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



## Zhaleskra (Jan 23, 2011)

I'm trying to wrap my head around why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something. Especially when the GM gives zir reasons.

For example, I don't like metals that start with "adamant-" or are pronounced "mithril" (regardless of actual spelling) because I think they are the most overused fantasy materials.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 23, 2011)

Yikes, lots of negatives in one sentence makes it hard for me to parse.  Lemme try:



> why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something




They DON'T think "I DON'T like" is NOT a reason to NOT allow something.  That's four, so I think they cancel out as two pairs of double negatives?

So the question is Why do some players think I like X is a valid reason for a GM to allow something?

Well, it is a valid reason.  It might not be one that the GM accepts, but "I like something" is as good a reason as any to include something; and "I don't like something" is as good a reason as any not to do so.  

It depends on the context, really.  Your "metals" example sounds overly picky to me; I'd laugh and move on.  If they really pushed it, then I'd be questioning what was wrong with them; maybe rename it to "Xthranite" to keep them happy or something, but that would just me being sarcastic.

If it was something more substantial - "I don't like horror themed games" - then that's a discussion to be had.  The GM shouldn't run a horror-themed game for a group of people who dont' like horror-themed games.  I mean, what's the point?  We're all there to play a game we like.

But no, the metals example is just a player being a bit of an ass.  I'd not be worrying about the game here, I'd be worrying about the ability of the person to interact with others in a mature social fashion.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 23, 2011)

I guess the question would be do these specific names not exist in your setting, but mechanically identical replacements do, or do you hate super hard and super supple metals?

More broadly: "I don't like it" is perfectly valid, but so is "I am going to play with a different GM."


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 23, 2011)

Perhaps I chose the wrong prefix. Then again, I was asking why some players dislike the GM just not liking something.

I apologize for for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?


----------



## Morrus (Jan 23, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Perhaps I chose the wrong prefix. Then again, I was asking why some players dislike the GM just not liking something.
> 
> I apologize for for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?




OK, I totally parsed it wrong. So the GM is saying they don't like something, therefore not including it in their setting?

Again, depends what it is. The metals issue is so trivial as to be inconsequential. If the GM is changing the game so much that it's not the game the group wants to play, then he can't force them to play his game. That said, if the players want to_ define_ the actual setting, why have a GM?

I guess the adamantine example just sounds silly to me (I don't know if that's the actual situation your'e facing or just an example you plucked out of the air). It doesn't seem worthy of comment from players, unless they're _trying_ to be difficult. If it was something like "All players have to play elves" that's noteworthy, and requires discussion before the game to make sure everyone has turned up to play the game they want to play. We're all there just to have fun with our friends, after all, right?

The GM doesn't "own" the game - it's a social activity between a group of people who have agreed to do this thing together.  Doesn't make him their king or anything.  But objecting to minor trivial changes seems overly antagonistic; that change doesn't fundamentally change the game you're playing.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 23, 2011)

Morrus said:


> I guess the adamantine example just sounds silly to me (I don't know if that's the actual situation your'e facing or just an example you plucked out of the air). It doesn't seem worthy of comment from players, unless they're _trying_ to be difficult. If it was something like "All players have to play elves" that's noteworthy, and requires discussion before the game to make sure everyone has turned up to play the game they want to play. We're all there just to have fun with our friends, after all, right?




Not out of air, out of a lack of completing communication. And it wasn't even those two metals. That was my fault for not saying "this setting doesn't necessarily have lycanthropes" when I noticed a short term player with a lot of silvered weapons.



> The GM doesn't "own" the game - it's a social activity between a group of people who have agreed to do this thing together.  Doesn't make him their king or anything.  But objecting to minor trivial changes seems overly antagonistic; that change doesn't fundamentally change the game you're playing.




I agree, the GM's authority is by the consensus of the group. Here, I have seen at least one person object to the lack of Dragonborn in a campaign because the GM--who is not me--didn't like them.

In a HARP game I was in, the GM did not allow Gryx because he doesn't like them. Most of the other players didn't either. I have no real strong opinion on that race.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 23, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> That was my fault for not saying "this setting doesn't necessarily have lycanthropes" when I noticed a short term player with a lot of silvered weapons.... Here, I have seen at least one person object to the lack of Dragonborn in a campaign because the GM--who is not me--didn't like them.




Then the player should look for a more compatible game. Heck, I don't allow core races at all, in my game. To clarify, as the game is set underwater, I allow them for as long as they can hold their breath. If someone wants to play a stock human in my game, the character is required to take one of two prestige classes; Anchor or Bait.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 23, 2011)

Players sometimes get an idea in their heads for what they want to play. When the GM says no, some who are particularly set on something will argue about it, and try to get an exception made. If they're particularly obsessive about a particular idea, some will walk rather than accept that they can't play it. Sometimes when they've put a lot of work into the character already, I can see their point.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 23, 2011)

Sometimes I haven't quite said no. I've said things akin to "this game doesn't exactly have rules for that and I'm not sure I'd be good at coming up with them". Player wanted to make a trick knife thrower, but World Tree doesn't really have "cover" rules. On the other hand, it's not high magic, but everyone has some: so magic rich, really. Had I thought about it more, I probably could have been creative with cantrips to help the concept work.

I had also had a player who wanted to be an absolute atheist. Atheism does exist on the World Tree, but not quite as it does in the real world especially because the gods are an observable fact. His angle was to be an extreme feather caster (the magical equivalent of speeding on streets), cheating the gods out of their cley. I later did come up with some ideas how this could work, which disadvantage would be appropriate, but that was well after the adventure tanked.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 23, 2011)

It's all about communication. If you invite folks to play D&D and one of them shows up with a tiefling warlock, it's your fault for not specifying 2nd Edition Dragonlance. Especially when dealing with new groups, it is important to establish any rules that diverge from the Core.

However, I agree with the OP from the perspective that the GM is under no obligation to allow or include things that he doesn't "like". People have preferences, and the GM's preferences do outweigh the players' because the GM has to do a lot more creative work. If your GM thinks Dragonborn are stupid, you should either choose a different race or a different GM.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 23, 2011)

Reynard said:


> It's all about communication. If you invite folks to play D&D and one of them shows up with a tiefling warlock, it's your fault for not specifying 2nd Edition Dragonlance. Especially when dealing with new groups, it is important to establish any rules that diverge from the Core.




Speaking of Tieflings, another thing I don't like is how much they changed since their introduction. Planescape box were okay, I liked Planewalker's Handbook Tieflings better, even if it was a little more work. My opinion is that Faces of Evil over defined how much fiend blood they had. Then they were "reset" with 3e . . . initially.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 23, 2011)

A DM is always free to do whatever they want, and so are the players. That's what makes it a collaborative game.



> Player wanted to make a trick knife thrower, but World Tree doesn't really have "cover" rules.




I don't know how "cover" rules would be key to playing a trick knife thrower, but what's difficult about rules for "hitting something you can't exactly see entirely"? I'd think any game with a modicum of grid-based combat could have such a thing, since it's something that's going to come up.



> His angle was to be an extreme feather caster (the magical equivalent of speeding on streets), cheating the gods out of their cley.




