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

[pemerton]

My wife prefers to not eat strawberries. The fact that she's deathly allergic to strawberries (as in, "I cannot breathe and may die if I don't get medication") doesn't stand as a logical reason for that preference?

Either not dying is more than a preference (and your point is invalid), or it is a preference (and there is no rational reason to prefer continued existance over dying).

Preferences are emotive.

Well, as it happens I incline towards a fairly reductionist/empiricist account of preference. So I'm happy with the idea that preferences are (in some sense) emotive. (My feelng is that the majority of contemporary philosophers of mind and action don' share this view - various forms of rationalism are currently enjoying a resurgence. In any event, whatever the precise balance of opinion, it's a matter of controversy among those who spend the greatest amount of time and effort reflecting on the issue.)

But I think the case of Umbran's wife shows that not all preferences are therefore unconstrained by reason. Assuming that Umbran's wife, for example, has a preference to live (as most of us do) then it is rational for her to cultivate an aversion to strawberries. This doesn't tend to show that preferences aren't emotive (in the relative sense) - rather, it shows that the contents of emotional states are subject to reason (at a minimum, constraints of consistency).

Which is, to an extent at least, relevant to the current discussion. A GM who simply says "I don't like it" and doesn't try to locate that preference in some deeper, consistent aesthetic vision of the game, is perhaps not doing everything that might be done to show that his/her preference fits rationally within his/her overall system of preferences.

any expectation that a person must (or even should) explain his or her preferences to you....so that you can decide if they are valid or not, or maybe convince him to change his mind.....is not polite. It is off the edge of rude and into the realm of offensive.

Neither one has to, no. Put it is kind of polite to do so, and may lead to constructive discussion or compromise.

Well, on this one I'm inclined to agree with Umbran. If one is talking about very brute preferences that are mere matters of taste - do I prefer chocolate or peanut butter?, for example - than there may be little point in talking about it, but equally it often may not be very rude to suggest the plausibility, even superiority, of an alternative preference ordering (though it would of course be rude to badger excessively). After all, little is at stake here.

But once we get to more complex aesthetic judgement, which can be expected to have content that overlaps with other complex judgements, such that questions of overall coherence arise, then (i) discussion may help bring these relationships to light, perhaps altering judgements in the process, and (ii) (in my view, and provided one is civil about the whole thing) it is unexceptional to raise the issue as a topic of conversation.

For example, if someone tells me that s/he prefers Doug Niles' Darkwalker on Moonshae to Graham Greene's The End of the Affair as a work of literature, I'd expect to be given at least some sort of reason, just as I am ready to give reasons to justify some of my more idiosyncratic aesthetic judgements.

 

[pemerton]

It is a hobby, with specific qualities - and specific traditions, for that matter.

<snip>

Traditionally, the roles of DM and player are very different indeed. And no, campaign/setting makeup is *not* (traditionally, and still to many DMs and players) an area where it's "co-operative" [sic].

<snip>

generally speaking, setting and campaign setup is the DM's prerogative. Setting up the players' [characters] "playground", as it were, is the idea here.

<snip>

By all means, those who wish to do just that, should! But, just to be perfectly clear here, they are not automatically "more right" than those sticking with the way things have been done for ages now. Nor are they necessarily more "enlightened", or even, let it be said, going to have a better gaming experience becuase of said choices!

But isn't what's at stake in these sort of conversations precisely the standing that we should give those traditions?

I must confess that over the years I have certainly been persuaded by the idea that the gameworld is best conceived of not as something that the GM creates independent of any thoughts about being a vehicle for particular players to play the game, but rather just as a vehicle for play by particular players.

That's not to say that the GM cedes control over all aspects of the campaign world. In particular, I think D&D mechanics tend to presuppose that the GM has ultimate authority over the backstory of the gameworld - so that even if a player intitiates a skill challenge/encounter to try and get the Big Reveal, it is the GM who is in charge of deciding what exactly the Big Reveal is. The encounter building and action resolution rules just don't envisage that players might be deciding this sort of stuff.

But the presence or absence of tieflings in the setting isn't typically a part of that backstory. And this is where I think being much more up front and ready to reach a group consensus can work better than a "take it or leave it" approach. Of course anybody can leave it at any time (as Gygax points out in the 1st ed AD&D rules, in his discussion of the supreme power of the Dungeon Master). But often compromise can be a happier road to take for all concerned.

 

[Coldwyn]

"You must spread some experience around before you can give it to permerton again".

You´re right, tradition for traditions sake alone has never been a good answer.

 

[GQuail]

Because in saying, "I just don't like X" the GM is making it personal, relying on only personal authority. It is saying, "I get to have it my way because I'm ME, and you aren't."

