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

[shadzar]

I am beginning to suspect that ELIZA has achieved sentience and is now posting in EN World.

"How do you feel about that, Jeff?"

I miss those good old text-based DOS "games".

[MENTION=1276]noretoc[/MENTION]

Not trying to be extreme, but come at it from the perspective the OP presented that the game would be front-loaded with the rules of "no mithril/etc".

You would come to the logical conclusion I made that someone already bringing intent to include mithril, or in my continued example borrowed from another "tiefligns" has already come for the wrong reasons.

When it is a game, you should come FOR that game. When it is a discussion about the game you go to, as we are doing here, then the discusion should obviously be present.

Either way, there will be ground rules set up.

Your words were better than mine in your XP giving.

"why make your first impression a conflict?"

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

"why make your first impression a conflict?"

... The mind, it boggles.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Lets reverse that, who does a player think they are to come to a game advertised "no tieflings" with the intention to play or try to include tieflings?

You'll note that when I brought up banned tieflings, and listed several very similar scenarios, there was only one scenario where it could even be implied that the intent of the questioning player was to include tieflings. I didn't just make up those scenarios. They are all representative of things that I've actually witnessed when running games.

In fact, the real dicks don't even care whether there are tieflings or not. They just want to be disruptive. If you traded tieflings for gnomes just to make them "happy", the very next character they did would be a gnome. Compared to this guy, the player that just wants to see how firm the tiefling ban is, is a veritable treasure.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

On a more positive note, I find it hilarious in the context of this topic that the people who cause me the most "trouble" in my games are the nice ones. Mr. Disruptive gets pegged early, and either cleans up his act or his gone. It's a pain, but relatively brief, and it doesn't take a whole lot of work on your part.

No, "trouble" is Mr. Exceedingly Pleasant who wonders in the pregame discussion whether it would be possible to play a mad gnomish alchemist in a system that doesn't really support it--and then you spend 2 weeks scouring the web and fiddling with house rules to try to make it work. Or Mrs. Excitable and Bubbly who wants to play a diplomatic dryad which is a great concept but turns out to throw massive monkey wrenches in the campaign that no one really expects--which is exciting but "interesting" the same way that you might talk about, say, surviving a rollercoaster derailment.

Of course, one of the reasons that Mr. Disruptive gets shown the door early is that I need ever last one of my remaining brain cells to hang on to the tigers' tale that is the campaign with the nice ones.

 

[shadzar]

the player that just wants to see how firm the tiefling ban is

I have zero tolerance for that.

I wouldn't trade the tieflings for gnomes if I didn't like tieflings. I wouldn't advertise a game I was unwilling to run.

I lost the initial point where teiflings became the example, but people seem more accepting of it than mithril, so went with it. IT remains the same thing though. The DM doesn't like something so isn't willing to include it. Any amount of pressure to do so in any form, is already over the line with me.

You are wasting my time as the DM and the others time to play, and you have no right to do so, be it an established group looking to add more players, a group that is forming, or a one-shot doesn't matter.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Lets reverse that, who does a player think they are to come to a game advertised "no tieflings" with the intention to play or try to include tieflings?

Now the game is being advertised? I thought the OP was about a question being asked and a DM without explanation flat out saying "no" without any reason or justification.

I see you are moving the goalpost here. Not that it matters. I can tell from your tone that you are the type of DM I have walked out on before. Enjoy your game, I have no interest in people who operate under such a heavy handed and narrow creative vision.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Now the game is being advertised? I thought the OP was about a question being asked and a DM without explanation flat out saying "no" without any reason or justification.

The OP was banning mithril and the like. The tiefling example is one I added much later, to distinguish between the various times when "No" really ought to mean "No" versus the times when it might be a bit more lax. One of the differences in those scenarios was how much and how accurate the advertising for the game was.

 

[The Shaman]

No, "trouble" is Mr. Exceedingly Pleasant who wonders in the pregame discussion whether it would be possible to play a mad gnomish alchemist in a system that doesn't really support it--and then you spend 2 weeks scouring the web and fiddling with house rules to try to make it work. Or Mrs. Excitable and Bubbly who wants to play a diplomatic dryad which is a great concept but turns out to throw massive monkey wrenches in the campaign that no one really expects--which is exciting but "interesting" the same way that you might talk about, say, surviving a rollercoaster derailment.

Could someone please drop an XP on Crazy Jerome for me?

I'm actually figuring out how to add alchemy rules for a character right now, btw.

 

[shadzar]

Now the game is being advertised? I thought the OP was about a question being asked and a DM without explanation flat out saying "no" without any reason or justification.

I see you are moving the goalpost here. Not that it matters. I can tell from your tone that you are the type of DM I have walked out on before. Enjoy your game, I have no interest in people who operate under such a heavy handed and narrow creative vision.

Later post established the OP was front-loading the "no" to something, and I have taken that, and borrow the "tieflings" rather than "mithril" example.

So now I am going beyond the OP and wondering if "i don't like it" should even be arrived at?

My examples since that point have been focused on the game was advertised in a store with A RULE stating "no tieflings", and anyone showing up to it, would have known that rule was in place before hand.

Whether other things are "no"ed or not is moot, just saying the game was advertised "no tieflings". Whether other races, classes, plot devices etc is discussed, the "tieflings" should not be in any way as that is how it was advertised.

The line was drawn by the advertisement by the DM as to what they were willing to run, and agreed upon by ANY players that showed up....or as the problem results SHOULD HAVE BEEN agreed upon, and one questioning it after showing up is already in thw wrong place as they didn't agree with it, therefore jsut should not have attended the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

shadzar, try this. Two possible ads for the same D&D game, same DM, same players. Alternative universe if you will.

1. "No tieflings."

2. "No tieflings. No gnomes unless the players make a compelling case for including them."

As I understand your points, tieflings are equally banned in both games. Exactly equally banned. So far I'm with you. But I also understand you to mean that for all players showing up they should get the same impression; that it should be equally understood regardless of which add is used, that tieflings are not permitted, period.

Whereas I would be a lot more receptive to certain queries in the first case than in the second. Because not only do you have legitimate curiousity and all the other reasons that Rel, Hussar, and others have been championing, but you've also got an add with a two word restriction. There's not much context to it. In the second add, the gnome restriction being explicilty somewhat more open correspondingly strengthens the tiefling ban.

Which is why if I were in the habit of running pick up games in stores, and experiences were a little fuzzy, I'd never put out an ad with "No tieflings" in it by itself. If tieflings are all I want to restrict, and I'm that serious about it, I'd put something like, "No Tieflings, Period. No exceptions. Don't even think about asking to play one."