....I don't know what that means or what it has to do with Atheism, but for a method of doing atheism in a world where gods are observable facts, check out how Planescape has done The Athar. Short version is that they treat the gods kind of like most people might treat dragons or giants or liches. Big and powerful, but not exactly worthy of dying to serve. 



> I later did come up with some ideas how this could work, which disadvantage would be appropriate, but that was well after the adventure tanked.




Y'know dude, you might want to consider bringing up things you're not quite sure how to handle here at ENWorld. We're crazy helpful about campaign stuff like this, generally speaking.  If you can't think of a way to make it work, the braintrust here can likely make everyone happy, or if not, at least give you a better grounding in exactly why you can't do such a thing. Cover rules, knife-throwers, fantasy athiests, there's a lot of ideas out here.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 23, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


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





A GM can disallow anything they wish but they run the risk of losing players if they do it often without what the players believe to be good reason(s).


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 23, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't know how "cover" rules would be key to playing a trick knife thrower, but what's difficult about rules for "hitting something you can't exactly see entirely"? I'd think any game with a modicum of grid-based combat could have such a thing, since it's something that's going to come up.




World Tree neither encourages nor discourages map based combat. One thing he wanted to do with his tricks was throw knives around obstacles.



> ....I don't know what that means or what it has to do with Atheism, but for a method of doing atheism in a world where gods are observable facts, check out how Planescape has done The Athar. Short version is that they treat the gods kind of like most people might treat dragons or giants or liches. Big and powerful, but not exactly worthy of dying to serve.




The Athar's philosophy doesn't exactly fit the gods of the World Tree, especially because of a few rules to how magic works. I've sometimes called the game "d20 based Ars Magica with anthropomorphic animals". That said, nothing can be destroyed beyond repair, and nothing can be so "healed" that it is beyond destruction.

Also I think you might have missed that I'm more than familiar with Planescape.

The normal atheism on the tree is "the gods exist but lack divinity" whatever that means. Since you have to pay a cley (magic point) to the gods every time you cast a spell the regular way, claiming that the gods don't exist at all is a Bizarre Belief (-2 Disadvantage).


----------



## Rel (Jan 23, 2011)

I don't hold much opinion about whether you have the "right" to say no without giving a further reason.  But it's probably not a very good idea if you consider the players to be friends and peers.

If my friends and I are going out to dinner and one says, "I want to go to the Mongolian Steakhouse" then I can say, "No."  But if I don't give any further reason then they must draw their own conclusions about why I'm saying No and they might conclude that I'm just being a contrary dick.  If I instead say, "No, I'm vegetarian." then I've given a reason behind my objection.  They may think that's a good reason or a bad reason but I've at least backed up my negation of the idea with something.

If you are pushing for the right to say No without any further justification then I think you're establishing yourself as an authority over the players to the same level as a parent or a boss.  You're saying, "Because I said so." is your reason.  I just don't see much profit in that.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 23, 2011)

Rel said:
			
		

> You're saying, "Because I said so." is your reason.  I just don't see much profit in that.




"I don't like X" is not the equivalent of "Because I said so."


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 23, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> For example, I don't like metals that start with "adamant-" or are pronounced "mithril" (regardless of actual spelling) because I think they are the most overused fantasy materials.




You answered your own question. 

"I don't like it" is usually followed by "why?". The why is what makes or breaks the issue. 

Because it doesn't fit the world/game/motif you're aiming for? Fine. Let your player's know the change is for that reason. 

Because its tired/cliche/overdone? Okay... but you're setting yourself up for a slippery slope here, esp when orcs raid a village, or a dragon kidnaps a princess.

Because I, the GM, harbor some personal grudge against the thing in question? (Orcs are stupid. PCs shouldn't be assassins. The bard class is poorly written.) This can be tricky. Is there a reason for those opinions (orcs make no sense in my world, assassins ruin party unity, the bard is too weak to support his role) then you may see some dissatisfaction from players, esp. the one who wanted to be a half-orc bard! 

No one ever dislikes something blindly. There is always a reason. The question you gotta ask is "is my reason convincing enough to disallow this" before falling on the I am the GM card.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 23, 2011)

It can seem as something of an empty comment if the player can supply specific reasons why he or she likes something. If a player has specific reasons for wanting to include something, and the GM has no specific reasons other than "I just don't like it" for excluding it, and exclusion wins out, it could feel a little authoritative.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 23, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I'm trying to wrap my head around why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something. Especially when the GM gives zir reasons.
> 
> For example, I don't like metals that start with "adamant-" or are pronounced "mithril" (regardless of actual spelling) because I think they are the most overused fantasy materials.




What is this "zir" you speak of both here and in an XP comment above? Bit of Italian?-I see you're from Milan. 

In any case, I dont like "Because I just dont like". Anytime I do something or houserule something, or change something-I always try to have reasons beyond that. I mean certainly a ruler (and you are Dungeon Master of The Table) could make an edict or any rule or change because he feels like it, but people feel much better if they give a reason based on some _logic_ or reasoning beyond mere sentiment and emotion.

I mean, what if there were no fantasy PC races in your game? You could say, "I just dont like elves, dwarves, haflings, gnomes, or orcs-I dont want any." and most people would ask 'why'? And might indeed be quite disappointed if they like any of those. Of course if you explain the history of your setting and the... "Just So" stories of your setting, they may accept this. OF COURSE they could just leave and not start the game-*HOWEVER*, players may become upset if some "I just dont like" comes up in the _middle _of campaign when they already invested much time into their character and into the game only to have some oddball "I just dont like" come out of nowhere unexpectedly.

If you have any such sentiments which might come up, you should get them out of the way as soon as possible.



Mark CMG said:


> A GM can disallow anything they wish but they run the risk of losing players if they do it often without what the players believe to be good reason(s).




Also mind you though-the instant the DM gives a _reason _the PCs can now _argue_ with them. (Albeit many people would think it rude to argue in the middle of play with limited time as opposed to doing it after the game) With "I just dont like" you as a PC can accept that or not, but you cant argue that it isnt _true. Who are you to tell someone what they dont like? _Also mind you a player could just as easily say "I just dont like it" and NOT want to play the game the DMs way just as easily as the DM could say "I just dont like" and NOT run a game the way the player thinks it should.

It depends on how big a point of contention it is, whether the player leaves. I have never been in a game where I liked _everything._ But in most of them I have liked more things than disliked. If thats the thing thats the tipping point for the PC they may leave. How significant keeping them is depends on availibilty of players. If you have a large FLGS and a lot of games, they may leave more easily, and you can just as easily replace them.

If your group is the only game in town, well thats different. But the DM wants to have fun too and they are putting in time they hypothetically dont have to -BUT so are the players. It comes up often DMs expecting players to make some compromises, accepting some aspects that they dont favor -but so should the DM _sometimes_. If a player was an employee paid to work somewhere they might put up with it for the money. If a DM was paid to do with it, they'd sell whatever the people wanted to buy and "the customer" would "always be right".

As for why people dont always "just leave" if they dont like it.
1. It could be the only game in town, and having that game and what they do like about it outweighs other issues.

