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

[Hussar]

I think I can say we're not casual. In fact, I'd say the casual gamer is the one least likely to ask the questions because they don't really care enough to be as involved or understand as deeply. I expect the serious gamer to ask questions, participate in plans and discussions, and otherwise be involved, engaged, and understand where the game is and where it's going.
And as a serious DM who wants his players engaged, I answer the question "why".

This is 100% truth. I just can't posrep it again.

Nothing shuts down players faster than a DM who is antagonistic towards providing insight into his or her decision processes.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I have a job and responsibilities, and I'd finish this sentence but I'd get myself banned from my own thread.

 

[Hussar]

You can see it that way. You are wrong though. What I am doing is testing him, to see if he is smart enough to get the point. Then if he isn't I am giving him a chance to leave the game with his dignity intact, rather than me tellimg him to leave in a way there would be no doubt that it was not his choice. Fortunately I have never had the situation come up.

Testing him? Nice justification there. Dragging the game through weeks of gamer drama just to protect his fragile ego. Wow.

I am not arguing. I am stating a restriction, he is the one coming back at me and trying to start an argument. I never said he was trying to ruin my game. I said he was wasting my time and demonstating that he can not accept a decision

He asked a question. When he got a pretty unsatisfactory one, he asked again. This is wasting time and starting an argument? Really? He's actually engaqed enough into your setting that he wants to know some of the reasoning behind your decisions, but your automatic assumption is that he's trying to pick a fight.

Then you have a problem. Trying letting people make thier own decisions without your input. You may get a better response from people.

Again, I'm trying to gain insight into his though processes. Why doesn't he like wizards? Is it going to be a problem if I run a several session adventure in a wizard's academy? Is it he just doesn't want to deal with the complications of playing a D&D wizard or is there something more?

Again, you're automatically presuming things that aren't there.

The why waste the time of everyone having that conversation in the first place. Just so everyone knows your opinion on the subject? Pretty Selfish

Again, I'm simply trying to gather more information. Sure, I'd let him play something else. No problem. But, knowing why he doesn't want to play X lets me design campaigns that will be more fun. But, I guess that's just too selfish. I should instead create masterpieces that the players will just "trust me" that will be fun and never solicit any input from the players.

No wonder getting any feedback from players is like pulling teeth. They've had DM's who would drive them from the group if they had the temerity to voice an opinion.

In my experience when somone say "Everyone I played with" or everyoe I know" or a similar negative statement about "everyone" the problem isn't the people around the person. Chances are if you think everyone around you is a jerk, it isn't them.

Ahh, the ad hominem, with the obligatory posrep topping. Nice to see that taking points out of context never goes out of style. If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I said that the poor DM's that I'd played with all shared a similar trait. Yet, I said nothing about how many DM's I've actually played with. I'm very lucky right now that I've got a group with not one, but THREE excellent DM's.

And you know what? They'll answer questions every single time. Funny that.

On that note, from what you say here you have no real interest in gaining any insight in this conversation. Just like you would "Have a converation" with somoene who dosen't want to play a wizard, you seem only interested in pushing your ideas on mw. Due to that, I will now bow out of this. I really have not interest in your opinions. I stated how I felt, and responded to a few people who had questions. I do not intend to have further conversation with someone who just wants to make judgements about me. You can continue to demand answers to questions that you really ahve no right to get, and reap whatever results that brings. Enjoy.

And, ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution rests. This is pretty much how it goes. Ask a question, someone gets their ego involved and it's all down hill from there. Let's not forget that this started with noretoc stating that someone who "failed" his "test" would be driven from his group through passive agressive tactics.

But, apparently, I'm the one who has no interest in actually sharing ideas.

 

[Hussar]

I have a job and responsibilities, and I'd finish this sentence but I'd get myself banned from my own thread.

But, this gets back to the entire point of this thread. You actually HAVE reasons beyond "I just don't like it". The one point that pretty much everyone in this thread (save a notable exception) agrees on is that "I just don't like it" might be a valid reason, but, it's not a particularly good answer.

So, why not use the good answer first?

 

[Zhaleskra]

But, this gets back to the entire point of this thread. You actually HAVE reasons beyond "I just don't like it". The one point that pretty much everyone in this thread (save a notable exception) agrees on is that "I just don't like it" might be a valid reason, but, it's not a particularly good answer.

So, why not use the good answer first?

I already answered that. To answer every why, my game ad would likely sprawl over the entire venue. What I want to do is give an idea on the top half of of an 8.5 x 11" piece of paper, and phone/e-mail slips on the bottom. Doesn't give me a lot of room to answer "why" does it?

 

[Hussar]

Hang on a tick, how much are you banning? And, does every element have a different reason?

I mean, if I'm running a stock Tolkienesque game, for example, my game ad would say something to that effect and then the answer to "Why can't I play X" becomes pretty simple - it's not found in stock Tolkien, therefore it's not in my game.

Now, if someone came to me, interested in playing that same game, and asked if they could be a Giant Eagle and I said, no, then it's pretty much fair game to ask why not. After all, Giant Eagles are a staple of that setting, and, presuming a 3e D&D game, monster characters are also typically fair game.

