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

[Crazy Jerome]

I hear ya, shadzar, but I still think you are making an argument based on how you want the world to be, rather than how it is. You want people to automatically assume that "no means no". But they don't. If you want to draw a bright line on that issue, that is your prerogative. But even from a position largely in sympathy with your own, that strikes me as rather tilting at windmills.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I am very late to this but still willing to throw in my two cents.

I think players are against the "no cause I said so" for the same reason most players do not tolerate the "I am DM I am the LAW" attitude that some DMs take.

Both set the tone that the DM is most important than the player and with all the egoes most people deal with at work no one is in the mood to deal with a DM with a boss complex.

 

[shadzar]

I hear ya, shadzar, but I still think you are making an argument based on how you want the world to be, rather than how it is. You want people to automatically assume that "no means no". But they don't. If you want to draw a bright line on that issue, that is your prerogative. But even from a position largely in sympathy with your own, that strikes me as rather tilting at windmills.

The the human race is doomed. The term no means one and only one thing. People trying to expand and obfuscate that meaning are only doing a diservice to everyone else.

It would be like someone seeing a "No parking" sign and thinking "its only illegal if you get caught".

The level of respect of others is being deprived in the case someone doesn't accept "no means no". Also anyone not observing that "no means no" I would think is a threat to others and probably society itself.

Why have language and use it, if not for the intended manner?

No, does mean no.

Some things are just that black and white. If you don't intend for it to be so, then use the proper language.

"No tieflings" =/= "no tieflings unless you talk me into it".

"No tieflings" = "no tieflings".

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The the human race is doomed. The term no means one and only one thing. People trying to expand and obfuscate that meaning are only doing a diservice to everyone else.

It would be like someone seeing a "No parking" sign and thinking "its only illegal if you get caught".

The level of respect of others is being deprived in the case someone doesn't accept "no means no". Also anyone not observing that "no means no" I would think is a threat to others and probably society itself.

Why have language and use it, if not for the intended manner?

No, does mean no.

Some things are just that black and white. If you don't intend for it to be so, then use the proper language.

"No tieflings" =/= "no tieflings unless you talk me into it".

"No tieflings" = "no tieflings".

Of course no means no.

I think the better question is who does the DM, any DM, think he is to think "no because I said so" is a good enough reason when playing a game and everyone is trying to have fun.

 

[Rel]

shadzar, you seem very intent on disproving a point that nobody is making.

 

[Umbran]

The level of respect of others is being deprived in the case someone doesn't accept "no means no". Also anyone not observing that "no means no" I would think is a threat to others and probably society itself.

Okay, dude, stop for a second. Your statement seems to lack appropriate perspective. It seems to me that you're telling me that having a calm discussion at a gaming table (a discussion which, as several have already pointed out, is not necessarily about wheedling around a, "No") is equivalent to a threat to all of society.

No, it isn't. And here, no means no.

let us not be hyperbolic. You're a GM, not a cop at a crisis scene. Asking you a simple question is not going to cost human life or something. It may leave some folks cooling their heels for a moment or two while the question gets answered, or the GM tells the player to take a hike. And that is about it.

Real people have this thing called judgment, which allows (most of) them to differentiate between different social contexts. Just because they ask a question at your table does not imply that they never take no for an answer.

 

[noretoc]

Ahh, you had the high road and then jumped into the ditch with me at the end. Shame. I'm basing my response on the fact that you specifically stated that you would go out of your way to passive aggressively force a player from your table, rather than have an up front conversation with him.

You can see it that way. You are wrong though. What I am doing is testing him, to see if he is smart enough to get the point. Then if he isn't I am giving him a chance to leave the game with his dignity intact, rather than me tellimg him to leave in a way there would be no doubt that it was not his choice. Fortunately I have never had the situation come up.

But, how are you different? It takes two to have an argument. Why are you presupposing that this guy is doing it deliberately to ruin your game?

I am not arguing. I am stating a restriction, he is the one coming back at me and trying to start an argument. I never said he was trying to ruin my game. I said he was wasting my time and demonstating that he can not accept a decision

I would have zero problem with asking him why he doesn't want to play wizards. And, if he simply says, I don't like wizards, he's being every bit as poor of a player as the DM who does it. I believe I stated this upthread a bit in my response to Crazy Jerome.

If a player absolutely refused to play a particular character, yeah, I'd ask. To the point where he made his resusal to play that character an issue? Oh yeah, we'd have a conversation.

Then you have a problem. Trying letting people make thier own decisions without your input. You may get a better response from people.