2. They may be in it for OTHER people. They may have a friend in the game who in contrast still likes the game. If they leave the group may be impacted and they dont want to be seen as ruining a friends fun. I have known people in such situations.

3. Relating to #2; if the DM or any of the people of that group should run another/different game they may remember how the player left the LAST time and for what reasons. They may see this as making them flakey, leaving over something that they didnt have a problem with and may not invite/allow the player in their game. Leaving game depending on the reasons could have consequences for other potential games in the future. (of course, a player that wants to get out of a game could simply _lie _about the why. Albeit that in itself may be hard to them.)


EDIT: Random side note-I think you'd sound like an arse if you deliberately used the threat of leaving a game to try to leverage the DM into changing one or any number of things. (Although a DM could very easily_ not _run a game a particular way and say "well I'm not gonna run it that way" and somehow I think many people would see it the same way.)


----------



## Ringlerun (Jan 23, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Perhaps I chose the wrong prefix. Then again, I was asking why some players dislike the GM just not liking something.
> 
> I apologize for for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?




I hope i dont get flamed for this but here goes.

I believe the way the game is played has changed from the good old 80's were the GM was a ruler on high.  ( i use this analogy as most games had to be house ruled and since the GM was doing all the work most players just accepted what the GM said created their characters and started playing)  Also alot of players never really got attached to their characters until around 3rd to 5th level.  Character death was more common in older games.

Now with the advent of later games (i will use 3rd Edition D&D as an example. i am not bagging the system so please dont flame me for this)
Players dont need a GM to oversee character creation.  Everyone gets the same points to create their character.  So from the start the player is putting an investment into the character. They are planning what stats to have, what skills to get, what feats to take.  They are also have to plan for the future of the character.  If i want feat x at level y i must have w stat and z feat.  So from the beginning the players put alot of development into their characters and through that an attachment occurs.  I am not saying this is a bad thing but what it does is make the GM's role more difficult if he wants to create his own setting.

As the OP said why is it a big issue if the GM excludes something because he doesnt like it.  Its because players dont like having to change their characters when they have invested time in developing a character they want to play.  As a GM i know how frustrating it can be to have a player bring an incompatible character to the table.  And i know how annoying it is to think up fantastic character concept to have it ix-nay by the GM

Not sure if this answers the question properly or not, Its just a few meandering words on my experiences as GM and a player.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 23, 2011)

Rel said:


> I don't hold much opinion about whether you have the "right" to say no without giving a further reason.  But it's probably not a very good idea if you consider the players to be friends and peers.
> 
> If my friends and I are going out to dinner and one says, "I want to go to the Mongolian Steakhouse" then I can say, "No."  But if I don't give any further reason then they must draw their own conclusions about why I'm saying No and they might conclude that I'm just being a contrary dick.  If I instead say, "No, I'm vegetarian." then I've given a reason behind my objection.  They may think that's a good reason or a bad reason but I've at least backed up my negation of the idea with something.




And what if your answer is, "I don't like Mongolian steak?" Should you be required to justify your dislike of Mongolian steak?



Sorrowdusk said:


> What is this "zir" you speak of both here and in an XP comment above? Bit of Italian?-I see you're from Milan.




It's a non-gender-specific singular pronoun; shorthand for "his or her."


----------



## Greg K (Jan 23, 2011)

I have no problem with a DM saying "No, I don't like it".   The DM is entitled to run the campaign he or she wants to run. Players are free to play or walk.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 23, 2011)

Reynard said:


> "I don't like X" is not the equivalent of "Because I said so."




Actually, it is.

It's ... and I'm going to pick the wrong word here, but it's tautaulogical.  It doesn't provide supporting information.  It doesn't engage in conversation.  It isn't the sort of thing you say to friends; it's a dictatorial uttering.

I was just going to post something exactly like Rel's point, so I'm glad he did it for me.

"Do you want to go get Italian for dinner?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"_I just don't like it._"

The last line doesn't tell us anything; it could be that you don't like the taste of tomatoes, or you're alergic to oregano, or you've only had microwave Italian and think it's all bland, or something, but because you've decided to, effectively, end the conversation, we'll never know whether or not you'd enjoy this fantastic sirloin with marsala sauce at the little place I love down the street.

In the end, "I just don't like it" fails to satisfy because it is, at root, a lazy, cop-out answer.  There is a reason you don't like it, and hopefully we've all done enough self-thinking to go at least beyond the first level, to what it is about the subject that bothers you.  The OP at least elaborated a little bit in one case - he doesn't like adamantine and mithril because he thinks "they are the most overused fantasy materials."

But, even then, is it the names he has a problem with, and having them called, I dunno, tungsten steel and aluminum would make him happy, or is it the idea of weapons- and armor-grade super-hard metals and super-light metals existing at all?  (Which, being a modern person, I might have a slightly hard time with, because we've got them floating around "for realz" - and even way back when, there's tales of Damascene steel.)  Is it the specific mechanics?  Is it okay if you have to have a spellcaster with you when you work them, or can only forge weapons from adamantine / -ium when working at a specific, magical forge?


----------



## Greg K (Jan 23, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> In the end, "I just don't like it" fails to satisfy because it is, at root, a lazy, cop-out answer.?



It can be a lazy cop-out, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes, people just can't find the words to explain what it is they do not like about something.
I can tell you that some foods I don't like, because of texture, seasoning, smell, the thought of what I am eating makes me sick, etc.   With other foods that I dislike, I can't specify why. I just dislike it.


----------



## KidSnide (Jan 23, 2011)

Maybe it's because I've been GMing for so long, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to set the aesthetic of the game.  (In fact, I think it's the GM *job*.)  For example, I think it's completely reasonable for a GM to say that "starsteel and spidersilk" are the special materials of this world instead of adamant- and mithril.  Or, a GM could run an Athas-like world with no orcs or gnomes, or a world where drow are planned as the secret paragon antagonist and thus off-limits to heroic PCs.

I think the issue is one of communication.  The GM needs to communicate the campaigns aesthetic well enough for the PCs to buy in.  Or, alternatively, the GM could talk over the campaign with the potential players and design something that everyone wants to play.  However, at the campaign creation level (which includes the most important question of all: "who are the PCs?"), I don't think it's the GMs job to say "yes" - I simply think it's the GMs job to create something that everyone wants to play.

Of course, there is always tension between strong editorial control by the GM and freedom of creativity for the players.  I simply think that campaign creation (as opposed to active gameplay) is the time when GMs have the strongest interest in editorial control because they are setting the baseline.  Similarly, the players have the weakest argument for freedom of creativity because - before the campaign has started - players don't understand the context and are in a weak position to make well-chosen creative decisions.

