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

[Rel]

I'm too lazy to go back and look up the exact statements, but there were a series of posts where you indicated what appeared to me to be far more willingness than I possess to tolerate agenda setting and other such behavior--under the guise of asking "Why?"--in order to teach the player that such things wouldn't fly.

I'm not interested in teaching them that it won't fly (barring them being very young or otherwise having a good excuse for not having already learned it). I'm not interested in them being in the room with me.

If that's the impression I gave then I'm afraid that I've been doing a very poor job of communicating (especially for somebody who keeps ringing the communication bell in this thread).

My assumption throughout this thread and in life is that, when somebody asks me, "Why?" they are communicating in good faith. They are asking the question because they desire to learn the answer for greater mutual understanding. Because I try to game with people whom I like, I literally cannot recall a person having asked me that question in bad faith, as a means to try and somehow browbeat me into changing my position.

If that were the approach they took then I believe I'd identify it very quickly and would have very little patience with them at that point. Nonetheless (and sort of bringing this thread full circle) I would take the time at least once to explain whatever reasons I had for banning something and listen to their reasons for desiring it. By so doing I've done myself the favor of getting rid of any niggling doubts I might have later that I dealt with them too abruptly.

In other words, being friendly and considerate, even when those benefits are not returned, I have sort of taken the moral high ground and can feel fine about saying, "No" or maybe "Please leave" or something more...direct. It doesn't mean I'm a doormat.

I'll also say that I steal ideas from the players all the time in play. Sometimes while brainstorming amongst themselves they will toss out some theory and I'll say to myself, "Holy crap! That's WAY cooler than what I thought of! I'm stealing that..." I'd feel silly not doing the same thing during the world design phase of the process so if I player has an idea that I hadn't considered then you can bet I'll listen. It'll probably only take a couple minutes and it may generate TONS of ideas that I can use.

I'm lazy like that.

 

[Hussar]

AFTER games, only one person has shown interest in continuing as a group/joining the group of what I am willing to run/play in.

Others will return for one shots of varying types of games had or different ideas, but only one interested thus far for making a group to have a continuous game.

Again, not flinging poop here, but, if after a series of games, only one player is willing to play with you on an ongoing basis, perhaps a change of venue is in order. It could just be that you had a string of bad luck with players, that's entirely possible. Or, it could be that there might be other issues. Willingness to spend a bit of time on self-examination is generally what makes someone a better DM.

Now, as far as building the campaign first, as The Shaman suggests, and then finding players, that's certainly one approach. It depends on how large of a pool of players you can draw on. When I was in high school, this would not have been an option, since our group was the only group in town. (Grew up in rural Canada)

If you have a large base of gamers to draw from - either you live in a larger center or you run online games - then that works fine. However, I think most people play with the same people most of the time. Look at the current "How Old is you Group" thread and the majority there have groups that are over 5 years old. ((I'm wondering if there is some serious selection bias going on, but that's another issue)) That means that there are a lot of people out there who game with the same (or at least similar) bunch of people for lengthy periods of time.

Which, in turn, means that creating the campaign first and then finding players might not be feasible for some people. I think, and this is just my personal opinion, that it generally goes the other way - build the campaign for the group of players you have right now, rather than go hunt new players every campaign.

 

[shadzar]

Its the large number of games that exist to be played. Mostly board game players wanting to play something different each week. They have a few games run that aren't baord games per month. That way they don't get tired on any one game.

Different areas have different hobby focuses. RPGs aren't, and never were, the only "game" in town.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Anthropomorphic animals are furries, including but not limited too:
Cowardly Lion form Wizard of Oz
Na'vi form Avatar
Wolfman in the corner of the Cantina in Star Wars

Animals that walk erect on two legs like a person, but have most of the features of the animal. However they can keep all features such as a female cat furry may have two nipples like a human, or six like a cat.

While the literal definition of "anthropomorphic" is "human shaped", a furry's character is considered anthropomorphic if it has "human like intelligence" and can speak. I'd say more but this isn't really the place. Cryonax, send me a message if you'd like to know more.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are aware that you are just feeding a troll, I trust?

 

[Zhaleskra]

Taking a risk, yes.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know Shadzar, I was cogitating your situation and here's my 2 cp, for what it's worth.

From the situation you outline, you have a group of people that you can draw upon for gaming. Great. However, they seem to be less than enthusiastic about the idea of long term gaming. They're board gamers, by and large, and not hard core RPG gamers. So, again, look at what you're saying from their perspective:

You're asking them to commit to a fair bit of time, months, perhaps longer, to a single game and, above that, you're drawing hard limits around what they can and cannot play. From their perspective, you've just said, "Let's play Axis and Allies for the next six months, but no one can be Germany." After all, they open the books and the books say they can play X. When they ask you why they can't play X, your answer is, "I don't like X".

Now, I know that's not what you're really saying. That's a gross misrepresentation of what you are doing and I get that. I know that and you know that. But they don't know that. They have no way of knowing that because they don't have the experience to tell them that what you are doing is pretty normal for most DM's. All they know is that you want them to commit to a long term game of poker where you've removed all the Jacks, because you just don't like the way Jacks look.

Totally not what's going on here, but, that's what it looks like from their perspective.

My advice, on building a group from this bunch of people is that it's going to take a fair bit of effort. Here's what I would do:

1. Run a couple of very short adventures - 2-3 session length adventures. Nothing too complicated. Fairly linear, fairly light on setting, high action, lots of fun. No restrictions. That last part is important. Let them flex out the system. Go wahoo. This should net you a fairly solid core of players who are at least willing to commit to a particular time. Maybe not long term, but, this weeds out the flakes - the guy who comes one week and not the next two doesn't get invited to the next scenario.

2. Next, run a little more complicated scenario. Something with a bit more meat to it. A bit longer - five, maybe six sessions. Again, no restrictions. Maybe feel out what the players think of a particular setting concept you have. Most people will stick around, even if the setting idea isn't something they're terribly interested in. Here's your chance to really sell your next campaign idea. If you want to run human only faux Medieval Europe, then use that as the setting. Let them be whatever, but, showcase the campaign in the best light possible.

3. Now that you've probably weeded out the jerks and those who are not interested in your play style, you suggest a limited scenario. They're board gamers. They'll grok that pretty easily. Again, short and sweet. 4-6 sessions. Limited character generation options and hammer home the fact that this is a specific situation, not a general thing. It's no different than playing Cataan using one of the scenarios.

4. Hopefully, after all that, you've built a decent group. The ones that aren't interested in your ideas and the ones that don't share your playstyle have self-selected out by now. You should be left with a group that will be interested in a longer term game. Use that last scenario that you did in 3 and ask if they'd like to play out another scenario using the same characters. What's the next adventure? If you want to know what happens to Korbach, you'll have to keep playing him in the next scenario.

((Reading this it almost sounds like you're hooking someone onto street drugs - hey man, first play's free... ))

Really, this is what I stumbled my way through when building my current group. It took a long time, mostly because at the time I was building the group, I didn't step back and take a more directed approach. I just tried everything until I found what worked. Learn from my mistakes.

 

[Buttercup]

I apologize for for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?

I'm late to this thread, but I think it *is* a good enough reason.

For instance, I hate elves, so they are never a playable race in any campaign I run. If a person only plays elves, then they should find another table.

 

[Rel]

I'm late to this thread, but I think it *is* a good enough reason.

For instance, I hate elves, so they are never a playable race in any campaign I run.

Why?

 

[Umbran]

You are aware that you are just feeding a troll, I trust?

Please don't call people trolls. Thanks.