Or, as a less out there example, what if they want to play an Orc or a Goblin? Again, it's a reasonable request - it fits into setting, although perhaps not what I had in mind. "Sorry, no orcs or goblins because I want this to be a heroic game, no evils and I really, really don't want to deal with all the crap of you trying to move about in human lands without getting killed, it's just too much hassle." is a better answer than, "No, because you should just trust me that I know best".

Which is the answer I don't think you're advocating, Zel, but, I do think has been advocated by more than a few people here.

Just as a question to those who feel that the "DM knows best". Doesn't this seem rather patriarchal to you? Why should the player automatically be relagated to "doesn't know how to make a good game" just because he disagrees with the DM? Isn't the player equally interested in having a fun game?

Or, do we just assume that anyone who would question the DM is automatically a dick in the first place and go from there. Because, looking at a lot of the responses here, that seems to be the attitude. It's almost circular. Only dicks ask questions.

Why is the base assumption that the player isn't as interested in a good game as the DM?

 

[Zhaleskra]

Hang on a tick, how much are you banning? And, does every element have a different reason?

Not that much usually, except the carpet ban of splat books. I just don't have the time to read bits and pieces of lots of sourcebooks to make the characters you want work.

When I mentioned the three conversations, from what I've seen 1: GM proposes game and players accept it or not, or 3: GM and Players get together and have a mutual conversation have the best success rate. 2: Player has an idea (often in my experience a really weird or outright abusive character concept) tends to lead to the player not finding a GM at all, if what I've seen on other forums is any indication.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, this gets back to the entire point of this thread. You actually HAVE reasons beyond "I just don't like it". The one point that pretty much everyone in this thread (save a notable exception) agrees on is that "I just don't like it" might be a valid reason, but, it's not a particularly good answer.

So, why not use the good answer first?

Heh.

When I set up a game, I create a handout telling players exactly what is allowed. I am not the only person on this thread to do so.

I will note, however, that said handout also implies rather strongly that anything not listed is not allowed. Nor are there any reasons given for this, apart from the obvious "X (the allowed stuff) is how the world is" and, by implication, "Not-X is how the world is not, at least as far as you know at game present."

This last is important because, to me, "no drow PCs" does not imply "no drow in the game world".

Moreover, if there are no elf PCs listed in the background documentation, there may be a note that elves have all disappeared, or there may not be any knowledge of elves (either because they are hidden as part of the milieu's secrets, or because there are none).

The background document tells you what you know. "Why is X like Y?" is a question that is (much more often than not) best resolved by game play.


RC

 

[Zhaleskra]

You just gave me some ideas. Maybe there's no adamantium, because using the rules of the second X-Men movie, you can't do anything with it once its cooled: maybe areas that had it experienced an event of extreme heat, followed by not being messed with as they cooled. So, it's there, just not in a usable form.

Mithril too, maybe people got sick of the dwarfs' super metal making their metal make them look like chumps, and they dumped every bit they could find into a volcano. Sometimes with the dwarf still inside.

 

[shadzar]

Heh.

When I set up a game, I create a handout telling players exactly what is allowed. I am not the only person on this thread to do so.

I will note, however, that said handout also implies rather strongly that anything not listed is not allowed. Nor are there any reasons given for this, apart from the obvious "X (the allowed stuff) is how the world is" and, by implication, "Not-X is how the world is not, at least as far as you know at game present."

This last is important because, to me, "no drow PCs" does not imply "no drow in the game world".

Moreover, if there are no elf PCs listed in the background documentation, there may be a note that elves have all disappeared, or there may not be any knowledge of elves (either because they are hidden as part of the milieu's secrets, or because there are none).

The background document tells you what you know. "Why is X like Y?" is a question that is (much more often than not) best resolved by game play.


RC

Just imagine this being PbP....."No tieflings" is listed amongst the creation rules. Even if teiflings are not mentioned in the background, them it gives you the info up front.

That character creation ruleset is a very important one.

Which has more options for ME?

The game that says:
Elves, Humans, Orcs, Dwarves PCs only.

Or the game that says:
No tieflings

Both have no tieflings allowed, and both are clear as to what is allowed. Want drow or eladrin, you use the second game.

The why is always obvious. Either you find out during play as the game is meant to be, if not in the background of the world. OR the very fact that not all games are run the same way. The same DM can always run the same game format with races allowed, or may run different ones at different times. Each game is different is ALWAYS the why. That is the purpose of D&D.

Personally I want a list to read rather than a TL;DR paragraph of crap to tell me what is and isn't allowed. That is what lists are for.

If it doesn't say Yes, then No is assumed such as the first example. If it doesn't say No, then Yes is assumed like the "no teiflings" example.

1st example:

Player: Can I have an eladrin PC?
DM: Elves, Humans, Orcs, Dwarves PCs only.
(Player: Why can't I have an eladrin?)


The answer is already No.

2nd example:

Player: Can I have an eladrin PC?
DM: No tieflings.
(Player: Why can I have an eladrin?)

The answer is already Yes.

Why ask the question if you know the answer? Why ask the question when the answer doesn't matter?

See how silly the questions in parenthesis look?

aaaargh I came back to this thread...

Point being, character creation rules, like you say, don't really say anything about the world, that is to be learned through play, or through any pre-game info about the world the players need.