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

[Hussar]

Rel, I would agree that a good campaign milieu creates questions in players almost by virtue of its existence. Where those questions are something a normal person in the milieu would know the answer, or a character background means the character should know the answer, I am more than happy to answer. Otherwise, I encourage players to have their characters actually go out and find the answers!

Like others on this thread, I usually prepare a campaign document that tells players what is allowed, as well as some general information that they should know (and which hopefully points to particular potential adventures). I want this document to generate questions.....questions the players must adventure to discover the answers to!

I would be shocked by a GM being offended by, say, "Does my PC know if kobolds are often encountered in the Tulgey Wood?" or "I'd like to make a ranger; what are some common creatures hereabouts that I might use for a favoured enemy?" In 30+ years of gaming, I've never seen it.

OTOH, "Why can't I play a warforged ninja in your humans-only low fantasy world?" shouldn't really require much in the way of an answer. Unless the GM believes that the player in question really doesn't "get" the idea of a humans-only low fantasy world, of course.


RC

Honestly, I do agree with this and I think this was covered wayyyy upthread with the Middle Ages Europe campaign. The thing is, while it's pretty easy to spot the extremes, there's a pretty broad range in the middle.

For example, "humans only low fantasy" - does that exclude D&D monks? Or human ninjas for that matter? Not the wuxia style ninjas, but more the ninjas that show up in Conan comics?

Gaming story. I was playing in a 2e campaign some years ago and the DM declared, well into the game, that armor was limited to chain mail. No plate mail. I admit it, I'm a bad person, I asked why. Her answer was that it wasn't historical. She wanted to limit armor to pre-plate era.

Again, I'm a bad player. I pointed out that plate armor actually predates chainmail considerably (they did actually list bronze plate mail as an armor choice in 1e IIRC) and that her reason was based on a mistaken interpretation of history.

Now, I did accept the limitation, possibly with less grace than I should have, but, did I actually do anything wrong here? Should I have kept my mouth shut and not asked in the first place? Was I badgering the DM for bringing up things like facts?

 

[Mort]

Honestly, I do agree with this and I think this was covered wayyyy upthread with the Middle Ages Europe campaign. The thing is, while it's pretty easy to spot the extremes, there's a pretty broad range in the middle.

For example, "humans only low fantasy" - does that exclude D&D monks? Or human ninjas for that matter? Not the wuxia style ninjas, but more the ninjas that show up in Conan comics?

As with anything of this nature, the DM and players need to be in agreement (or at the very least understanding) as to "humans only low fantasy" means. Humans only is obvious but "low fantasy" can have quite a few meanings and everyone needs to be on the same page. All this really means is good communication is in order - which actually, would solve most of the issues in this thread.

Gaming story. I was playing in a 2e campaign some years ago and the DM declared, well into the game, that armor was limited to chain mail. No plate mail. I admit it, I'm a bad person, I asked why. Her answer was that it wasn't historical. She wanted to limit armor to pre-plate era.

Again, I'm a bad player. I pointed out that plate armor actually predates chainmail considerably (they did actually list bronze plate mail as an armor choice in 1e IIRC) and that her reason was based on a mistaken interpretation of history.

Now, I did accept the limitation, possibly with less grace than I should have, but, did I actually do anything wrong here? Should I have kept my mouth shut and not asked in the first place? Was I badgering the DM for bringing up things like facts?

The big distinction here is the DMs reason, which is a (supposedly) factual one. You can prove an incorrect fact (chainmail predates plate) wrong, you cannot prove an opinion ("I just don't like it") wrong.

 

[The Shaman]

The big distinction here is the DMs reason, which is a (supposedly) factual one. You can prove an incorrect fact (chainmail predates plate) wrong, you cannot prove an opinion ("I just don't like it") wrong.

There're a couple of problems here, though. First, the referee wasn't necessarily wrong - plate mail wasn't produced in Western Europe for centuries following the fall of the Roman Empire, so if the referee was comparing the Dark Ages to the High Middle Ages, then the idea of "pre-plate" has merit. Moreover, lorica segmentata, while technically armor made of overlapping plates of metal, isn't what AD&D describes as plate mail (at least in 1e - I don't know how much the description changed in 2e), so again, the "facts" being waved around by the player may not begin to tell the whole story.

Second, I hope the player had the good sense to present the information in a way that didn't try to make the referee look foolish. As a process courtesy should flow both ways, so if we're going to the mat for the players receiving an explanation for exclusions by the referee, then I hope we're doing the same for referees when players offer diverging opinions as well.

 

[Hussar]

As with anything of this nature, the DM and players need to be in agreement (or at the very least understanding) as to "humans only low fantasy" means. Humans only is obvious but "low fantasy" can have quite a few meanings and everyone needs to be on the same page. All this really means is good communication is in order - which actually, would solve most of the issues in this thread.



The big distinction here is the DMs reason, which is a (supposedly) factual one. You can prove an incorrect fact (chainmail predates plate) wrong, you cannot prove an opinion ("I just don't like it") wrong.

I agree with everything you just said.