-KS


----------



## Greg K (Jan 23, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> Now with the advent of later games (i will use 3rd Edition D&D as an example. i am not bagging the system so please dont flame me for this)
> Players dont need a GM to oversee character creation.  Everyone gets the same points to create their character.  So from the start the player is putting an investment into the character. They are planning what stats to have, what skills to get, what feats to take.  They are also have to plan for the future of the character.  If i want feat x at level y i must have w stat and z feat.  So from the beginning the players put alot of development into their characters and through that an attachment occurs.  I am not saying this is a bad thing but what it does is make the GM's role more difficult if he wants to create his own setting.
> 
> As the OP said why is it a big issue if the GM excludes something because he doesnt like it.  Its because players dont like having to change their characters when they have invested time in developing a character they want to play.  As a GM i know how frustrating it can be to have a player bring an incompatible character to the table.  And i know how annoying it is to think up fantastic character concept to have it ix-nay by the GM.




The above, in my opinion is only true if the DM leaves everything open. Barring that, the GM and players should be communicating about the campaign the GM has in mind along with any house rules and restrictions on character generation that the GM will be instituting before the player starts developing a character concept let alone starts creating the character. Then, once the campaign is known, the player should discuss the concept with the GM before creating it.

After character creation the GM should give the character sheet a once over- if not for anything else, to see what it is capable of.


----------



## Rel (Jan 23, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> Maybe it's because I've been GMing for so long, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to set the aesthetic of the game.  (In fact, I think it's the GM *job*.)  For example, I think it's completely reasonable for a GM to say that "starsteel and spidersilk" are the special materials of this world instead of adamant- and mithril.  Or, a GM could run an Athas-like world with no orcs or gnomes, or a world where drow are planned as the secret paragon antagonist and thus off-limits to heroic PCs.
> 
> I think the issue is one of communication.  The GM needs to communicate the campaigns aesthetic well enough for the PCs to buy in.  Or, alternatively, the GM could talk over the campaign with the potential players and design something that everyone wants to play.  However, at the campaign creation level (which includes the most important question of all: "who are the PCs?"), I don't think it's the GMs job to say "yes" - I simply think it's the GMs job to create something that everyone wants to play.
> 
> ...




I very much agree with you here.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the OP but I was under the impression that it was talking about a game already in progress.  It has long been considered wise counsel to adopt a "say yes" attitude at that point.

But I very much agree that it is the GMs job to prohibit some things during campaign design in order to set a certain tone, provided that that tone is generally accepted by the players.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 24, 2011)

Rule 1: The DM can do whatever they want, for whatever reason they want.

Rule 2: The DM must make the overall game (including everything under Rule 1) so good that the players are completely happy with Rule 1.   Any DM breaking Rule 2 loses the right to be DM.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 24, 2011)

Where to start? How about with answering what I multi-quoted.



Sorrowdusk said:


> What is this "zir" you speak of both here and in an XP comment above? Bit of Italian?-I see you're from Milan.




Milan, MICHIGAN.



Dausuul said:


> It's a non-gender-specific singular pronoun; shorthand for "his or her."




Actually, it's sort of gender specific for genders that are hermaphrodite, other, and not "it". In my opinion it is more distinct than the shi/hir hermaphrodite pronouns that again, in my opinion, do not sound any different from "she" and "her". And it's also what you said, in the possessive form.

I'm all for allowing explanations of how a concept fits into a setting. What I'm having trouble with is why people would want to push a GM who is clearly uncomfortable with something to allow it rather than playing with a GM who will?

I'm actually just fine with special materials, the various special "color coded" steels I find more interesting than adamantwhatever or mithril, and even they will be overused in time.

I am happy that 3e suggested when changing rules to ask "why am I changing this?"


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I'm all for allowing explanations of how a concept fits into a setting. What I'm having trouble with is why people would want to push a GM who is clearly uncomfortable with something to allow it rather than playing with a GM who will?




I think there's a bit of distance between "wanting to push a GM who is clearly uncomfortable with something" and "asking for a more detailed reason for why a GM is clearly uncomfortable with something." (Assuming it's not clearly sensitive subject matter like incest or something, of course.) For instance, if a GM has a more elaborate reason for not liking mithril -- feeling that it's just too often seen, as stated -- then the player has that information to go on, and can use it to make a better informed decision. Say, to suggest "well, what about another light yet strong material, like superhard volcanic glass?" Without knowing why the GM objects, the player has no knowledge about whether any compromise is even possible: just that the player is free to walk if the ruling isn't amenable.

Of course, I'm kind of the "it's never a bad idea to talk more about what people do and don't like about a game" philosophy, so.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 24, 2011)

I don't think I've ever had a problem like this in real life.  I see people state things they don't like me doing as a GM from these forums...but they don't play in my games so their opinion on what I do in my game doesn't count.

As for players, I don't really have a lack of those overall...and if they ever did raise objections...well...I don't have a problem with them walking and trying to find another game on their own.

I haven't had it happen to me, but I'VE walked out of a game...but normally it was due to personal conflicts that I had with other players instead of the game.

I'm not certain how much this happens in real life with disagreements on what the GM can or cannot allow, but if it's happening a lot, perhaps there are more problems with the group than a simple disagreement on what a GM allows or doesn't allow.


----------



## Mort (Jan 24, 2011)

IMO 'I don't like it" is perfectly fine as an answer - it's sums up the position nicely.

The answer only becomes an issue if someone else in the group:

1) does like it; AND
2) likes it enough to make it an issue.

Because these things are (usually) purely a matter of opinion this can be tough. For example:

The DM doesn't like dragonborn, so when designing, specifically excludes them from any part of his world.

Player A, on the other hand, thinks dragonborn are the greatest thing to happen to rolepaying since its invention and is hugely disappointed because he was really looking forward to playing one.

Both are expressing a perfectly valid opinion and neither really needs a reason for their view (quite likely any reasons given would just be justifications of their gut "like" or "not like" reaction anyway).

Whether they can work this out depends on the people involved; whether player A trusts the DM to run a great campaign without dragonborn and is willing to try it, or whether the DM is willing to bend to the player.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 24, 2011)

The game provides a baseline of content and if its removed from a game players understandably want a good reason why.

Its totally valid.

If a DM doesn't want Tieflings in their game and I asked "Why not?" and was given the answer "Because I don't like them" I'd for sure be very off put about playing in that persons game.

Not because I love Tieflings or because I want to play one, but because I don't like the idea of arbitrarily removing things from the game on a whim of personal preference.

I think Goliaths are silly and I'd never play one, but that doesn't mean I would or should ban them from my current campaign because I have a player that likes them a lot.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 24, 2011)

Super metals just don't fit the themes of my 2 favorite D&D settings. One's Dark Fantasy, so a bit like a horror movie, though "spiritually significant" things at their various levels can make up for it. The other is Pulp Novel emulation, on basically alternate universe earth from the late 1800s to around 1945. It has magic and stuff, with limits, includes a prestige class that can do the "spiritual significance" stuff. Characters are "super" enough thanks to Hero Points that they don't need super materials. Not that they don't try.

I don't know too much about Red Steel, but I know that Baatorian Green Steel is light and strong without being a super material.


----------



## Rel (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Super metals just don't fit the themes of my 2 favorite D&D settings. One's Dark Fantasy, so a bit like a horror movie, though "spiritually significant" things at their various levels can make up for it. The other is Pulp Novel emulation, on basically alternate universe earth from the late 1800s to around 1945. It has magic and stuff, with limits, includes a prestige class that can do the "spiritual significance" stuff. Characters are "super" enough thanks to Hero Points that they don't need super materials. Not that they don't try.
> 
> I don't know too much about Red Steel, but I know that Baatorian Green Steel is light and strong without being a super material.




