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

[steeldragons]

First, I'll just say, WOW! I can't believe this thread is still going!

Two, I know I'm late to the party. And no, I have not read evvvverything. I skipped from page 5 or so to 27.

Three, I'll just say, I kind of see the OP's point. And I have, in the creation of my campaign world "banned" plenty of stuff...because, at the base of it, "I just don't like it/them."

But, everywhere I can, I've incorporated "real" reasons that feed into the world's internal consistency.

For example:
No drow PCs.
Why not?
1) Because I simply think drow are overdone. I just don't like it.
Why not?
2) Because drow have not been "active in" the world for thousands of years. It's written into part of the world's history/mythologies. And plays into multiple other cultures and sites/legends for adventure.
Why not?
3) Because I like reserving the drow as some great "unknown" foe that is a serious/mysterious threat encountered in the underworld...should they be utilized as NPCs at all. The average (surface) person (other than elves from 2 of the nations) have never heard of a "dark elf"...maaaaaybe a song or story from time forgotten.
Why?
4) Because I just like it that way. Drow, in Orea, are Eeeeevillllll. That's what, IMHO, they were created to be.
Well, why can't I be a "good drow"?
5) Cuz' there aren't any. Any who try are killed. If you encounter a drow, they will be a vicious/cruel lying/scheming killer.
Why?
6) Cuz I said so...that's what drow are/how they exist in this world.
Well, what am I supposed to do?
7) Be one of the 3 other subraces (or 4 if you want to count Aquatic, which I might be persuaded to do) that I DO allow? Hand crossbows aren't strictly a "drow" thing. Adamantine weapons aren't solely a "drow thing". They exist (in the case of adamantium, very rare and/or expensive, but they're there). Be a dual-wielding ranger, a powerful priestess from a matriarchal family elf of some other nation. Work toward making the character you want...but there's no reason it has to be a "drow elf."

The above goes for the world equivalent of "grey elves" (called "star elves" for my setting) also...but I think drow elves will speak to a broader audience as far as an example.

In other words, I have multiple reasons for excluding things...but it's fair to say, those reasons are secondary to the fact that "I simply don't like it/them."

Does that make me a bad DM? I certainly hope not...nor have I ever had anyone I played with tell me I was.

That said, naturally, that's how I play my world that I created. Anyone else using the setting is free to allow whatever they like for their group.

Given the right argument "pro" something, I would probably be inclined to allow it, but "cuz I want to/I think it's cool" isn't good enough...for me. And, if I allow it, you WILL be the "only one of your kind" and, most likely, feared if not persecuted for it.

If you can come up with one cool concept a) we can work it into the allowable stuff somehow...and I, as the DM, will do everything/make any suggestions I can to make that happen for the player or b) you are perfectly capable of coming up with a "cool concept" that works within the world's internal consistency/reality.

(Granted that was my old group of extremely creative, mature and amicable people all of whom were friends outside of game as well as within. Other group dynamics, obviously, may not be so agreeable.)

'K. Think that's all I have here.

Cheers everyone. Happy gaming whether you "just like it" or not.
--Steel Dragons

 

[shadzar]

say a pre-campaign discussion among the group. If I want to ban tieflings then, and someone else cares enough to even ask why, it is very much on me to say why. Otherwise, why even have a pre-campaign discussion?

The problem is, IF tieflings were part of the discussion or not. If tieflings were not up for discussion or debate then we are back to square one.

Say it goes something like this:

DM: I don't allow teiflings, thing 2, thing 3, and thing 4 because I don't like them. Now what do you want to see in and out of the game?

The DM not allowing because not liking has set up the parameters for the discussion, right?

Maybe your post explains this or agrees and I missed it, but isn't part of a discussion to merge ideas, setting up ground rules for what is up for debate?

Thus the whole thread exists, such that the DM set up his ground rules, and shut down debate on things for A reason. this thing is not up for debate with him. Why should he have to explain it? Wouldn't placing the burden on him, even if as you say by himself, to explain it, violate his right to choose it as something not up for debate?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

DM: I don't allow teiflings, thing 2, thing 3, and thing 4 because I don't like them. Now what do you want to see in and out of the game?

The DM not allowing because not liking has set up the parameters for the discussion, right?

Maybe your post explains this or agrees and I missed it, but isn't part of a discussion to merge ideas, setting up ground rules for what is up for debate?

Sure, but in that particular post, I was getting at what can reasonably be expected in the way of explanation, and when.

I put up a post at a local game store, and say this: "Standard 4E game, except no tieflings." That's an implicit anything else goes, and the tieflings are not negotiable. Take it or leave it.