Now, occasionally the GM can play that card. Occasionally, everyone should be allowed to - I just don't like anchovies on pizza, and I'll veto them. But it ought to be done with care, and only occasionally. Done too frequently, or over someone's strong preference, it can seem a bit petty and selfish.

Having supporting logic always comes across as less arbitrary than, "just because."

The power of veto is, as you say, perfectly reasonable when used correctly. It's in your best interests sometimes, in fact - if they order anchovy pizza then they make you grumpy and possibly sour the whole night. The problem is people who hammer it on all the time or without any real justification.

A rotating GM spot game I played had a sort of unofficial power of veto for everyone over what game we could play. We all played games we weren't super-enthused but every so often someone had the right to say "Look, sorry, but I just do not want to play this game". because most of us had a variety of other games in our to-run pile it was breifly frustrating but we got over it. It's ultimately for the best rather than play with someone who hates a game so much that they'd veto it - I mean, if you can run something else other than Vampire for me, it's in everyone's best interests to.

Our problem was that, in practice, only one guy ever used the veto. Me and the other four dudes would grumble a bit (and in one case, I left a game early because I wasn't enjoying it) but there was one player who would be very quick to say "This game is stupid and un-fun, I won't play it" and shut down that idea. It was expecially frustrating when he did for Warhammer 40,000 because I and three other players were really into the setting and super-enthused to play/run that game - and we couldn't get a coherent answer out of him and attempts to debate it just went round in circles.

As some other posters have said, sometimes you can't get more out of someone than "I don't like it"... Or their proposed "fix" is so far gone from the initial premise as to be useless, like when someone suggests they won't play 3.X D&D as written and their alternative is to basically use every rule from AD&D 1st Edition as a "house rule". ;-) Sometimes, for speed, you just need to move on.

 

[Zhaleskra]

A little more detail on the Adamant-/Mithril bit: they're the Borg of fantasy metals. Interestering when they were fresh, but used so often they've become stale and boring.

 

[Coldwyn]

A little more detail on the Adamant-/Mithril bit: they're the Borg of fantasy metals. Interestering when they were fresh, but used so often they've become stale and boring.

And the counterpoint would be that a dwarf without a adamant axe is no real dwarf and an elf without elven chainmail is no real elf. Where does that leave us?

 

[Zhaleskra]

And the counterpoint would be that a dwarf without a adamant axe is no real dwarf and an elf without elven chainmail is no real elf. Where does that leave us?

With you assuming I'm running a world that even has dwarves and elves? Though, at the author's confession, one race of Diomin is pretty much elves with the serial numbers filed off - at least lifespan wise. And another fills the Made of Stone trope of dwarves quite a bit more than most actual dwarves.

I'm tired of the EDO trope too. Mostly because I think "do you have to use the same fantasy races as everyone else in your published game?"

 

[ExploderWizard]

What is all the fuss about? "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting something. There does not need to be any underlying logic to support something as arbitrary as a preference.

We like and dislike things for a variety of reasons not all of which can be expressed in a laundry list of logical data.

A DM is always free to exclude something from the campaign as long as this information is shared before play begins. Players are likewise free to turn down such a game if what it excludes would ruin their good time. At that point we have a DM without players and players without a game. If everyone involved would like a game then a reasonable compromise needs to be reached.

When all is said and done playing these games is not a job. We play to have fun. No one should feel pressured into either running or playing a game in which that fun would be diminished.

 

[Belen]

The game provides a baseline of content and if its removed from a game players understandably want a good reason why.

Its totally valid.

If a DM doesn't want Tieflings in their game and I asked "Why not?" and was given the answer "Because I don't like them" I'd for sure be very off put about playing in that persons game.

Not because I love Tieflings or because I want to play one, but because I don't like the idea of arbitrarily removing things from the game on a whim of personal preference.

I think Goliaths are silly and I'd never play one, but that doesn't mean I would or should ban them from my current campaign because I have a player that likes them a lot.

This is certainly a poor argument. If a GM wants to use the core rules of the game yet run a different style of setting, then you have to remove items. One person does not have the time to account for every piece of splat when designing a setting.

Just because you're using a rules set does not mean that you should be forced to run a stock game. "I do not like them" is a perfectly valid reason to exclude them from the setting.

Of course, a GM should specify what races and classes are available at the start of the game. Players should assume that anything not listed is unavailable unless they ask for permission.

 

[GQuail]

A little more detail on the Adamant-/Mithril bit: they're the Borg of fantasy metals. Interestering when they were fresh, but used so often they've become stale and boring.

I can definitely appreciate that. (And I sorta agree, too - I really like 4E's many alternate materials for magical armours because it gets around that omni-presence.) Even if I didn't, at least I now know that you probably won't say know to other "magic metals" on principle.

But I think it's relevant that you had to explain it to get people to go "Ah, I get it", and that just saying "I don't like it" created confusion and queries.