So just tell them that.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I'm trying to wrap my head around why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something.




Because in saying, "I just don't like X" the GM is making it personal, relying on only personal authority.  It is saying, "I get to have it my way because I'm ME, and you aren't."

Now, occasionally the GM can play that card.  Occasionally, everyone should be allowed to - I just don't like anchovies on pizza, and I'll veto them.  But it ought to be done with care, and only occasionally.  Done too frequently, or over someone's strong preference, it can seem a bit petty and selfish.  

Having supporting logic always comes across as less arbitrary than, "just because."


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Super metals just don't fit the themes of my 2 favorite D&D settings. One's Dark Fantasy, so a bit like a horror movie, though "spiritually significant" things at their various levels can make up for it. The other is Pulp Novel emulation, on basically alternate universe earth from the late 1800s to around 1945. It has magic and stuff, with limits, includes a prestige class that can do the "spiritual significance" stuff. Characters are "super" enough thanks to Hero Points that they don't need super materials. Not that they don't try.
> 
> I don't know too much about Red Steel, but I know that Baatorian Green Steel is light and strong without being a super material.




Those are reasons. Not reasons I agree with, but I at least can accept you've thought about them.

I guess my question as a player in your game would be- why are we even using the D&D rules (any edition) to play a style of game that could be done much better with other systems? That don't have adamantine or mithril or whatever in them in the first place?


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 24, 2011)

I agree to a point that system can matter. For example, I don't think the smooth rules of HERO fit the clunky feel that I think "pulp" should have.

I could ask "why do you need a super metal when you can have a shaman imbue a weapon with the spiritual significance of your entire nation for all eternity or at least as long as a broken weapon is destined to be remade?"


----------



## Rel (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I agree to a point that system can matter. For example, I don't think the smooth rules of HERO fit the clunky feel that I think "pulp" should have.




What?



> I could ask "why do you need a super metal when you can have a shaman imbue a weapon with the spiritual significance of your entire nation for all eternity or at least as long as a broken weapon is destined to be remade?"




It's a perfectly valid question.  But, at that point, you've entered into a dialog with the player(s) about things as opposed to offering no reason beyond personal preference.  Which is a good thing IMHO.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 24, 2011)

Put simply, I think that clunky rules can sometimes be a good thing. I guess I think pulp games should feel like a B movie.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 24, 2011)

I'll accept the answer as the GM's prerogative, but I won't necessarily like it. My instinctive reaction is to question the preference. It's like someone saying they don't like broccoli. Do they like it because it has never been prepared in a way that pleases them? If so, why not try it another way? Or do they like it without even trying it? In which case, I really don't have a high opinion of their preference.

To me, banning something because the GM doesn't like it seems to close his mind to potential ways in which he might actually enjoy the idea, blocking it without actually trying it the way the current player wants to give it a try. And I think that's a shame.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 24, 2011)

I ran a slightly modified Forbidden Kingdoms game at a furry convention. Of course, Humans were replaced by animals. Using Hengeyokai wasn't strictly necessary, but it was the easiest humanoid animal race I had access too.

* The PCs were 4th level because I didn't want to deal with iterative attacks.
* I didn't use races that had natural flight, but did include a psychic who could fly with one of her telekinesis powers.
* The mooks were pathetic
* The guy I hoped would be a challenging villain was level 7 (he ended up getting killed in an anticlimactic way)
* I didn't include any magic because although it exists, I had enough "powers" with the martial mystic and the psychic
* I didn't bother tracking ammo, you have enough. Use enough bursts, you reload. Or you reload when it's dramatically appropriate.
* I flat out told people not to expect fair, nor serious.


----------



## Mort (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I ran a slightly modified Forbidden Kingdoms game at a furry convention. Of course, Humans were replaced by animals. Using Hengeyokai wasn't strictly necessary, but it was the easiest humanoid animal race I had access too.
> 
> * The PCs were 4th level because I didn't want to deal with iterative attacks.
> * I didn't use races that had natural flight, but did include a psychic who could fly with one of her telekinesis powers.
> ...




To be fair though, none of these are "I don't like it" they are all: I believe the game would run more smoothely/be more fun - all fully valid reasons, especially for a convention.


----------



## Rel (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Put simply, I think that clunky rules can sometimes be a good thing. I guess I think pulp games should feel like a B movie.




Not to derail your thread but what systems do you consider to be "clunky"?  I consider that to be a bad thing in the way I perceived the word clunky.

I run pulp games all the time.  I prefer rules systems (mostly HEX and Savage Worlds) that I feel capture the nature of the genre but I would describe none of them as "clunky".


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 24, 2011)

Rel said:


> Not to derail your thread but what systems do you consider to be "clunky"?  I consider that to be a bad thing in the way I perceived the word clunky.




A common criticism against FK is "too many versions of Gather Information". Yes, there are multiple Gather Information like skills in said setting, but it's really about fitting the theme of the character in how s/he gets info.

* Charm: non-sexual smooth talking
* Conversion: knowing who to talk to, when and how to talk to them
* Savoir Fair: style
* Seduction: the obvious one

And this is just a 3.x setting, which I feel fits better under 3.0 than 3.5. Diomin, the other setting by the same people can fit in either place or in between in 3.25.

Switching die shapes a lot counts as clunky. Needing to know what specific fraction of cover a target has is clunky (and only really matters if you're a sniper). And those are just two D&D examples.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 24, 2011)

As a player, I find the GM saying "I just don't like it." to be a perfectly valid reason for excluding certain classes, races, monsters and so forth from his game setting. Because it is _his_ setting. We, as players, get to collaborate on a bunch of things, but the setting is almost always front-loaded in RPGs and is almost solely the domain of the GM (i.e., a RPG setting is typically defined prior to play, either by the GM or by a publisher).


----------



## shadzar (Jan 24, 2011)

Because many people cannot grasp the concept that the DM must be comfortable running the game, so some elements that they don't like may make them uncomfortable about using those elements. They also forget the DM is a player too and needs the chance to have some fun and if dealing with certain things that bores them to death such as adamant/mithril/etc they won't have fun and end up making a less than enjoyable game.

Another simple reason is that many players view the DM as their employee and work for them. The players should get anything they want to make them happy so they keep playing the game.

Now to read replies from others since I only read the first post so far to answer it.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 24, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Again, depends what it is. The metals issue is so trivial as to be inconsequential. If the GM is changing the game so much that it's not the game the group wants to play, then he can't force them to play his game. That said, if the players want to_ define_ the actual setting, why have a GM?
> 
> I guess the adamantine example just sounds silly to me (I don't know if that's the actual situation your'e facing or just an example you plucked out of the air). It doesn't seem worthy of comment from players, unless they're _trying_ to be difficult. If it was something like "All players have to play elves" that's noteworthy, and requires discussion before the game to make sure everyone has turned up to play the game they want to play. We're all there just to have fun with our friends, after all, right?
> 
> The GM doesn't "own" the game - it's a social activity between a group of people who have agreed to do this thing together.  Doesn't make him their king or anything.  But objecting to minor trivial changes seems overly antagonistic; that change doesn't fundamentally change the game you're playing.




