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

[billd91]

Does it really matter?

<snip>

So I toss the question back "Why do you need to know why?"

In fact it might matter very much. But there's no way of knowing without that communication. There may be various reasons you don't like something and, without knowing what they are, I may be stumbling onto them through other routes.
What's the point of not communicating?

 

[lamia]

Perhaps I'm weird, but as a player who did show up to the game fully accepting the advertised parameters with my legit character, I would be really frustrated with the player asking why.

As we sit here on page 40 of a thread asking why, one sees that we tend to get a bit...lengthy in our discussions. If I show up to a game, I really want to play. I don't want to deal with the player who cannot accept the game as is.

As to discovering elements of the game, once again, perhaps I'm weird. But I really like an element of surprise. I'd like to discover the "whys" through my character exploring the setting. I don't really want to know if the main bad guys are going to be tieflings or whatever up front.

I just don't see the point of arguing about metals unless your entire character concept is somehow completely revolving around said metals. And really, if that is the case, then why go to that game?

Just my bit. I'll go back to quietly reading the thread without responding now!

 

[Hussar]

I understand not really having a reason to trust an unknown DM. But if you don't know the DM, do you really have a reason to not trust her?

I'm all for benefit of the doubt but, trust is earned. Trust is not automatic and I've had WAY too many bad DM's for me to just take it on faith.

Let me return the question, why don't you trust the player?

Anecdotal. My anecdotal rebuttal is "not in any campaign that I have seen".

Sorry, misstatement. Monster characters are extensively covered in the rules of 3e and as such, are frequently considered on the menu at tables.

Perhaps I'm weird, but as a player who did show up to the game fully accepting the advertised parameters with my legit character, I would be really frustrated with the player asking why.

As we sit here on page 40 of a thread asking why, one sees that we tend to get a bit...lengthy in our discussions. If I show up to a game, I really want to play. I don't want to deal with the player who cannot accept the game as is.

As to discovering elements of the game, once again, perhaps I'm weird. But I really like an element of surprise. I'd like to discover the "whys" through my character exploring the setting. I don't really want to know if the main bad guys are going to be tieflings or whatever up front.

I just don't see the point of arguing about metals unless your entire character concept is somehow completely revolving around said metals. And really, if that is the case, then why go to that game?

Just my bit. I'll go back to quietly reading the thread without responding now!

See, to me, this is how this conversation should go, using the Tolkien example from above.:

Player: Mr. DM, I've got this concept that I'd really like to play in your game. I want to play an Orc.
DM: Well, that concept doesn't really fit with what I want. See, most of the campaign is going to take place in Gondor and orcs are basically killed on sight. I'm not about to rewrite 3/4 of my campaign. I'm sure you understand.
Player: Oh, gee. I really wanted to play this concept.
DM: Well, what was it about orcs that you liked?
Player: I don't really know a whole lot of Tolkien stuff. I saw the movies, sure, but, that's about it. I wanted to do the whole "fish out of water" thing and I thought orc was the way to go.
DM: How about hobbit. They don't travel, that would work pretty well.
Player: See, I've done the whole short arse thing before and I'm not really into it. Just bugs the crap out of me and I've done it before.
DM: Hrmm... Well, a Human from one of the further out places would work as well. Maybe a (insert bit of Tolkien stuff here, cos, well, I dunno but I'm sure there's something that fits the bill). That would fit your concept pretty well and they're known for being brutish warriors and totally uncouth too.
Player: Hey, that sounds cool...

See, both sides were willing to compromise, although the DM was going to stand fast on the no orc thing. They asked each other questions and got to the heart of the matter and everyone walks away happy.

To me, this is how this conversation should not go:

Player: Mr. DM, I've got this concept that I'd really like to play in your game. I want to play an Orc.
DM: What? I said no orcs. It's in the handout what you can play.
Player: But, I have this cool concept. What's the problem with an orc?
DM: Look, I don't have time to answer any of your questions. Get with the program and make something from the handout.
Player: ... uhh ok...

Meanwhile, the DM has now labeled the player as a "bad player" and will do everything in his power to block everything the player tries until the player finally quits in frustration.

Apparently, this is good DMing to some people in this thread.

So, to bring this back around to your quote Lamia, I agree that if the conversation devolves into an argument that lasts for half and hour, then totally, there are some serious problems at the table. But, it should never get to that point.

--------------

Just wanted to add another thought too, on the idea of the DM is Law. My current group consists of six players. Between the six of us, we've got somewhere around a century of gaming experience. Every single one of us can run a good game and I know that for a fact. Heck, I'm actually a bit intimidated to be honest. These guys know their poop.