Or I put up a post at a local game store, and say this: "Mostly standard 4E game, except no tieflings. A pre-game discussion will occur on such and such date and time to discuss other parameters." That implies some openness on most things, though likely the desire for something more restricted than "everything". If a player shows up and asks about the tieflings, then I'd say we are in that fuzzy territory that has made this topic so lengthy. That is, "I don't like them," is a sufficient answer, but having called a session to discuss other parameters, it isn't going to hurt you to spend a little time on answering the why on this one. By the same token, you don't want to waste the whole pregame session discussing this, when maybe other people have input on something else they want or don't want in the game.

Similar situation, except I don't mention tieflings in the ad at all, but at the pregame discussion I mentioned that my preference is pretty strong to ban them entirely. Asking why here is not only perfectly ok, but is kind of the point of the pregame discussion. "I just don't like them," is probably not a sufficient answer here. (Normally. You might say that first, and if no one pursues it, then no harm, no foul.) After all, no one showing up had any clue this was an issue, until I mentioned it.

Finally, one of those pregame discussion situations, the discussion happens, and then another guy shows up for the first session with a tielfling. He's out of luck, even if it wasn't mentioned in the add. Any explanation is going to be strictly courtesy, and as such is going to be based on his manner, the needs of the group, getting the game going, etc. That is, he might get an answer, but he has absolutely no right to expect one.

Now in my group, we already know a lot of the non-negotiable ground rules. If I set a date and time for the pregame discussion for the next campaign, I don't have to say, "No horror, no superheroes, no Rated R scenes, etc." We all know that already. If we had a new guy, and forgot to mention something that we already know, it might be on us to give the guy a little explanation, same as above. If we tell him "no horror" when we invite him, then he can choose to accept the invite or not. Later, after we get to know him better, we might even talk about why, over a meal break or something. Otherwise, at the pregame discussion, messing around over that issue is just wasting everyone elses' time. It's settled.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Let me just add this on the question of who owns the problem. When you get the situation where a player wants a character that will otherwise not be allowed, the line gets crossed precisely when the attitude becomes, essentially, "this is my issue, but I expect you to fix it."

Telling me your issue is not a problem. Expecting me to fix it, is. You can even hope that I'll fix it. Just don't expect it. Blown expectations always get things off to a bad start.

You'll also note that this attitude line crossing is not automatic. If the real issue is that I'm just being a dominating DM, then the problem is mine, and I should be expected to fix it.

 

[noretoc]

Wow. And you got posrepped for this?

IOW, behave like a passive agressive jerk to the player, just because he doesn't share your grand vision until such time as you force him to leave the group. Yeah, that's a good plan.

Wouldn't it just save a HUGE amount of time to actually come up with reasons for saying no, and, maybe, having a conversation with this player that maybe finding another group is a good idea? I dunno, maybe take a bit of a more mature approach?

Cos this? What I quoted here? This is about the worst DMing you can possibly do.

You not getting it. I'm not getting rid of a player because he dosen't agree with me. I am getting rid of a player because he is willing to make a stink over a game and disrupt things. It he is a long time player, then he should know better, and know there is a reason, even if I don't bring it up. (might be game related). If he is a new player than he is already arguing in the first game. I have no patience for that. I play to have a good time. If you want to waste my time over something as simple as a restriction, I don't need you playing and taking away from the fun. If you are so inflexible that you can not accept "I don't like them" for a reason, then you are going to have a hard time dealing with anything that comes from me. Either trust me to do my job of making a fun game, regardless of restrictions, or go play with someone else. Maybe I am showing my age, but life it too short for me to waste time with someone like that.

As for being a bad DM, think what you want. I have 8 players and they disagree with you. They come back every week when there are plenty of other places to play around here, and I have more wanting to join.

 

[noretoc]

I think that noretoc has established that the only reason he'd imagine somebody would question why the GM had banned something is because they wish to be a disruptive dick. Since he doesn't want to play with disruptive dicks then it only makes sense to drive them away.

Kind of. It isn't the questioning that would get me. It is the fact that the person thinks they have a right to an answer. If someone say "how come" and I say I don't like them, and its over, then fine. If someone says "You need a better answer than that! That is unacceptable!" (and I get the impression there are people on here that would) then that is when it comes into play. Like I said in the other post, if you know me and play with me, then you trust I have my own reasons and wont push me. Instead you will choose one of the other million ideas. If you don;t know me and are telling me it is unacceptable, then we have another problem, one that I won't waste time on. I have to much respect for my other players that don't pull that.

You even been in a class where one person it constantly arguing with the teacher. If you have ever been that other kid, who just wants to get on with the lesson, then you know the feeling. I don't want my other players feeling like that and I don't want to waste the little time and energy I have butting head. I want to play.

You may thing i'm a jerk, but that ok. Me and my players have a blast every sat and that is all that is important.

 

[shadzar]

it isn't going to hurt you to spend a little time on answering the why on this one.

Let's follow this. IF you are there to setup pre-game discussion of the OTHER parameters, then you expect thos coming to have accepted "no tieflings". There is no reason to discus it, unless someone is there for the wrong reasons.

