myself. If I'm not using the rules right and you can show me where I went wrong, I appreciate it because it makes me a better DM for actually understanding the rules. But, I do realize that some DM's really don't roll that way.

 

[Rel]

I think referees should be amenable to discussing stuff and should make a point of creating opportunities to do so, but it may be a short conversation. As RC pointed out, a rationalization need not be rational. My dislike of kobolds is wholly irrational, and I recognize it as such, but the fact that it's irrational doesn't make it something I should be expected to discard; you can't convince me to like kobolds any more than you can convince me to like Hostess Snowballs.

Bad analogy. Hostess Snowballs are objectively nasty and are proof of the fact that "The Hostess" is in fact Cthulhu.

(kidding)

I don't think that a player has a right to talk you out of your preferences or even attempt to do so. What I think is just smart GMing is to have a conversation where you try and explain as best you can why you are excluding them (which may simply be "I have an irrational dislike of Kobolds and nothing will change that.") AND try to understand what the player likes about the thing you're excluding. That last part is key because you may have a perfectly good substitute for whatever they are interested in. On rare occasions you might decide to make an exception for something because it'll add something cool to the game that you hadn't otherwise envisioned.

When I was cranking up my 4e campaign a couple years ago, I said to the players, "The 'Old Gods' listed in the Players Handbook used to exist but they vanished as part of the huge cataclysm that nearly destroyed the world and they've been replaced by more local, small scale deities." My wife was playing a cleric and she'd been considering worshiping Melora, the goddess of Nature. She asked me if I'd make an exception for that or if she had to pick another deity to worship.

After a bit of thought I said to myself, "Actually this might be an opportunity to add something cool to the campaign." I agreed to let her worship Melora and it ended up being one of the cornerstone issues that made the whole campaign the best I'd ever run. The populace of the campaign thought she was insane to worship one of "the dead gods". She fought an uphill battle to gain followers. Hers was a journey of pure faith because, at the beginning, she was literally the only person in the world who believed in her goddess. Allowing that exception paid huge dividends and I'm really glad that I changed my mind and let it happen.

By the same token, imagine that you had a player who wanted to play a Kobold as a PC. Your initial reaction might be, "I don't like Kobolds and I don't include them in my campaigns." Now perhaps after some discussion it turns out that the player wants to play a small, traditionally evil race but as a good guy and you both agree that a Goblin would serve just as well for that purpose.

But what if you did let them play a Kobold? It seems like it would pose all sorts of interesting questions that could be central to the campaign as it unfolds. If he's the only known Kobold in the world then he's going to be regarded as a stranger and maybe enemy by most he encounters. How did he get here? Was he a creation of the gods? Did he cross over from another plane? Is he the start of an invasion? Does he remember growing up among Kobolds or does he have amnesia about his origins? Just seems like it could make for some interesting elements to a campaign.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Rel,

I guess that depends upon whether you think it is okay to allow Bob to play X, but not Sue. Or, I guess, in your case, whether you allow your wife to play a cleric of a dead god, but no one else. Because, if everyone wanted to do it, it would cease to be special.

It can also be a case where, because X is unusual/unique in the campaign world, a lot of attention gets paid to X. Which might, in the hands of many a GM, cause problems among the players themselves.

You can walk along the top of that slope -- you may even make it shine -- but it is a slippery slope nonetheless, and I would hesitate to advise people to walk along it in general.

YMMV, of course.


RC

 

[Rel]

Rel,

I guess that depends upon whether you think it is okay to allow Bob to play X, but not Sue. Or, I guess, in your case, whether you allow your wife to play a cleric of a dead god, but no one else. Because, if everyone wanted to do it, it would cease to be special.

You are correct and I agree that the slope gets slippery. Just to be clear, this wasn't any favoritism being shown to my wife. She thinks I'm as big a rat bastard as anybody who's ever played in our group.

If everybody wanted to do it then it would stop being special. But luckily all the other players found cool and unique ways to be special that didn't involve that kind of exception.

Again, I'm not saying you have to allow it. I'm saying that it's worth considering. And it's especially worth the goodwill engendered in your players if they know that you considered it rather than discarding the idea out of hand.

 

[billd91]

Rel,

I guess that depends upon whether you think it is okay to allow Bob to play X, but not Sue. Or, I guess, in your case, whether you allow your wife to play a cleric of a dead god, but no one else. Because, if everyone wanted to do it, it would cease to be special.

It can also be a case where, because X is unusual/unique in the campaign world, a lot of attention gets paid to X. Which might, in the hands of many a GM, cause problems among the players themselves.

You can walk along the top of that slope -- you may even make it shine -- but it is a slippery slope nonetheless, and I would hesitate to advise people to walk along it in general.

I would adivse the opposite and offer a different assessment. You're never on a slippery slope for seriously considering a player's ideas for a campaign even if they run against your initial preconceptions and preferences as DM. Nor does accommodating some of them putting you on a slippery slope as long as you're honestly communicating with the players why their specific ideas may or may not be accepted into the game.

Sifting through player input is part of the DM's job, as I see it. As long as the DM is treating ideas fairly based on their individual merits and running a fair game in which each player get his chances to take the spotlight and has a good time, there should be no problem, no slippery slope.

 

[thedungeondelver]

"IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THAT THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NET, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN DOING SO AS THE REST OF US DO!" - E. Gary Gygax

-when in doubt, I usually go with that.

 

[The Shaman]

But what if you did let them play a Kobold? It seems like it would pose all sorts of interesting questions that could be central to the campaign as it unfolds. If he's the only known Kobold in the world then he's going to be regarded as a stranger and maybe enemy by most he encounters. How did he get here? Was he a creation of the gods? Did he cross over from another plane? Is he the start of an invasion? Does he remember growing up among Kobolds or does he have amnesia about his origins? Just seems like it could make for some interesting elements to a campaign.

Or it becomes a constant distraction as the game turns into one encounter after another of, "What the is that thing?!"

One man's interesting questions are another man's nails on a chalkboard.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I would regard these rules as true of a con game, or something similar like a game with strangers at a club/store.

But in a long-running campaign I think the GM can be expected to listen to and respond to the players. I routinely take advice from my players before making a difficult ruling, for example.

Apparently, I must spread some XP around before giving it to you again.