I don't feel like cutting out parts and re-pasting quotes, so why is the metals example bad?

Yeah the players could make up their own setting, but lets look at the metals form another perspective as opposed to just being metals...they are an example as a cliched theme that has been in just about EVERY game the GM has played so is tired of that and wants something new rather than the same tired cliches.

Now, and I may have been told wrong about it, but lets take the metals specifically, old Dark Sun v New Dark Sun. I think new Dark Sun allows metals in the game, wherein the older version and a valid reason not to allow them. So a GM not wanting metals to give the feel of the old Dark Sun isn't just being an ass like your previous post said, was he? He is trying to present the setting in a manner that makes sense, rather than just have the setting be in the background?

Maybe it has gone past people harping on the metals as a precise thing taken out of context as a bad example of a tired cliche, If so, then sorry for bringing it back into the discussion. Either way, it could be that a material of those properties just doesnt exist int he world the GM has create and "balanced" things to work in.

Are you saying the GM is being antagonistic for not allowing something cause they dont like it, or the player for wanting something that the GM has said they won't allow because the GM doesn't like it?



Mark CMG said:


> A GM can disallow anything they wish but they run the risk of losing players if they do it often without what the players believe to be good reason(s).




Sometimes it isnt the need for players to know the reasons such as they may belong to personal life details. Example I have would be a GM not wanting to allow alcohol, and this idea comes from another thread. I will let you think about what things could be a reason for a GM to not want to allow such, and sometimes you just don't need to know the answer.

Always trying to find the reaosn for things you can jsut accept rather than trying to need a reason is often funny. Does one ask for a reason when someone needs to go to the bathroom? I would hope you just assume they need to use something found only there, you know the toilet. Make the assumption that it just isn't allowed sometimes when "I don't like it" is given.

I know my example isnt the best, but hopefully you get the idea, without going into specifics.

Which goes back tot he GM comfort levels of running the game. You chose them as the GM or accepted them as such, so trust them to provide a good game, even if you don't get [specific thing you really want] in the game.


Rel said:


> I don't hold much opinion about whether you have the "right" to say no without giving a further reason.  But it's probably not a very good idea if you consider the players to be friends and peers.
> 
> If my friends and I are going out to dinner and one says, "I want to go to the Mongolian Steakhouse" then I can say, "No."  But if I don't give any further reason then they must draw their own conclusions about why I'm saying No and they might conclude that I'm just being a contrary dick.  If I instead say, "No, I'm vegetarian." then I've given a reason behind my objection.  They may think that's a good reason or a bad reason but I've at least backed up my negation of the idea with something.
> 
> If you are pushing for the right to say No without any further justification then I think you're establishing yourself as an authority over the players to the same level as a parent or a boss.  You're saying, "Because I said so." is your reason.  I just don't see much profit in that.




Funny I know this story, but it was not a steak house, but a little all you can eat dump, and while everyone else gorged themselves on meat, I sitting beside the person who didn't eat it jsut had snow peas and noodles and such out of respect...then later went out and had to find some meat.

I would find food preferences a very valid place for the answer of "I don't like it" to be justified. You don't need to know anymore, unless you are just some nosy person, just accept it and move on. They don't like the Mongolian Steakhouse, either pick somewhere else to eat that they don't mind eating at, or don't throw a tantrum when that person doesn't join you.



Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Actually, it is.




No it isn't the same thing. not liking something already offers MUCH more to understanding the "why" than "because I said so". There is personal preference involved and that is part of the reason "why". Like players have preferences at tiems to certain types of characters, GM have preferences to the types of games they run. If you aren't playing an amalgam of all types of games, then odds are you already all have a preference for the one you are playing, so you have narrowed down the field to one element you all like, then within that each player narrows the field down more so that EVERYONE likes the game, hopefully; rather than adding the things that drove those initial personal preferences to chose the current game over the vast number of other games in the world.

Not liking it often tells you all you *need* to know. Otherwise you are just trying to psychoanalyze the other person and their likes and dislikes?



The Human Target said:


> The game provides a baseline of content and if its removed from a game players understandably want a good reason why.
> 
> Its totally valid.
> 
> ...




Why? The game functioned without Tieflings or dragonborn for many years just fine. So it goes back to what Mort said. Or more than he said, which player is willing to push the issue.

Do you need a game with tieflings in it? Do your need for them to exist since they are in this version outweigh the needs of everyone else to have a good game?

It the GM must be subjected to why they don't like something, then likewise a plyer must be subjected to why they are intent on having it in the game.

Of course communication and discussing won't always work, because it may be dealing with a detail about the game that a player should not yet know.

I would be asking these players who think "don't like it" is an invalid response, "Can the game function without _it_, or is it just that *you* cannot function without it?"



billd91 said:


> I'll accept the answer as the GM's prerogative, but I won't necessarily like it. My instinctive reaction is to question the preference. It's like someone saying they don't like broccoli. Do they like it because it has never been prepared in a way that pleases them? If so, why not try it another way? Or do they like it without even trying it? In which case, I really don't have a high opinion of their preference.




An here is where human nature has developed to the point of instinctively trying to get everyone to agree, such that these thoughts progress in a manner to want to change another person's opinion as if they have the right to open discussion themselves.

Why isn't this type of thing applied to all things? Why not just say, who cares, they have the right to not liking broccoli, or thing X. It is not for me to decide for others, so more broccoli for me, now where it the butter and ketchup to go with it!

I love it when someone at a restaurant asks my "why" when told to hold the tomatoes, like their job requires somehow to know me more personally. I respond politely with, "If you want me to pay for it, then you give me what I order or bring you manager out so I can complain about you refusing to take my order and give me what I ordered."


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 24, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Because many people cannot grasp the concept that the DM must be comfortable running the game, so some elements that they don't like may make them uncomfortable about using those elements. They also forget the DM is a player too and needs the chance to have some fun and if dealing with certain things that bores them to death such as adamant/mithril/etc they won't have fun and end up making a less than enjoyable game.
> 
> Another simple reason is that many players view the DM as their employee and work for them. The players should get anything they want to make them happy so they keep playing the game.




I honestly think there are many potential reasons for asking "why not?" that are better than variants on "players just don't understand the DM is a person." We are, after all, assuming that the DM is mature enough to understand that players are people themselves, and capable of taking their wants and needs into consideration. Why can't players be given the same consideration? 

Yes, there are bad players who have no consideration for the poor DM who runs games for them. But there are _also bad DMs_ who have no consideration for what the players want, and treat any questioning of their motives as a blasphemous act of hubris. You can answer why things happen in groups like that, but you won't get any closer to an answer for why people talk about things in greater depth than "I don't like it" in groups where players and DMs don't take one another for granted.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 24, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> I honestly think there are many potential reasons for asking "why not?" that are better than variants on "players just don't understand the DM is a person." We are, after all, assuming that the DM is mature enough to understand that players are people themselves, and capable of taking their wants and needs into consideration. Why can't players be given the same consideration?
> 
> Yes, there are bad players who have no consideration for the poor DM who runs games for them. But there are _also bad DMs_ who have no consideration for what the players want, and treat any questioning of their motives as a blasphemous act of hubris. You can answer why things happen in groups like that, but you won't get any closer to an answer for why people talk about things in greater depth than "I don't like it" in groups where players and DMs don't take one another for granted.




