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

[Sorrowdusk]

It is a poor friend indeed who refuses to spend time with you unless it's around a gaming table.

But, OTOH, I note you say "I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to game" rather than "I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to spend time with these friends", so that might be the problem right there.


RC

It depends. Some people may be "friends" you ONLY know from work, but otherwise you never talk to them outside of that environment. You may have "friends" you play basketball with, but you dont know them outside of the activity. When the activity or job ends, you may never keep up with them. People use the word "friend" lightly to refer to aquaintances as well.

 

[Rel]

In most cases, "I don't like it." is inferior to almost any other answer one could give, but it's still acceptable. However, it is impossible from the outside to predict where the "not most cases" lie.

One of the first things a therapist will teach you (and EN World mods, for that matter) is to walk away when you're feeling heated, rather than saying something you might regret. If someone is annoying you by repeatedly questioning every setting decision, then, effectively, "I don't like it" is like walking away.

What I'll say is this:

If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, you're a bad GM.

If you get heated the twentieth time that player questions a decision by you as a GM, that's a bad player.

 

[The Human Target]

How is this the case, but even people who wanted to play gnomes, bought and played 4th edition before gnomes were a playable race?

It is ok for the publisher to ban things: half-orcs, gnomes, assassins, bards, cavalier, demons, devils, etc etc etc, when they are not even at your table or know you nor have to run the game for you; but the DM does it and "HOW DARE HE!"?



What in the world makes the DM bad for not including things, but don't shoot a miffed glare up unto the Wizards Tower along the coast?

The designers decided to make things, they never said it would all be allowed.

I knew this thread would end up a generic "DM doesn't allow X" thread.

The DM has the job of getting rid of the crap the designers put in that doesn't work, and fixing the things that never did work.

I knew your posts would devolve into basically "I hate WotC and 4e and I'll ban any of the horrible crap they produce I want" arguement.

 

[The Human Target]

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.

I wasn't really using that as an argument, more just how I feel about the situation and my immediate reactions to it personally.

And its not that I don't think DMs should not be able to add or remove things from the game.

I just think we shouldn't just say "I don't like it" and move on, providing no explanation to players.

And really, not liking something isn't enough reason to remove something from the game in my opinion.

I think Invokers are boring, so should I ban them from my game?

No. Because they don't hurt anything and if someone wants to play one why should I care?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am not saying that YOU agree with no communication. In fact, you have a few posts here where you encourage discussion between player and DM.

Glad you recognize that.

I simply stated that there are other posts that seem to imply that it is acceptable, in the context of a group game, for a DM to take the attitude of "my way or the highway" without any communication as to why.

Well, I do think that the GM has the right to do this, and I also think that the highway may well be the way to go in this case. For that matter, I think each and every one of the players have the same right. If it isn't working for you, you can and probably should call it a day.

However, I think the difference here is largely due to "reader filter". I assume that, unless there is reason to assume otherwise, when the GM says No to something, he has a reason.

The GM assumes the brunt of the workload, and often the brunt of responsibility for whether the game soars or fails. That being the case, the GM has the right to set parameters where he thinks he can make a game soar.

Moreover, if any given player is sorta unhappy about the game (but is doing his best to enjoy it), a game can still be fun. But I have never seen a game where the GM is sorta unhappy about it, no matter how much he tries, that remains fun for long. It is simply too much work to ask anyone to do if they are sorta unhappy about it.

Given the choice, I'd rather play my third character choice in the GM's first campaign choice than play my first character choice in the GM's third campaign choice. IMHO, and IME, the game is a lot more fun when the GM is happiest.

Always assuming, of course, that the GM is at least of average calibre!

Otherwise, why would so many other posts from respected EnWorld members get the same impression I had gotten, and responded with "more communication is generally better than none".

I'm not going to touch this, considering that I've already received an infraction on this thread. But you can email me if you'd like to discuss it further. ravencrowking at hotmail dot com.

