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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And once again, I cannot give Rel XP.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Please don't call people trolls. Thanks.

For the record, I hereby grant blanket permission to call me a troll.


Jeff

P.S. But not a cave troll. That's racist.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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).

Heh, ditto, except I guess since I've been saying that communication isn't all that, this reinforces my point of view. But yeah, as described, I now think there is not a dime's worth of difference in how we actually approach this issue, with people we will actually spend time gaming with. Of course, being able to say that probably supports your side of the communication issue ...

 

[Atomicaxe]

I'm a little late to the discussion, but I have to admit, I'm pretty open to just about anything my players want to do within reason. I've created games based on all sorts of criteria they wanted (hamster based pirate adventures set in the spelljammer campaign base set, a horror super hero rpg based on mutants and masterminds where one player gained power by gutting babies and the other (male) players favorite form of killing someone with his female villian was speed effing someone to death, etc) ... but the thing I say "i won't allow x or y" is generally things that destroy game play. ... basically power twinking things or general player assery to other players. those things i "don't like"

 

[ourchair]

OK, I totally parsed it wrong. So the GM is saying they don't like something, therefore not including it in their setting?

Again, depends what it is. The metals issue is so trivial as to be inconsequential. If the GM is changing the game so much that it's not the game the group wants to play, then he can't force them to play his game. That said, if the players want to define the actual setting, why have a GM?

I guess the adamantine example just sounds silly to me (I don't know if that's the actual situation your'e facing or just an example you plucked out of the air). It doesn't seem worthy of comment from players, unless they're trying to be difficult. If it was something like "All players have to play elves" that's noteworthy, and requires discussion before the game to make sure everyone has turned up to play the game they want to play. We're all there just to have fun with our friends, after all, right?

The GM doesn't "own" the game - it's a social activity between a group of people who have agreed to do this thing together. Doesn't make him their king or anything. But objecting to minor trivial changes seems overly antagonistic; that change doesn't fundamentally change the game you're playing.

I think the disagreement on the player's side has more to do with being unable to accept to what extent the GM should even be obliged to rationalize the dislike.

I'm going to side with the GM here, if only because if he says he doesnt like 'unobtainium', 'adamantium' or 'residuum', and says 'I just don't like it,' it doesnt mean he doesn't have a good reason.

The problem is that even if there was a good reason beyond 'I just don't like it,' the players can choose to nitpick that reason or turn his reasoning against him in order to reverse his decisions. And up to a certain point, that kind of debate can break even the most strong-willed GM.

In other words, the GM has to be allowed to not have to enter that debate, with the assumption that the players can cut him some slack on his preferences and that this preference still allows the game to remain on the same intersection of 'what kind of game we want to play' and 'what kind of game he/she wants to run'

Simply put, 'I just don't like it' has to be good enough because for some GMs it's a way of avoiding the pressure of having to debate with 3-6 people over something that might be trivial. And I say that as someone who took up GMing only recently, when the GMing zeitgeist is one of Say Yes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Please don't call people trolls. Thanks.

I assume, from previous discussions, that you are not using "mod voice" as you are not using mod colours. I always thought that "troll" described the post, not the individual. But maybe I am mistaken?

There was actually a thread about creative trolling here on EN World not so long ago. Here is a post from it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5436256-post5.html in case anyone is interested. Please note the XP comment.

Please note other posts in this thread, where people's statements are exactly reversed. If these are not obvious attempts at trolling, then I have no idea what trolling is.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?



RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Why?

Yeah! Why?

 

[Umbran]

I assume, from previous discussions, that you are not using "mod voice" as you are not using mod colours.

Correct. It is just a request.

As for the rest, I think it is far enough off-topic that we should take it to PM, if you wish to discuss it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Correct. It is just a request.

As for the rest, I think it is far enough off-topic that we should take it to PM, if you wish to discuss it.

Not necessary; just making sure I understood.

On topic, AFAICT, the consensus is near-universal that, sometimes "Because I don't like it" should be good enough, but that it is not generally the best way to go about it.



RC

 

[Hussar]

Not necessary; just making sure I understood.

On topic, AFAICT, the consensus is near-universal that, sometimes "Because I don't like it" should be good enough, but that it is not generally the best way to go about it.



RC

I think that's about right.