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

[Coldwyn]

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]:

I think the main difference is that published settings (whether Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk or Wilderlands of High Fantasy) inklude a player section that preempts questions by giving or at least hinting at answers.

At one point, gms and players think alike: Both want the character to fit in as seamlessly as possible.

Many homebrews I encountered so far lack in this facility. They can´t help the player make an informed decision on what is possible and what not, what fits and what not.

Chapeau for the gm that not only creates a good setting to play in but also manages to ease the players into it.

Here´s one of he point the aforementioned question of "why" arises. Do I know everything I need to know to build a fitting character?

OTOH there are always people who are so afixed to certain ideas that they will never be able to fit their ideas into any setting if it is not the wildest kitchen sink, but that´s another matter.

 

[shadzar]

Actually, they did a lot of explaining. They did a lot of explaining that I, in particular, didn't like. They did a lot of explaining that I, in particular, didn't like, and I nether accepted nor played happily with the rules.

Indeed, the same happened with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

And, I know that there were explainations because those explainations, and my reactions to them, started me on the road to writing my own ruleset.


RC

We are about to go WAY off topic, bunt to make it simple, there was money involved, and had there not be someone with money at risk, such as a DM that isn't paid; they would have been under no obligation to explain them.

Since they want to sell more products, they have to make some concessions in order to get people interested, or drive them off.

A DM on the other hand has little to nothing to gain except, as your previous example that has pretty much ruined all fiction for me because I will forever see the writers sitting around tables playing fantasy RPGs now, someone to play in their games. But maybe they are just as content a DMs to have no game at all as opposed to a bad one and sit and wait like Tolkein until more players come along.

No group I've ever played in....

That is the thing, there are many more people out there than you have played with, so you have a skewed view. Maybe a happier one, but skewed none the les.

There are, as evident on forums everywhere, people that DO trust the designers 100% but will smack down a DM for altering anything form those designers. I would say they are most often a part of the "RAW" players group.

 

[Hussar]

Wow, this thread ballooned.

Actually, RC, I think we agree much more than we disagree. "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid answer. It's not a very good one and probably not very satisfying, but, certainly valid.

Badgering a DM is a bad thing. Totally agreed.

Since you do agree that asking in the first place is fine and reasonably expecting some sort of explaination is also acceptable, I don't think we have any points of disagreement.

Basically, what REL said.

---------

Just 'cos I can't leave it alone though. On the Warforged Ninja thing. My whole point there, in that whole discussion, was that if the DM's ego is so tied up in the setting that he cannot adjust his setting to accomodate a player who is entirely willing to adapt an idea TO that setting, the DM is very likely going to have additional problems.

Like I said WAY upthread, a DM who is unwilling to explain his decisions might be a perfectly good DM, but, as soon as the DM feels that he no longer needs to explain decisions, this is a big warning sign to me. It's not a deal breaker by any means. But, when the DM gets all high handed and simply refuses to answer perfectly reasonable questions (not badgering, just questions) then I see that as a big red warning sign.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We are about to go WAY off topic, bunt to make it simple, there was money involved, and had there not be someone with money at risk, such as a DM that isn't paid; they would have been under no obligation to explain them.

Well, of course.

But my point was not why they explained, my point was that they explained. The players demand an explaination, and, because they wanted to make money, they provided one.

A DM on the other hand has little to nothing to gain

You and I both know that DMing is a reward unto itself. The DM has plenty to gain, if he is running a game he enjoys running.

You and I agree that the DM is under no obligation to run a game he is not enjoying, and can run any game he likes, so long as his game can draw even a single player to run in it. And he does not have to explain his preferences, or why he is running what he is running....although there are often cases where he should.

Personally, though, I would play in no game at all (DM or player) before I played in a bad one.

your previous example....has pretty much ruined all fiction for me

My work here is done.





RC

 

[Hussar]

There are, as evident on forums everywhere, people that DO trust the designers 100% but will smack down a DM for altering anything form those designers. I would say they are most often a part of the "RAW" players group.

Really? Maybe it's because I only hang out on En World and a couple of very small boards, but I rarely, if ever, see anyone smacking down the DM for simply altering things. What I do see are disagreements as to whether a particular alteration is a good idea or not, but that's a different issue.