So, who am I to just shut down conversation and decide that I know better than they do what would constitute a good game?

Imagine for a second that myself, Raven Crowking, Lanefan, The Shaman and Pemerton sat down at the table to play (ignoring for a second the blast damage as anti-particles collide ) and I'm DMing. Every person I just listed has been playing for many years and knows their stuff. I know every one of them runs a good game. Isn't it the height of arrogance for me to just flat out state that I know what would be better for this campaign than any one of them?

See, I trust my players. I really do. I know that they are every bit as invested in making sure that the game goes well as I am. I know that if we bring something in that doesn't work out, getting it out of the game will be nothing more than a short conversation. Heck, I've dropped things into my game that I didn't think were overpowered and they came to me to tone things down.

Did I mention I love my group to pieces?

My advice, and I'll stand by this, is if you're a DM, relax a bit. Let the players make some changes. You'll be very pleasantly surprised by the results. The players will be more engaged in the campaign because they can claim a bit of ownership and responsibility over the campaign. And, the more engaged your players are, the better your campaign will be.

Not so long ago, I'd be right behind Zel, and the rest saying the DM's word was law. Then, I had a bit of an epiphany a few years back and learned to relax a lot. It has done nothing but make my games better.

 

[catsclaw227]

As to discovering elements of the game, once again, perhaps I'm weird. But I really like an element of surprise. I'd like to discover the "whys" through my character exploring the setting. I don't really want to know if the main bad guys are going to be tieflings or whatever up front.

I mostly agree with this, and I love the in-game discovery process, but PC's are not blank slates when they start. They are (generally) young adults that have lived the equivalent of 18 or so human years. They would know a few things about the world, their local area, and maybe even some history. The sum of their knowledge certainly can't fit on a single "pregame" document, unless said document is 20-30 pages long.

This is why asking a few questions at game start, even after receiving a campaign prep document, can be beneficial to most at the table.

The WotBS player guide doesn't describe everything I may know about my PC and my starting area, so I might ask questions to further flesh out my PC. Would you become frustrated in this case?

 

[Rel]

This is why asking a few questions at game start, even after receiving a campaign prep document, can be beneficial to most at the table.

Actually it is not only beneficial to the player but I find that it is of primary benefit to me as a GM. Supposing that you've got some room for player input on what sorts of adventures they have (rather than an adventure path or pre-planned plot arc) it tells you some of the things that the players are most interested in at the outset of the campaign. That information is worth a lot to me as a GM who generally plans the first adventure out and then just stays open to whatever direction things take.

If, during that pre-game Q&A, the players are asking me about a certain portion of the campaign setting or show interest in the activities of certain power groups then I can go ahead and start dropping plot hooks left and right about those things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some nitpicks:

Player: Mr. DM, I've got this concept that I'd really like to play in your game. I want to play an Orc.
DM: Well, that concept doesn't really fit with what I want. See, most of the campaign is going to take place in Gondor and orcs are basically killed on sight. I'm not about to rewrite 3/4 of my campaign. I'm sure you understand.

Why not this?

Player: Mr. DM, I've got this concept that I'd really like to play in your game. I want to play an Orc.
DM: Sorry, no. I'm only okaying the races in the handout.
Player: Well, I really wanted to play a "fish out of water".
DM: Well, take a look at the handout. Almost everyone can be a "fish out of water" in Middle Earth. All one has to do is step outside of one's borders. Elves and dwarves don't get along; elves are seldom seen in mortal lands; hobbits stay in their borders (for the most part); even various human groups are regional.
Player: Gee, I guess I should have looked at it first......

Just wanted to add another thought too, on the idea of the DM is Law. My current group consists of six players. Between the six of us, we've got somewhere around a century of gaming experience. Every single one of us can run a good game and I know that for a fact. Heck, I'm actually a bit intimidated to be honest. These guys know their poop.

So, who am I to just shut down conversation and decide that I know better than they do what would constitute a good game?

We come from different perspectives.

I have over 30 years of gaming experience, personally. I have played with people with equal or greater experience many, many times. Each time, the job of running the game always ends up in my lap, regardless of where it started. Once I've run a game, I have a hell of a time getting someone else to take up the mantle.

I would love more chances to play, and I would be happy to accept race/class restrictions to do so. Indeed, the more "real" the GM's mileu seems, the happier I will be, and those restrictions are an important tool (IMHO and IME) to creating that feeling.

(Of course, IMHO, creating a compelling milieu as often requires adding materials as taking them away. For example, Tolkein would have to add various human subraces, re-write the elves and their sub-races, etc.)

