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

[Hussar]

Zhal and Zhale are fine.

Why do they want to play minotaurs when you told them it was a kobold and dragonborn campaign?

Thanks for bringing a little humor into this thread.

I'm not Cyronax, but, if I could jump in on this, because I do think this gets to the heart of things. It's all about expectations.

There are any number of reasons that player might want to bring in a minotaur.

1. They don't like kobolds and dragonborn, so they figure that one monster is as good as another.

2. They don't think the restriction is terribly important to the feel of the game.

3. They don't realize how important this restriction is to the DM's campaign.

4. They have what they think is a really cool idea for a character and want to play that character. Where that character is played isn't important to them.

5. They are jerks.

6. They think there is a fair mechanical equivalency between dragonborn and minotaurs and like the aesthetics of minotaurs better.

That's off the top of my head. Note, that other than 5, all are fairly reasonable thoughts. They're not trying to destroy the game, nor are they dysfunctional gamers. They honestly believe that their idea will lead to a better experience.

Now, if they're jerks, well, no amount of restrictions are going to change that and, well, don't play with jerks.

But, presuming that they actually do have the best interests of the group in mind, are they really being unreasonable at this point?

And, is the game better served by the DM simply shutting down all conversation and saying "Cos I say so!"?

IMO, it's just better to compromise. Minotaur isn't all that different from dragonborn, so, would it break my game to let him play one? Unless there is some specific reason why not, I'll generally say yes.

But then, I'm just a big softie.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Actually, I did once have an online player want me to me to allow a non core class in Diomin because he was bored with 3.x core classes. Because Diomin is a published setting, I told him I wasn't really comfortable doing that as the setting is different enough on its own.

On that same campaign setting . . . if you play a ranger who wasn't trained by the elf-standin race, you get your spell abilities replaced with . . . nothing. That's not exactly fair, and that's the authors doing that.

Why exactly is there Mithril on Drakan, the world of Order of the Flame, and the Ancient's Gates? I never played the PC game, but there sure aren't any elves in the PS2 one.

 

[shadzar]

Let me say this about that:

On Saturday night I had about 20 people in my house. Friends. Seven years ago I knew none of those people (apart from my wife). I met all of them at game stores, GenCon or the local ENWorld gathering we host called NC Game Day. Strangers who I gamed with the first time we met.

They were standing in my house on Saturday night, eating pizza (and corndogs! Corndogs are mandatory!), drinking beer and sharing game stories from the day's events. Why am I blessed to have such a wealth of nice people around me? Because I treated them as friends from the moment I met them. That's how I treat people I meet at game stores, GenCon and the like, right up until I'm given a good reason to do otherwise.

One more reason that I see little profit in brushing off those who ask a reasonable question of me as the GM.

20 alcohol siphoning litterbugs in your house? I would say cursed rather than blessed, but whatever floats you boat.

But you see you point to what I am talking about though. Why only 20 after 7 years with of all that? Is that all that showed up over those 7 years?

Your data really leaves too many questions to be of anything but more anecdote.

Why weren't all the rest there? Even if you were discussing thing, a key point that makes Obryn's post moot, is that we are all here in this thread because we WANT to discuss things. Take the answer I gave that you responding to as "good reasons" someone else hearing those simple reason could have had great fun playing an assassin and a strong liking to them. Had I said I don't like them, they may have asked why not, and gotten that as the answer. Then due to their affiliation with them or strong feelings about them, and argument erupts because somehow my dislike has hurt their past experience and potential future experience with assassins. In this case not giving a reason would have been better than giving it. An ounce of prevention versus a pound of pain....

As has been shown by others some people can get quite attached that a reason for one not liking something or doing it a different way, somehow instantly offends someone who does like it. It only gets worse when personal reasons are brought into it.

I don't know what kind of people you meet at NC State at your little things, but it had never interested me as it is a phony as other things claiming something that is not representative of the whole as far as I am concerned, but odds are you don't have every type of player attending because of lower attendance based on reasons such as Mace and StellarCon. Both of which will have people that are not very agreeable at them, at ALL game tables and wondering around the booths.

The many different people that would come into a game store or open game club as opposed to one held in places like a college, that seems and sometimes is, an event for those attending/enrolled there, are vastly different.

Don't even get me started talking about people from one specific store that was about as elitist as you could get as well snobbish.

So your weekend party didn't have everyone, couldnt have, from your events. There had to be a reason other than how many the house would hold as to why some didn't attend your house party.

Take the guy who left a game and never heard from again but passed on the street in the "walk away" thread. Different people are different. Some non confrontational and just walk away, other raring for a fight.