A further question though. As a player, what should I do if I believe the DM is in error? That the Dm's reasons for banning X are based on a mistake? In this specific example, if I bring a history book and open it up and point to the page, am I being a bad player?

And, while I totally agree you cannot prove an opinon to be wrong, isn't discussion the basis for finding the underlying causes of the opinion? It's pretty rare for someone to dislike something without at least some reason.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Hussar, sometimes being the "expert" can be annoying to the person running the game. I have one of those DM supplements from 2e where the example given was an attack by a martial artist character challenged by an actual martial artist.

On the other hand, in this case the GM made the mistake of not letting people know her flawed information until the game was already in progress.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, while I totally agree you cannot prove an opinon to be wrong, isn't discussion the basis for finding the underlying causes of the opinion?

What is the purpose, in this case, of finding the underlying causes of the opinion?

I am assuming you are not doing so as a therapist. I am further assuming that you are mature enough to accept that someone doesn't like something without having to know why.

It's pretty rare for someone to dislike something without at least some reason.

It's pretty rare for someone to dislike something without having some rationalization for why they dislike it; but likes and dislikes are not subject to rationality.

Again, as in the strawberry example, it is rational if you have a desire to live not to consume strawberries; it is not, therefore rational not to like them, or even not to wish you could eat them without an allergic reaction. It is only by conflating actual consequence (allergic reaction) with desire (to live, to eat or not eat strawberries without consequence) that we get to examine the actual basis of emotive motive.

Yes, one can explore what one likes and does not, and what one associates with what one likes or what one does not. Rationality is great for that. The mind can certainly order degrees of desire, and help one achieve what is most desired. It can discover arational links between desire and lack thereof on various subject. In the end, though, there is no rational accounting for human taste.


RC

 

[shadzar]

I agree with everything you just said.

A further question though. As a player, what should I do if I believe the DM is in error? That the Dm's reasons for banning X are based on a mistake?

I would go with the thing most people don't like to here. the 2 rules.

1: The DM is always right.
2: When the DM is wrong, see Rule 1.

If you are trying to make your true to life setting piece, and a thing or two are out of place it wont be AS true to life/history. But in any event the DM has already built around that information and decision, so it could lead to scrapping everything.

a. You ask yourself, is this a game I can play in? If yes, then don't worry about it.

b. If no, then ask yourself is the time it takes to "fix" really worth it for this thing? If yes, then ask the DM to fix it.

If no, then ask yourself question "a" again.

If the DM doesn't want to go through and "fix" it, then you can play as-is, or be without.

Which is why those 2 rules come up in regards to "authority". It is a way to prevent unneeded confrontation.

Also to the specific historical bit as opposed to in general: What if your sources for information support you both, then how do you decide which source was/is correct?

Example of such could be like this "Is Oceraphdalius (sp) an astrological sign for the Zodiac or not?"

 

[Mort]

I would go with the thing most people don't like to here. the 2 rules.

1: The DM is always right.
2: When the DM is wrong, see Rule 1.

While this is technically true, the best campaigns I've been in (either as DM or player) have always been ones with the best cooperation. Where the DM and the players really listen to each other ane share the vision of the the direction of the campaign.

Sure the DM can constantly "Thanks for the input but I'm the DM and I'm right"
the players - but it's likely to be a a very short campaign.

 

[the Jester]

A further question though. As a player, what should I do if I believe the DM is in error?

It depends. Probably suck it up with good grace.

That the Dm's reasons for banning X are based on a mistake? In this specific example, if I bring a history book and open it up and point to the page, am I being a bad player?

IME when it gets to, "No, here, let me show you a reference for how wrong you are," you've probably blown it already.

Some dms are amenable to this sort of thing, but I would not count on it, ESPECIALLY if you argue about it during the session.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

People that know you well can get away with a lot more than people that don't. For example, if I do anything during a session in the way of bad NPC portrayal, slip up in words, etc., you can bet the whole table will mock me mercilessly. There are two reasons why this cause no friction (indeed is a large part of the fun), and I think people focus too much on the first reason to the neglect of the second:

1. They know that I can take it; that this kind of mocking doesn't really bother me at all, and that I'm fine with everyone thus having a good time with it.

2. They bother to watch me/listen to me while they are doing it, and on those rare occasions where something starts to edge out of "all in good fun," they back off without anyone having to get upset or let it get out of control.

Manners are habits that we develop to cover us where we are not naturally tactful and considerate. (That is, they are all process, not results.) When you've bothered with the full scope of consideration, and you know someone well enough, manners can be bypassed with very little risk, and often considerable reward. Those "why" questions and others of their ilk, pushed too far, are exactly where manners break down, and consideration has to take hold. Or rather, if consideration can't take hold, then the mannerly thing to do is not to push in the first place.

You can't trust manners to tell you where the edge is when it comes to pointing out the historical flaws in the DM's world. You can trust manners to tell you just to drop it at various times, and then if it really bothers you enough, ease into the subject at an approriate moment--or leave gracefully.

OTOH, if you know the person well enough to take their feelings into consideration, and you do so, then you may very well be able to hammer them hard about something like that (or comment on it in front of other people, or any host of things you wouldn't do otherwise).