But, guess what, I'd let him play something else. Forcing players to play something they don't want to play never works.

The why waste the time of everyone having that conversation in the first place. Just so everyone knows your opinion on the subject? Pretty Selfish

But, that's what I'd do at my table. I'm not saying that's what everyone should do.

See, the thing is, every single poor DM I've ever played with gave me this exact same line - "No X because I don't like it". Every one. Without fail. So, yeah, when the DM plays the hard line like this and refuses to expand on it, that's going to be my first clue that this DM is headed for a player revolt in short order.

In my experience when somone say "Everyone I played with" or everyoe I know" or a similar negative statement about "everyone" the problem isn't the people around the person. Chances are if you think everyone around you is a jerk, it isn't them.

On that note, from what you say here you have no real interest in gaining any insight in this conversation. Just like you would "Have a converation" with somoene who dosen't want to play a wizard, you seem only interested in pushing your ideas on mw. Due to that, I will now bow out of this. I really have not interest in your opinions. I stated how I felt, and responded to a few people who had questions. I do not intend to have further conversation with someone who just wants to make judgements about me. You can continue to demand answers to questions that you really ahve no right to get, and reap whatever results that brings. Enjoy.

 

[shadzar]

Of course no means no.

I think the better question is who does the DM, any DM, think he is to think "no because I said so" is a good enough reason when playing a game and everyone is trying to have fun.

Lets reverse that, who does a player think they are to come to a game advertised "no tieflings" with the intention to play or try to include tieflings?

The DM is the one providing you the ability to play the game. You don't have to join that game, likewise the DM doesn't have to put up with someone's BS when coming to a game with ill intent.

All you are doing here is trying to continue the DM v player fight....

Proof in point, the one questioning the DMs decision of what game to run when coming to the game as advertised means the player has already set themselves up as disruptive, because they didn't come to play the game adverting but to complain about it. No one forced the person to come to it.

Any player can leave and the game continue, the DM leaves...the rest is screwed...AKA don't p-off the DM unless someone else is willing to DM.

Those are the very jerks that need to be ran out of gaming, the ones coming to a "no tieflings" game for the sole purpose of trying to inject tieflings into it. They have no intention to play the game, just to cause problems for everyone else.

 

[shadzar]

Okay, dude, stop for a second. Your statement seems to lack appropriate perspective. It seems to me that you're telling me that having a calm discussion at a gaming table (a discussion which, as several have already pointed out, is not necessarily about wheedling around a, "No") is equivalent to a threat to all of society.

No, it isn't. And here, no means no.

let us not be hyperbolic. You're a GM, not a cop at a crisis scene. Asking you a simple question is not going to cost human life or something. It may leave some folks cooling their heels for a moment or two while the question gets answered, or the GM tells the player to take a hike. And that is about it.

Real people have this thing called judgment, which allows (most of) them to differentiate between different social contexts. Just because they ask a question at your table does not imply that they never take no for an answer.

If you think for one moment that signs found in gaming are not related to other parts of life, then YOU are the one needing to gain perspective.

Someone showing signs of a threat to the game itself, is not someone going to be welcome to games I run.

You are sadly still working inside the vacuum, think that the DM and player are only in existence in the case of the DM and player in so much as the player left everything of there life out of it, and humans don't work that way.

You may want to learn a bit about psychology and things called behavioral patterns. One exhibiting such a pattern from the onset of gaming, is not likely to change, ESPECIALLY if they exhibit those in the rest of their life. I don't have interest in finding out or risking my players in in manner, not limited to the fun of the game, for such people exhibiting those patterns.

I could illustrate this very well using your position on the forums, where you already DO, if that is your tasked position, do that pattern recognition and prevent "harm" to the enjoyment of others. Unless I misunderstand the position of the green names here.

The job is the same as a DM. It only takes ONE time for a person on these forums to get threadbanned for threadcrapping even if that is there first post, correct?

Well that is what I am doing as a DM, when I remove the element that comes to the "no tieflings" game with the intent of bringing tieflings into it.

Some may say, not openly as it violates the forums rules, that certain instances of your actions in your duty were unwarranted, and likewise mine as a DM. I will not change my DMing to placate those who do not agree with it, and likewise I don't assume you in your forums position would change just on the whim of another either.

The tasks are very similar. Based on your personal perspective, you do what you feel is right for the protection of the larger group, and so do I.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I am beginning to suspect that ELIZA has achieved sentience and is now posting in EN World.

"How do you feel about that, Jeff?"