So someone saying "don't like it", might just also be one of those non confrontational people rather than have some DM superiority complex. Likewise some you invited might not have RSVP'd just so they didn't have to give a reason for not attending your get together.

As such simple questioning of anothers likes or dislikes is viewed by many as just plain rude....to bring this all back on topic.

 

[shadzar]

There's a reason that designers are trusted more though. Look at the number of horror stories out there. I polled En World a while ago to see what percentage of people would characterize the majority of their DM's as bad, and almost a third of respondents said that most of their DM's have been poor.

So, it's not really surprising that people might put more stock in the words of Monte Cook or Gary Gygax or David Noonan than me, particularly if they're new to my group. After all, if they are new to my group, I haven't built any trust yet. But those game designers are authorities - they wrote the game, so hopefully they knew what they were doing.

Add to that some really attrocious experiences where the DM didn't think through the consequences, or simply didn't care, of the changes that he made and it's not really surprising that players might side on the side of RAW.

Especially if the DM refuses to give any explanation for his changes.

All explanations do not come front-loaded to the game. Only that which you need to know to play.

I wouldn't trust Monte, Noonan, or Gary to run a game any more than anyone else. I don't know them and their writings show they do not share the same vision as me, though we are looking at similar things.

So what reason? None of them have built trust with me. They, some, just were a part of a product I bought.

Again find the post where I listed each DMG stating roughly these rules aren't to be played as-is, because those very people don't know every gamer and their tastes.

You are more likely to be able to trust someone you CAN speak to with about things, than someone you have never met.

I wouldn't trust them to run a game just because their names are on a product.

If I were to go by the old saying, there is NO WAY I would let them run a game for me, as the books are teaching aids for the game and the saying goes...those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

Really what reason is their to put more stock into a designer of an RPG to have done things right for your group, than someone you have on hand?

 

[billd91]

Another reason I lost my cool is because of people who keep posting the "you can forbid, but they can walk" chant. Yeah, we covered that. On the first page. TWICE.

Welcome to the internet in which you will find many people saying redundant things. Now, show me on this doll where the duplicate comment touched you...

 

[Rel]

20 alcohol siphoning litterbugs in your house? I would say cursed rather than blessed, but whatever floats you boat.

But you see you point to what I am talking about though. Why only 20 after 7 years with of all that? Is that all that showed up over those 7 years?

Your data really leaves too many questions to be of anything but more anecdote.

Why weren't all the rest there? Even if you were discussing thing, a key point that makes Obryn's post moot, is that we are all here in this thread because we WANT to discuss things. Take the answer I gave that you responding to as "good reasons" someone else hearing those simple reason could have had great fun playing an assassin and a strong liking to them. Had I said I don't like them, they may have asked why not, and gotten that as the answer. Then due to their affiliation with them or strong feelings about them, and argument erupts because somehow my dislike has hurt their past experience and potential future experience with assassins. In this case not giving a reason would have been better than giving it. An ounce of prevention versus a pound of pain....

As has been shown by others some people can get quite attached that a reason for one not liking something or doing it a different way, somehow instantly offends someone who does like it. It only gets worse when personal reasons are brought into it.

I don't know what kind of people you meet at NC State at your little things, but it had never interested me as it is a phony as other things claiming something that is not representative of the whole as far as I am concerned, but odds are you don't have every type of player attending because of lower attendance based on reasons such as Mace and StellarCon. Both of which will have people that are not very agreeable at them, at ALL game tables and wondering around the booths.

The many different people that would come into a game store or open game club as opposed to one held in places like a college, that seems and sometimes is, an event for those attending/enrolled there, are vastly different.

Don't even get me started talking about people from one specific store that was about as elitist as you could get as well snobbish.

So your weekend party didn't have everyone, couldnt have, from your events. There had to be a reason other than how many the house would hold as to why some didn't attend your house party.

Take the guy who left a game and never heard from again but passed on the street in the "walk away" thread. Different people are different. Some non confrontational and just walk away, other raring for a fight.

So someone saying "don't like it", might just also be one of those non confrontational people rather than have some DM superiority complex. Likewise some you invited might not have RSVP'd just so they didn't have to give a reason for not attending your get together.

As such simple questioning of anothers likes or dislikes is viewed by many as just plain rude....to bring this all back on topic.

Wow. Nearly every line of your post makes you sound like a complete dick. If you wish to continue posting in this thread and on this site, you're going to adjust that attitude.

If there is any question about this then feel free to PM me.

 

[kaomera]

Why is explaining to your players "I don't think they fit in my game and I'll be replacing them with something even cooler!" so hard?

