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

[Ringlerun]

"The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook

" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook

"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook

I agree with Monty Cook

 

[Dausuul]

I'll accept the answer as the GM's prerogative, but I won't necessarily like it. My instinctive reaction is to question the preference. It's like someone saying they don't like broccoli. Do they like it because it has never been prepared in a way that pleases them? If so, why not try it another way? Or do they like it without even trying it? In which case, I really don't have a high opinion of their preference.

Or, you could accept that some people don't effing like broccoli. I mean, seriously, do you actually try to talk people into liking foods they don't like? Does that ever work?

This is why I am disinclined to offer reasons for my preferences. Because then players feel like my preferences are subject to persuasion, like if they can just explain it the right way, something will click over in my head and I'll be all, "Oh, YEAH! I never thought about it that way! Warforged are cool! You can totally play a warforged!"

This. Never. Happens. Ever.

What does happen is, once in a long while, I let myself get talked into allowing something even though I don't really want it. And then it bugs me for the rest of the campaign, but now that I've explicitly allowed it in, it's a bit late to change my mind.

I will add that I don't consider this purely a DM's prerogative. I don't give players total veto power, but I'd very likely respect a player's desire not to have a given thing in the campaign (with the caveat that this request be made before the campaign begins). If a player said, "I just don't like orcs, can we not have them in this game?" I would probably ditch the orcs.

Obviously, once the campaign has started and the characters are fighting orcs, it's too late to object. But that's like me saying "I don't like warforged, scrap your character" to someone who's been playing a warforged for three sessions.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In addition to all the good stuff Dausuul said above, I've got two other rules of thumb that have served me well--though I admit that all of us in the group get along well enough that we could probably push these:

1. The more things a person wants to definitely include or definitely exclude--the more justification they need. We've got it pretty much as a foregone conclusion at the start of the campaign that every person can veto or force include one thing for pure personal preference, unless that thing is elaborate enough that it starts pulling in other elements or conflicts with someone else's. (You can't exclude elves if another players wants to play one. You can't include a dwarven steam-punk engineer if the game doesn't normally support that can kind of technology. You've got to negotiate those kind of things.)

2. A DM earns this trust to further refine and exclude things via previous campaigns, at least with some of the players. A new guy coming in can take the word of the other players that I know what I'm doing, or he can walk. But I'm very concious of "trust capital" built up with the existing group, and that certain DM decisions dip into that fund. You can't dip forever without showing them how it pays off.

That said, I've also got no use for a player that gets so zoned in on one character, one idea, etc. that they can't play something else. You really wanted to play that ninja jedi rabbit? Too bad it doesn't work in this game. Pick something else. No, we aren't changing our fantasy court intrigue game to fit in your concept. Much like other things, I'm less bothered by the rabbit than the single-mindedness. I find that players with that mindset are more interested in telling the story of their character rather than improvising a story with all the other characters in the setting.

DMs aren't the only ones that should sometimes write a novel instead.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If people are concerned about "power" - and I suspect that, alas, the fairly recent and oh-so-trendy "movement" for gittin' teh playah powah bax, yo, very much is - it's pretty simple, really:

Assuming the absence of a railroad - else, why play at all - GMs set (and/or convey) boundaries, true enough. But within those boundaries, players make all the shots. Or that may as well be the case. It's their characters' "story", being co-created in real time. That is what matters. Apart from the actual play, that is.

Well. That's my take on it, anyway. I don't see a power imbalance. Not that it's how I go about thinking about hobby groups in the first place (sigh). But yeah. Now I have thought about it, there it is.

My 2cp.

 

[billd91]

Why isn't this type of thing applied to all things? Why not just say, who cares, they have the right to not liking broccoli, or thing X. It is not for me to decide for others, so more broccoli for me, now where it the butter and ketchup to go with it!

I love it when someone at a restaurant asks my "why" when told to hold the tomatoes, like their job requires somehow to know me more personally. I respond politely with, "If you want me to pay for it, then you give me what I order or bring you manager out so I can complain about you refusing to take my order and give me what I ordered."

People are going to have to figure out how to not sweat the broccoli example. Do I really care if someone likes broccoli? No. But it's an off-the-cuff example of something someone may not like because they've never had it well-prepared - their experiences are limited to poor renditions of the subject, an issue that certainly can occur in particular elements of games.

Ultimately, what someone likes to eat isn't my concern. Unless I'm the cook, it doesn't affect me. But if the GM is banning things I like simply because he doesn't like them, it may affect whether I like the game and whether I play that game or not. As I've said, whether the GM excludes something he doesn't like is his prerogative, but I think he has to be willing to countenance push-back from players, should be willing to examine his own reasons for not liking something, and keep an open mind about his players' preferences as well - including rethinking an exclusion.