While there may well be many valid reason to do so, just because you can doa  thing, doesn't always mean you should do the thing, in this case, you don't need to ask those reason.

If we are assuming the DM is mature enough to run the game, then we should assume they have good reasons for not allowing something simply because they don't like it. There doesn't need to be hours of discussions on the same old things, X has caused many groups and games to fail, or what have you.

While not liking dragonborn, and asked why, you may simply get that the GM is tired of the dragonbewbs jokes, like we all are.

I always find it funny to bring in the bad player v bad DM aspect. Let me ask this in response to that entire line of thinking:

What percentage of GMs for games get to choose their players, and what percentage of players get to choose their GMs?

I would bet the number of players getting to choose their GMs will and has always been higher/highest as the can as others have said, leave a game which does not agree with them. So as a player if you have chosen correctly, then you had your reasons, whatever they were I really don't care as they are YOUR reasons, to chose that GM; so why not trust them to do their job to present a good game for all parties included?

I would hope and assume the players are mature enough to pick the right GM, and then trust them to make the game fun for all, without crying over a missing element or two they really enjoy when those elements are probably a very small percentage of what they like and chose this GM because they offer the highest percentage of agreeable things for the gaming style they want to partake in.

If you are one of the unlucky ones to not find a GM to your style, them sorry. Maybe you are a very corner case in what you like, or maybe you might want to GM yourself and see if you can find players that like the style you offer.

and seriosuly? Trying to drag back up the player vs. GM thing, cant some people let it die, and rather than teach it to new generation that will have their own bad GMs, but promote trusting the GM to make a good game rather than setting up for a fight before the game starts. This is why the GM vs. player concept can never die, because so many are taught that a GM not allowing something for ANY reason is out to screw with the players and is a bad GM.

Let it die.

Promote trusting your GM rather than the fight, as the player vs, GM shouldn't exist, only the PCs, vs GM designed/ran obstacles, should be the struggles present in the game.

If a GM doesn't like Glasswalkers so doesn't allow them, is there not enough clans of Toreador, Brujah, etc that a player can play and have just as much fun, or does White Wolf say that all Garou(sp) "functions" must be included before people can have fun?


----------



## Ringlerun (Jan 24, 2011)

> "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules  right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those  designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' "  -Monte Cook
> 
> " If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more  difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more  satisfying." -Monte Cook
> 
> "Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook





I agree with Monty Cook


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 24, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I'll accept the answer as the GM's prerogative, but I won't necessarily like it. My instinctive reaction is to question the preference. It's like someone saying they don't like broccoli. Do they like it because it has never been prepared in a way that pleases them? If so, why not try it another way? Or do they like it without even trying it? In which case, I really don't have a high opinion of their preference.




Or, you could accept that some people don't effing like broccoli. I mean, seriously, do you actually try to talk people into liking foods they don't like? Does that ever work?

This is why I am disinclined to offer reasons for my preferences. Because then players feel like my preferences are subject to persuasion, like if they can just explain it the right way, something will click over in my head and I'll be all, "Oh, YEAH! I never thought about it that way! Warforged are cool! You can totally play a warforged!"

This. Never. Happens. _Ever._

What does happen is, once in a long while, I let myself get talked into allowing something even though I don't really want it. And then it bugs me for the rest of the campaign, but now that I've explicitly allowed it in, it's a bit late to change my mind.

I will add that I don't consider this purely a DM's prerogative. I don't give players total veto power, but I'd very likely respect a player's desire not to have a given thing in the campaign (with the caveat that this request be made before the campaign begins). If a player said, "I just don't like orcs, can we not have them in this game?" I would probably ditch the orcs.

Obviously, once the campaign has started and the characters are fighting orcs, it's too late to object. But that's like me saying "I don't like warforged, scrap your character" to someone who's been playing a warforged for three sessions.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 24, 2011)

In addition to all the good stuff Dausuul said above, I've got two other rules of thumb that have served me well--though I admit that all of us in the group get along well enough that we could probably push these:

1. The more things a person wants to definitely include or definitely exclude--the more justification they need. We've got it pretty much as a foregone conclusion at the start of the campaign that every person can veto or force include *one* thing for pure personal preference, unless that thing is elaborate enough that it starts pulling in other elements or conflicts with someone else's. (You can't exclude elves if another players wants to play one. You can't include a dwarven steam-punk engineer if the game doesn't normally support that can kind of technology. You've got to negotiate those kind of things.) 

2. A DM earns this trust to further refine and exclude things via previous campaigns, at least with some of the players. A new guy coming in can take the word of the other players that I know what I'm doing, or he can walk. But I'm very concious of "trust capital" built up with the existing group, and that certain DM decisions dip into that fund. You can't dip forever without showing them how it pays off.

That said, I've also got no use for a player that gets so zoned in on one character, one idea, etc. that they can't play something else. You really wanted to play that ninja jedi rabbit? Too bad it doesn't work in this game. Pick something else. No, we aren't changing our fantasy court intrigue game to fit in your concept. Much like other things, I'm less bothered by the rabbit than the single-mindedness. I find that players with that mindset are more interested in telling the story of their character rather than improvising a story with all the other characters in the setting. 

DMs aren't the only ones that should sometimes write a novel instead.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 24, 2011)

If people are concerned about "power" - and I suspect that, alas, the fairly recent and oh-so-trendy "movement" for gittin' teh playah powah bax, yo, _very much is_ - it's pretty simple, really:

Assuming the absence of a railroad - else, why play at all - GMs set (and/or convey) boundaries, true enough. But within those boundaries, players make all the shots. Or that may as well be the case. It's their characters' "story", being co-created in real time. That is what _matters_. Apart from the actual play, that is. 

Well. That's my take on it, anyway. I don't see a power imbalance. Not that it's how I go about thinking about hobby groups in the first place (sigh). But yeah. Now I _have_ thought about it, there it is.

My 2cp.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 24, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Why isn't this type of thing applied to all things? Why not just say, who cares, they have the right to not liking broccoli, or thing X. It is not for me to decide for others, so more broccoli for me, now where it the butter and ketchup to go with it!
> 
> I love it when someone at a restaurant asks my "why" when told to hold the tomatoes, like their job requires somehow to know me more personally. I respond politely with, "If you want me to pay for it, then you give me what I order or bring you manager out so I can complain about you refusing to take my order and give me what I ordered."




People are going to have to figure out how to not sweat the broccoli example. Do I really care if someone likes broccoli? No. But it's an off-the-cuff example of something someone may not like because they've never had it well-prepared - their experiences are limited to poor renditions of the subject, an issue that certainly can occur in particular elements of games.