But just because when someone asks "Why not?" it doesn't mean that it's a tool to be used as a verbal weapon. Most of the time, it's a simple, innocent, question.

Agreed.

What I'll say is this:

If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, you're a bad GM.

If you get heated the twentieth time that player questions a decision by you as a GM, that's a bad player.

Agreed.

Caveat: You can be a bad GM because you had a really crappy day, and you are lashing out inappropriately, then later pull it together and be a good GM. I've seen it happen.....but if it happened more than once, or not under extraordinary circumstances, my "run!" advice stands.

It depends. Some people may be "friends" you ONLY know from work, but otherwise you never talk to them outside of that environment. You may have "friends" you play basketball with, but you dont know them outside of the activity. When the activity or job ends, you may never keep up with them. People use the word "friend" lightly to refer to aquaintances as well.

Okay, granted that.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've PM'd you - Plane Sailing

 

[catsclaw227]

If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, you're a bad GM.

If you get heated the twentieth time that player questions a decision by you as a GM, that's a bad player.

Dang. You just said in 2 sentences what I have been trying to say in 9 paragraphs.

 

[Umbran]

Nah. You're just using the same rationalization as to why it's okay not to take No for an answer.....

However valid you find the comparison of logical forms, I recommend you never, ever again, suggest that folks discussing hobby games are in any way like rapists.

Really. Don't do it. If why you shouldn't do it is not obvious to you, I recommend you PM a moderator to discuss it.

We can agree to disagree, but in no way does religion have to enter into it.

If you don't politely drop it, you are not agreeing to disagree.

So, let me see here:

Preferences are axiomatic, or akin to being axiomatic.

That is not what I said.

Preferences are true statements. Only some of them are axiomatic.

 

[catsclaw227]

Glad you recognize that.

Well, I do think that the GM has the right to do this, and I also think that the highway may well be the way to go in this case. For that matter, I think each and every one of the players have the same right. If it isn't working for you, you can and probably should call it a day.

Don't get me wrong, I have taken the "my way or the highway" -- MWotH(tm) -- approach before when a player was becoming unreasonable, or simply wouldn't accept my reasons. But I believe that I should communicate why a certain thing is banned, and if the reason is really "just because", then make up some other in game reason and build it into your world. You should have done this in the first place... and if you can't think of a reason off the top of your head, tell the player that there are in game reasons and you'd rather take it offline in case some of it is secret game lore. Then think of a reason and move on...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Don't get me wrong, I have taken the "my way or the highway" -- MWotH(tm) -- approach before when a player was becoming unreasonable, or simply wouldn't accept my reasons. But I believe that I should communicate why a certain thing is banned, and if the reason is really "just because", then make up some other in game reason and build it into your world. You should have done this in the first place... and if you can't think of a reason off the top of your head, tell the player that there are in game reasons and you'd rather take it offline in case some of it is secret game lore. Then think of a reason and move on...

Nothing here that I disagree with.

I think that you and I are largely in accord here.

However valid you find the comparison of logical forms, I recommend you never, ever again, suggest that folks discussing hobby games are in any way like rapists.

Really. Don't do it. If why you shouldn't do it is not obvious to you, I recommend you PM a moderator to discuss it.

Umbran, as a moderator I assume that you are aware that Plane Sailing has already dealt with this issue privately. I wonder, therefore, why you are bringing it up publicly?

But, yes, I can certainly accept that this is against EN World policy when so notified. It's very much, actually, like accepting No from a GM when I am a guest in that GM's game!

If you don't politely drop it, you are not agreeing to disagree.

That is not what I said.

Preferences are true statements. Only some of them are axiomatic.

OTOH, I do not intend on rising to this bait. Best behaviour, best foot forward, and all that. I am sure that you will understand.

Anyone wishing to converse about either issue is welcome to email me at ravencrowking at hotmail dot com, where I will be happy to engage in a more spirited debate.



RC