 

[shadzar]

People are going to have to figure out how to not sweat the broccoli example. Do I really care if someone likes broccoli? No. But it's an off-the-cuff example of something someone may not like because they've never had it well-prepared - their experiences are limited to poor renditions of the subject, an issue that certainly can occur in particular elements of games.

Ultimately, what someone likes to eat isn't my concern. Unless I'm the cook, it doesn't affect me. But if the GM is banning things I like simply because he doesn't like them, it may affect whether I like the game and whether I play that game or not. As I've said, whether the GM excludes something he doesn't like is his prerogative, but I think he has to be willing to countenance push-back from players, should be willing to examine his own reasons for not liking something, and keep an open mind about his players' preferences as well - including rethinking an exclusion.

No actually the GM shouldnt have to put up with that immature behavior from players.

If the player was so high-strung about having X that the GM doesn't like, then they should have at the onset not played in that game, rather than sit there all along planning revenge to disrupt the game at some point.

The GM DID examine his reason ergo he would have not come to the conclusion he did not like Thing X to begin with.

Maybe the players should learn to be open-minded about different types of games rather than getting their way to the point of planning confrontation?

Broccoli was a PERFECT example, as it illustrates that one should not try to force change upon another's personal preferences UNLESS they are asked to explain a reason why they should like broccoli.

If you aren't asked for your opinion, sometimes maybe you just shouldn't give it.

The broccoli example also fits perfectly to show how you can use the social cue to know when to stop pushing a subject or topic. Someone says they don't like it and you ask why and they get a little more upset or displeased with your continued asking, then you have pushed to far and it is time you back off rather than pressure anyone into anything.

Broccoli is a good example as it shows how kids that don't like it had been forced ot try it and there can be all sorts of resentment to that. So rather than use bad behavior in order to try to get someone to see your view, wait until they ask for your view and are ready themselves to discus it no matter what IT is, and take the social cue given when they are given to stop trying to push a subject that is not welcome for you to open a discussion about.

This may sound silly about a GM not allowing something in a game because they "don't like it', but it really is the same thing as a parent badgering a kid to try to eat broccoli.

There are better ways and more socially accepted ways of suggested your view than pushing the matter, such as mentioned in the fragmentation thread in regards to the 4th edition teaser video, another thread about "work to get the consumer to accept the change",the alignment threads EVERYWHERE, etc etc etc.

You are actually belittling someone else's right to choose for themselves when you question their choices, unless you were already in a discussion of which the topic was based around those choices. Like someone asking you to tell them how broccoli could be better, as opposed to you just trying to tell them when they aren't interested in hearing you view as they are NOT required to listen to your opinion.

Which may just prove how in today's world people think too highly of themselves and the importance of their opinions being "shared" with others.

We on forums such as these open ourselves up to the discussions by participating in the threads containing them, but it doesn't mean everyone is looking for someone else to change their mind. Some threads have that as the request, while others are just wanting to understand another's opinion or view, but there are many that just want to share their own views; and whether one participates or not is their own choice just like in real life those not entering the "thread" may not wish to discus that topic or hear another's view on it.

Doesn't make them close-minded at all, just means that made their own choices and decisions themselves, as is their right, and are happy with those choices.

Examples:
People not switching to 4th and chose Pathfinder.
People not liking green food.
People not liking tomatoes.
People not liking Fords.

It is funny how often people feel the need to change someone else's opinion, when that opinion is something that in no way harms themselves or another person.

 

[Tewligan]

Funny I know this story, but it was not a steak house, but a little all you can eat dump, and while everyone else gorged themselves on meat, I sitting beside the person who didn't eat it jsut had snow peas and noodles and such out of respect...then later went out and had to find some meat.

Not to sidetrack things, but this keeps nagging at my mind for some reason. You went to a restaurant with some people and didn't eat what you wanted because someone else didn't like the food that you wanted to eat? I feel like I'm missing something here. Unless I'm for some reason sharing a plate with my vegetarian friends, I'm sure as hell not taking their tastes into account when ordering my own dinner!

Ahem...anyway, to both keep my post on topic AND continue the food metaphors - in an rpg, the players and the DM are all eating from the same plate. If I don't like broccoli, that flavor is still going to be in the dish if one of the players insists on throwing a few pieces into the mix just because he really, really likes it.

 

[shadzar]

Not to sidetrack things, but this keeps nagging at my mind for some reason. You went to a restaurant with some people and didn't eat what you wanted because someone else didn't like the food that you wanted to eat? I feel like I'm missing something here. Unless I'm for some reason sharing a plate with my vegetarian friends, I'm sure as hell not taking their tastes into account when ordering my own dinner!