I've very rarely seen anyone try to say "Thou shalt not alter the RAW". What usually happens is, "You altered the RAW. Have you thought of this, that and the other implication?"

But, that could be because I don't hang out on certain forums.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Tell me what "for his reasons" means, and I probably do.

Throughout this thread, I have maintained that the following are a reasonable set of exchanges between friends:

------------------

Player: I want to play a spiked-chain wielding warforged.
DM: Spiked chains aren't allowed in this game.
Player: Why not?
DM: I just don't like them.
Player: Is there something specific about them you don't like?
DM: [Foo]
Player: I kind of wanted to focus on being a tripper in combat; can I use a khopesh instead?
DM: Sure.

------------------

Player: I want to play a spiked-chain wielding warforged.
DM: Spiked chains aren't allowed in this game.
Player: Why not?
DM: I just don't like them.
Player: Is there something specific about them you don't like?
DM: [Foo; including a description of the overpoweredness of the tripping rules]
Player: I kind of wanted to focus on being a tripper in combat; I guess I should do something else instead. Do you have an issue with me playing a grappler?
DM: Grappling's a problem area in the rules, too, actually.
Player: So I guess I shouldn't worry too much about being attacked by snakes and other tentacle monsters, then?

------------------

Player: I'll be playing Soandso, the Tiefling Sorceror.
DM: This game doesn't include PC tieflings, and there's no spontaneously casting classes.
Player: Why not?
DM: Because [foo].
Player: What about [Other Race Class]?
DM: That's fine.

------------------

My point has always - and only - been that the player's question of "why?" or "why not?" is not only not rude, but should be expected in a group of adult friends, and that the DM providing the best answer he has to it can do nothing but help.

Moreover, my point is that stopping at an answer of "I just don't like it," is unsatisfactory to an adult friend - which is the answer to the OP's question of, "Why can't players just accept it when I say I don't like something?"

Because, once again, we've moved past the "I wanna play a character that creeps everyone out in the real world" stage of things. Which, apparently, some groups just can't do. For them, the proper thread is over here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, RC, I think we agree much more than we disagree. "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid answer. It's not a very good one and probably not very satisfying, but, certainly valid.

Badgering a DM is a bad thing. Totally agreed.

Since you do agree that asking in the first place is fine and reasonably expecting some sort of explaination is also acceptable, I don't think we have any points of disagreement.

Good enough.

Just 'cos I can't leave it alone though. On the Warforged Ninja thing.

Sorry.

My work was done in this thread when I ruined all fiction for Shadzar forever.

I don't think I can top that right now.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Throughout this thread, I have maintained that the following are a reasonable set of exchanges between friends:

Sorry. Maybe I am being dense here, but this hasn't enlightened me as to what your question is. Can you reword it, please?

 

[Rel]

I must apparently spread some XP around before I can give it to Patryn again.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That is the thing, there are many more people out there than you have played with, so you have a skewed view. Maybe a happier one, but skewed none the les.

My view is no more skewed than yours, sir!

Which is, again, why I said upthread that your experience is so completely different from mine that we may as well be speaking different languages.

I don't roleplay with people I don't consider friends. I don't routinely hang out for long hours with people I don't consider friends, and I certainly don't do so at non-work-related functions.

I play D&D with friends.

Friends are able to say, "Hey, Bob, why can't I play a warforged?" and expect a better answer than, "I just don't like them."

That may in fact be the only answer they get, but it doesn't mean they are going to be satisfied with it or that it was the best or mo st helpful answer. It is, at best, merely the fastest and shallowest answer.

The, at minimum, first derivative reasons behind the GM's call provide a wealth of information not only to the questioning player, but to the other players at the table. If the GM doesn't like warforged because he doesn't like a single mechanical aspect (e.g., no food means that he can't use lack of supplies to motivate the players*), but otherwise would be fine with them, then there's room forward to a modified warforged that makes everyone happy. If he dislikes nearly all the things about them, then the player knows it's a lost cause and he should roll up his back-up halfling idea.

* This also tells the other players, "Hey - unlike nearly every other campaign you've played in, keeping track of supplies is going to be important in this one." Win-win-win!