Imagine for a second that myself, Raven Crowking, Lanefan, The Shaman and Pemerton sat down at the table to play (ignoring for a second the blast damage as anti-particles collide ) and I'm DMing. Every person I just listed has been playing for many years and knows their stuff. I know every one of them runs a good game. Isn't it the height of arrogance for me to just flat out state that I know what would be better for this campaign than any one of them?

No.

It is doing your job as the GM.

Because you, as the GM, must know more about the campaign than your players if you are going to do a good job. I would be far more worried if you thought otherwise!


RC

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Does it really matter?

Someone showing inability "to accept" that early on has always been the case to cause later disruption in my games.

So I toss the question back "Why do you need to know why?"

Because we are human beings and curious and gamers in particular are a breed of person likely to ask why?

But then you final two sentences prove your a troll beyond doubt. "Your game" huh, and here I thought a game of DnD generally had a whole room of people involved.

Maybe you should just stop posting. Two facts are obvious, you would not want to DM for 90% plus of the people who have posted here and that sMe umber or higher would not want you to be their DM.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Just wanted to add another thought too, on the idea of the DM is Law. My current group consists of six players. Between the six of us, we've got somewhere around a century of gaming experience. Every single one of us can run a good game and I know that for a fact. Heck, I'm actually a bit intimidated to be honest. These guys know their poop.

So, who am I to just shut down conversation and decide that I know better than they do what would constitute a good game?

I don't know who you are, but I can tell you who I am to shut it down. I'm the guy with basically three kinds of players:

1.) The ones that care about all this background stuff, and fully engaged in the precampaign discussions, including the decisions about what was in, out, or subject to individual player whim. A lot of the authority I have, they very consciously invested me with it.

2.) The ones that, like Lamia above, really want to be surprised. Sometimes, they even say that, exactly--"Surprise me!" They are the kinds that playing Hero always wanted mystery disadvantages. They have very consciously ceded authority to me and those other players in group #1.

3.) The social gamers, who don't really care either way, as long as we don't dick with them. The trust the rest of us to have a fun game, and we trust them to roll with whatever happens. They happen to be the players that sit quite for lengthy periods, but then assert themselves in our "develop in play" atmosphere at key moment, and take the game in surprising directions. They don't care enough about authority to do anything with it, bolded or otherwise.

We all value each other immensely, and wouldn't trade each other for cash money.

You will also note that while I do sometimes effectively "shut down conversation" in order to not waste time and keep things moving, I'm not the only one that does that. If anything, I'm prone to wait too late to do that. So any of the other 9 people at the table could assert themselves at any time, and play traffic cop for the overall good of the game.

Now, if you and the rest of your particle colliding group of EN-Worlders decided to ask me to run a game for some strange reason, I'd recognize that I'm dealing with a whole different dynamic. I'd probably still use some of the structures that work for me, but I'm only going to take the authority granted to me. And I'd expect pretty much everyone would at least be partially in group #1 in that case, or they wouldn't have been involved in this discussion this long.

That is separate from, say, if one of you came into my existing game. In that case, you can still fit into the structure in whatever way makes you comfortable, but you'll mainly have to fit it, instead of it changing a lot to fit you. (It will inevitably change a little over time to accommodate you more fully, if you stay, because that is what the structure is--a recognition of who is involved.)

As to why I have that authority, it was because I was duly elected by 100% of the population prior to your entry into it. If your 9% share of the newly divided vote doesn't get you exactly what you want right away, I'm sure (no sarcasm, I really am sure) that you'd understand why and be gracious about it.

This is all opposed to a con game, where I don't know you from Jack Spratt, but I've also got only 4 hours to do this thing I volunteered to do for free, despite the fact that I'm not very good at it. If I seem to take authority not mine, well I might be nervous.

It is in between a long-standing group like mine and a con where all the real sticky stuff happens. But in that environment, I'm either treating it like a con or a potential long-term group. If it is a long-term group with me as DM, then I'm trying to determine if best structure to make it work as well as my current group works.

I'm not mentally writing anyone off for a mere "Why?" I might be mentally writing someone off for a "Why?" in a particular context, given with a particular attitude, and body language, tone, etc. that set off my idiot radar. Even then, I'll not tell anyone else, and I'll give the guy a chance to prove me wrong. Or are we supposed to drop a lifetime of experience dealing with people every time we meet someone new?

 

[Umbran]

It is pretty clear that this thread has yielded up about as much good and interesting information as it can for the moment - differences in opinion are now devolving to butting heads.

Time for a break from this topic. THUNK!