Ahem...anyway, to both keep my post on topic AND continue the food metaphors - in an rpg, the players and the DM are all eating from the same plate. If I don't like broccoli, that flavor is still going to be in the dish if one of the players insists on throwing a few pieces into the mix just because he really, really likes it.

Being polite to a friend. I can eat a meal of just broccoli and be happy, but the non-meat things there were not enough and left me needing something since it was a buffet of raw materials, which you picked yourself and took to the one big stir-fry wok and cooked several peoples at the same time.

I never saw a mixing of customers meals, and you have to get a clean bowl to get things from the buffet line, but seasoning was after, so at those temperatures you didn't end up with a flavor you didnt want since it was "washed" each wok-full.

You made another good analogy using broccoli, because as with food, you can always add to your own plate, but it makes some things hard or impossible to remove from theirs if it was in it to begin with, so for whomever is concerned, just leave it out from the beginning: broccoli, dragonborn, mithril, etc.

I got a 2 pound bag of broccoli in the freezer now I might need to find a pot for.

 

[Zhaleskra]

We have some pretty thorough responses.

I'd like to address the responses that resulted in assumptions I neither said nor implied. First, this is all about "before the game even starts". Next, I front load my house rules, they're there right at the beginning. Speaking of which, I have broad house rules which cover games in general (as well as resolution conveniences and rules to minimize mess in my living space*), then specific house rules for specific games.

You know what happened the the most recent game I purchased? House rules don't alter existing rules, they're mostly additional rules (generally of the Advantage/Disadvantage type) that I feel would be cool, or sometimes just something I think would fit a theme in some way.

*Because I live in apartment, some of these are elements of my lease.

 

[Barastrondo]

I always find it funny to bring in the bad player v bad DM aspect.

Let me clarify something here: I approach this question from the perspective of a GM. I run more than I play, anywhere from "a lot more" to "almost entirely more," depending on when you ask. And I've found that the more that I talk about a game, and the more I articulate why I like or don't like something, the better my games tend to be. In part that's because better-informed players can make better-informed choices. In part that's because the process of elaborating on what aspects of a given element is itself a means of analysis, so I can better separate the good stuff from the bad. So yes, speaking as a GM: I come down on the side of it being good when players are interested enough to ask "why not?" It doesn't imperil anything, and the results are frequently quite productive.

[quoteI would hope and assume the players are mature enough to pick the right GM, and then trust them to make the game fun for all, without crying over a missing element or two they really enjoy when those elements are probably a very small percentage of what they like and chose this GM because they offer the highest percentage of agreeable things for the gaming style they want to partake in.[/quote]

And I would hope that the GMs are mature enough to differentiate between being asked "why not?" and "crying".

and seriosuly? Trying to drag back up the player vs. GM thing, cant some people let it die, and rather than teach it to new generation that will have their own bad GMs, but promote trusting the GM to make a good game rather than setting up for a fight before the game starts. This is why the GM vs. player concept can never die, because so many are taught that a GM not allowing something for ANY reason is out to screw with the players and is a bad GM.

With all respect, the other side to why the player vs. GM mentality will never die is that so many are taught that to assume that if the players question the GM in any way, that they are by default wrong. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander: yes, players need to respect the GM, but if the GM doesn't extend them that same respect, that is problematic.

If a GM doesn't like Glasswalkers so doesn't allow them, is there not enough clans of Toreador, Brujah, etc that a player can play and have just as much fun, or does White Wolf say that all Garou(sp) "functions" must be included before people can have fun?

Of course not. But that's not even the question here. The advice I'd give to an ST is not "the players are always right", but "if someone asks you why you don't like something, it's not a challenge to your authority that must be put down -- it may be an attempt to find some sort of compromise, or it may even be an attempt to understand your preferences better so that they can adjust their expectations of the game accordingly. It's fine to answer the question in more detail than 'because I don't, that's why', and you may like what happens if you do."

If an ST disallows Glass Walkers but permits Toreador and Brujah, it would actually be more helpful to say "Because I want to run a pure Vampire game, to avoid diluting the focus on the themes of vampirism that I enjoy. A Garou character would be distracting, since they would engage with vampires only as an outsider." Or if it's a Werewolf game and the Glass Walkers are disallowed, "Because I want to portray werewolves as more primitive, primal creatures, and the Glass Walkers' modernity doesn't suit what I want to do with that" is also a much more helpful answer than "Because I don't like them." These answers actually tell the player something about the game -- about what it is, not just about what it isn't.