You shouldn't go to that pre-game if you want to discus tieflings as that was already ruled out.

It won't endear me to you, when you start off ignoring the reason set forth to come. I am seeing the beginning of a pattern to likely ignore other things.

If you come to the game advertised as "no tiefligns", then you should come agreeing with that and leave them entirely out of the discussion so that you don't waste anyone else's time.

There may be a time and place for that discussion to be had, IF the DM welcomes that discussion, but it is not when making that pre-game meeting to hammer out other details.

You should come ONLY if you accept the game advertised. The reason that is the game advertised has no meaning. If you accept it, then join, if not...don't attend.

When you attend you have accepted the burden of accepting the "no tieflings". I am likely to ask you if you are in the right place if you ask "why", because it sounds to me you are trying to order the McRib at Burger King....

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, I said that particular one was on the fuzzy edge. I wouldn't personally expect an answer, but I'd expect to be able to broach the subject without it causing a massive uproar--not that I probably would. Because "pregame discussion" says to me that is a time to air this stuff out. It's merely a good time to say any whys that you care to say. If I asked you why they were out and you said, "because I just don't like them," then I'd think that ok--not perfect, but ok. Fuzzy edge. This is where you'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, unless they start making a big deal about it or wasting a lot of time on it.

Of course, just to head off that kind of problem, if I have any restrictions that are more or less set, I'm very precise in my language with my current group. If I say, "No Tieflings," they know that means, "No Tieflings." They wouldn't even ask. If it was open to discussion, I'd have said something like, "Really rather not have tieflings" or "Strongly inclined to not include Tieflings" or "Tieflings banned unless someone cares enough to fight for them." I've actually used that last statement.

People that don't know me, they might mistake the blanket ban for one of the others, or vice versa. Which is why were I to bother for a game store ad, I'd actually specify which things were "non-negotiable". With my current group, I'll spend more effort communicating my preferences, but softening the language in order to get them to register objections where it matters to them.

 

[Mircoles]

You not getting it. I'm not getting rid of a player because he dosen't agree with me. I am getting rid of a player because he is willing to make a stink over a game and disrupt things. It he is a long time player, then he should know better, and know there is a reason, even if I don't bring it up. (might be game related). If he is a new player than he is already arguing in the first game. I have no patience for that. I play to have a good time. If you want to waste my time over something as simple as a restriction, I don't need you playing and taking away from the fun. If you are so inflexible that you can not accept "I don't like them" for a reason, then you are going to have a hard time dealing with anything that comes from me. Either trust me to do my job of making a fun game, regardless of restrictions, or go play with someone else. Maybe I am showing my age, but life it too short for me to waste time with someone like that.

As for being a bad DM, think what you want. I have 8 players and they disagree with you. They come back every week when there are plenty of other places to play around here, and I have more wanting to join.

You're getting rid of a player because he doesn't agree with you.

You basically do the equivalent of " I'm the DM, so off! " and don't even bother to communicate with the player, who is an equal partner in the collaberative effort that an Rpg game is.

Being DM doesn't mean that it's your time to shine and get a group of people to feed your ego.

The Dm is not and never was God. This is an attitude that should have died long ago.

 

[shadzar]

If I say, "No Tieflings," they know that means, "No Tieflings."

I think here may be a big place where many don't follow. When I say no it means no, not ask me again or try to change my mind. That is what some seem to infer in this thread.

I wouldn't exactly find a "why" in respond to that even politely to dignify even an "I don't like it" or other answer to.

No means no, and not accepting that no means, to me, you have already gone over the line.

Like you I MIGHT put conditional elements on the chopping block, but I am more binary. When I say no it does mean no...the rest I could care less about. If someone else says no, I expect their no is equal in strength to mine.

"No" sets up a pretty clear border and boundary.

I can actually not even recall an occasion where there was need for a discussion of anything else I didn't specifically declare "no" to.

I seem to even recall a Boot Hill character in a 2nd edition game where the rule was "no firearms allowed, buy common gear at book listed price in towns if you dont have something special you are looking for or trying to sell". Being Boot Hill conversion was in 1st edition as a few things would convert...I am not sure how it happened in a D&D game, but I think the system was close enough even though the flavor didn't fit good with me, I didn't set up "no" to it and it came without guns. Was an interesting twist to me that spurred further rule for safety "D&D Books A, B, C, D only for character creation".

If you set yourself up to discuss it, then I agree you should do so, like "I prefer no tieflings, but you got 5 minutes to present why one of you gets to play one", should allow the time to discuss it.

As mentioned elsewhere I am libel to think out loud "I wonder why" if told "No tieflings" at the last minute or without warning. Not liking them myself, I wouldn't require or care if it is answer though.

So I think we are completely on the same page then...but I may be wrong.