I've really just been skimming the thread (having come in a bit late), but I find myself wanting desperately to add my reply here, because I'm finding this very relevant to the situation I'm finding myself in with regards to the game that I'm running right now. I avoided banning anything in this game, and allowed several character elements that I was really not very enthusiastic about, basically just to avoid drama. And while the game is good I'm frustrated that it's not better; every time that the game is cool in spite of something instead of because of it, every time that, just for a moment, I feel like I would have been better off just staying in bed...

I have no problem giving detailed explanations of my decision-making process to people outside the game because there is no pressure on me to keep going with the discussion or argument that is going to ensue beyond the point that I am happy to have it continue to. And if my answer is "because I felt like banning it" then they are free to tell me I'm a bad DM and I'm free to not care in the least.

I'm willing to provide a detailed explanation of my decision-making process to my friends who I game with because I respect their opinions and I know that they respect mine. If my answer is "because I felt like banning it" or if I just get tired of discussing it I'm 90%+ sure that they won't mind because, knowing my tastes and style as a DM, the majority of the time they have either already come up with something that I consider cool, or they will have convinced me that what they're trying to do will be cool. And if there really is an issue I'm sure we'll be able to move past it - for one thing if it's a matter of personal preference or campaign flavor I can expect it to be discussed on those merits, and not just automatically default to a discussion of "balance".

I'm not willing to go into details about my decision-making process with my players whom I don't really know outside of gaming, because all of our interaction is framed as a game, and I'm interested in playing D&D, not "Can I get things my way even though the DM said 'no'." I don't want the players to have to waste their time compiling detailed arguments as to why item "X", which is not genre-appropriate for my game, is "not broken" despite the fact that this was never my argument. And it has been my repeated experience that this is how things will likely go.

I've really tried to avoid banning anything in my games the last ten years plus, and it just doesn't work for me. Players refuse to respond to requests that they justify their character choices, or rather they seem to misinterpret them somehow. It's not until I announce that something is off limits that they decide they have to argue the point. I don't want to deal with another player who insists on playing something that I'm not enthusiastic about and don't have any good ideas of what to do with, only to later complain that I'm not acting enthusiastic about their character and not coming up with cool things to highlight the many awesome qualities that they can best describe as "it's awesome".

It's really getting to the point that I think I would feel a lot more satisfied with my games if I just put my foot down, up front, and ban anything I think might be a problem, just because I said so and I'm the DM. Getting players might be a problem, but their are times when I really feel like not playing would be no less fun. The biggest issue with this is fairness - there are players who can take something I have no interest in and really turn my opinion around in play. But, unfortunately those players are significantly in the minority...

And the worst part is that I feel like the issue arises because I'm much more interested in not getting in the way of the players' fun than they are interested in not getting in the way of mine. I don't want to have to tell players "no", and I don't want to have show anyone the door, and I may wuss out anyway... (And I dunno, maybe I get this because I'm too much of a pushover?) But I'm starting to feel like that may just be what I have to do.

 

[Holy Bovine]

20 alcohol siphoning litterbugs in your house? I would say cursed rather than blessed, but whatever floats you boat.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[The Human Target]

I've really just been skimming the thread (having come in a bit late), but I find myself wanting desperately to add my reply here, because I'm finding this very relevant to the situation I'm finding myself in with regards to the game that I'm running right now.

Good post.

Yes it is easy for players to forget that the DM is there to have fun too and his opinions should matter (heck probably even more than the players, since the DM is the one spending the most time on the game itself.)

Sometimes you have to bring down the boot hard for sure, I'm just of the mind that it should only be as a last resort.

A Diplomacy check before an attack roll, always.

Whats a specific problem in your current game thats giving you trouble?

(Actually you should probably make a new thread on the topic)

 

[shadzar]

And the worst part is that I feel like the issue arises because I'm much more interested in not getting in the way of the players' fun than they are interested in not getting in the way of mine. I don't want to have to tell players "no", and I don't want to have show anyone the door, and I may wuss out anyway... (And I dunno, maybe I get this because I'm too much of a pushover?) But I'm starting to feel like that may just be what I have to do.

This is what I mean when I say just accept "don't like it" from the DM, because in the long run the game will deteriorate from the DM becoming not interested. Worse is you sound like you are on the verge of snapping.

Maybe you have a group of those "dregs", or your players jsut don't know you aren't having fun.

Seriously, tell them it isn't working out, you have dealt with things in the game you really don't like and are tired of it. You would be more than welcome to run a game that limits to things you like and will ahve ideas for, but you cannot continue running games the way you have been, because you have lost interest.

Yeah start a new topic, but you show exactly what is being talked about in regards to some players that just don't get the DM should be having fun too, and if not, then the game will break down. Your game is almost there or at that point.