Ultimately, what someone likes to eat isn't my concern. Unless I'm the cook, it doesn't affect me. But if the GM is banning things I like simply because he doesn't like them, it may affect whether I like the game and whether I play that game or not. As I've said, whether the GM excludes something he doesn't like is his prerogative, but I think he has to be willing to countenance push-back from players, should be willing to examine his own reasons for not liking something, and keep an open mind about his players' preferences as well - including rethinking an exclusion.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 24, 2011)

billd91 said:


> People are going to have to figure out how to not sweat the broccoli example. Do I really care if someone likes broccoli? No. But it's an off-the-cuff example of something someone may not like because they've never had it well-prepared - their experiences are limited to poor renditions of the subject, an issue that certainly can occur in particular elements of games.
> 
> Ultimately, what someone likes to eat isn't my concern. Unless I'm the cook, it doesn't affect me. But if the GM is banning things I like simply because he doesn't like them, it may affect whether I like the game and whether I play that game or not. As I've said, whether the GM excludes something he doesn't like is his prerogative, but I think he has to be willing to countenance push-back from players, should be willing to examine his own reasons for not liking something, and keep an open mind about his players' preferences as well - including rethinking an exclusion.



No actually the GM shouldnt have to put up with that immature behavior from players.

If the player was so high-strung about having X that the GM doesn't like, then they should have at the onset not played in that game, rather than sit there all along planning revenge to disrupt the game at some point.

The GM DID examine his reason ergo he would have not come to the conclusion he did not like Thing X to begin with.

Maybe the players should learn to be open-minded about different types of games rather than getting their way to the point of planning confrontation?

Broccoli was a PERFECT example, as it illustrates that one should not try to force change upon another's personal preferences UNLESS they are asked to explain a reason why they should like broccoli.

If you aren't asked for your opinion, sometimes maybe you just shouldn't give it.

The broccoli example also fits perfectly to show how you can use the social cue to know when to stop pushing a subject or topic. Someone says they don't like it and you ask why and they get a little more upset or displeased with your continued asking, then you have pushed to far and it is time you back off rather than pressure anyone into anything.

Broccoli is a good example as it shows how kids that don't like it had been forced ot try it and there can be all sorts of resentment to that. So rather than use bad behavior in order to try to get someone to see your view, wait until they ask for your view and are ready themselves to discus it no matter what *IT* is, and take the social cue given when they are given to stop trying to push a subject that is not welcome for you to open a discussion about.

This may sound silly about a GM not allowing something in a game because they "don't like it', but it really is the same thing as a parent badgering a kid to try to eat broccoli.

There are better ways and more socially accepted ways of suggested your view than pushing the matter, such as mentioned in the fragmentation thread in regards to the 4th edition teaser video, another thread about "work to get the consumer to accept the change",the alignment threads EVERYWHERE, etc etc etc.

You are actually belittling someone else's right to choose for themselves when you question their choices, unless you were already in a discussion of which the topic was based around those choices. Like someone asking you to tell them how broccoli could be better, as opposed to you just trying to tell them when they aren't interested in hearing you view as they are NOT required to listen to your opinion.

Which may just prove how in today's world people think too highly of themselves and the importance of their opinions being "shared" with others.

We on forums such as these open ourselves up to the discussions by participating in the threads containing them, but it doesn't mean everyone is looking for someone else to change their mind. Some threads have that as the request, while others are just wanting to understand another's opinion or view, but there are many that just want to share their own views; and whether one participates or not is their own choice just like in real life those not entering the "thread" may not wish to discus that topic or hear another's view on it.

Doesn't make them close-minded at all, just means that made their own choices and decisions themselves, as is their right, and are happy with those choices.

Examples:
People not switching to 4th and chose Pathfinder.
People not liking green food.
People not liking tomatoes.
People not liking Fords.

It is funny how often people feel the need to change someone else's opinion, when that opinion is something that in no way harms themselves or another person.


----------



## Tewligan (Jan 24, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Funny I know this story, but it was not a steak house, but a little all you can eat dump, and while everyone else gorged themselves on meat, I sitting beside the person who didn't eat it jsut had snow peas and noodles and such out of respect...then later went out and had to find some meat.



Not to sidetrack things, but this keeps nagging at my mind for some reason. You went to a restaurant with some people and didn't eat what you wanted because someone else didn't like the food that you wanted to eat? I feel like I'm missing something here. Unless I'm for some reason sharing a plate with my vegetarian friends, I'm sure as hell not taking their tastes into account when ordering my own dinner!

Ahem...anyway, to both keep my post on topic AND continue the food metaphors - in an rpg, the players and the DM are all eating from the same plate. If I don't like broccoli, that flavor is still going to be in the dish if one of the players insists on throwing a few pieces into the mix just because he really, really likes it.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 24, 2011)

Tewligan said:


> Not to sidetrack things, but this keeps nagging at my mind for some reason. You went to a restaurant with some people and didn't eat what you wanted because someone else didn't like the food that you wanted to eat? I feel like I'm missing something here. Unless I'm for some reason sharing a plate with my vegetarian friends, I'm sure as hell not taking their tastes into account when ordering my own dinner!
> 
> Ahem...anyway, to both keep my post on topic AND continue the food metaphors - in an rpg, the players and the DM are all eating from the same plate. If I don't like broccoli, that flavor is still going to be in the dish if one of the players insists on throwing a few pieces into the mix just because he really, really likes it.



Being polite to a friend. I can eat a meal of just broccoli and be happy, but the non-meat things there were not enough and left me needing something since it was a buffet of raw materials, which you picked yourself and took to the one big stir-fry wok and cooked several peoples at the same time.

I never saw a mixing of customers meals, and you have to get a clean bowl to get things from the buffet line, but seasoning was after, so at those temperatures you didn't end up with a flavor you didnt want since it was "washed" each wok-full.

You made another good analogy using broccoli, because as with food, you can always add to your own plate, but it makes some things hard or impossible to remove from theirs if it was in it to begin with, so for whomever is concerned, just leave it out from the beginning: broccoli, dragonborn, mithril, etc.

 I got a 2 pound bag of broccoli in the freezer now I might need to find a pot for.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 24, 2011)

We have some pretty thorough responses.

I'd like to address the responses that resulted in assumptions I neither said nor implied. First, this is all about "before the game even starts". Next, I front load my house rules, they're there right at the beginning. Speaking of which, I have broad house rules which cover games in general (as well as resolution conveniences and rules to minimize mess in my living space*), then specific house rules for specific games.

You know what happened the the most recent game I purchased? House rules don't alter existing rules, they're mostly additional rules (generally of the Advantage/Disadvantage type) that I feel would be cool, or sometimes just something I think would fit a theme in some way.

*Because I live in apartment, some of these are elements of my lease.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 24, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I always find it funny to bring in the bad player v bad DM aspect.




Let me clarify something here: I approach this question from the perspective of a GM. I run more than I play, anywhere from "a lot more" to "almost entirely more," depending on when you ask. And I've found that the more that I talk about a game, and the more I articulate why I like or don't like something, the better my games tend to be. In part that's because better-informed players can make better-informed choices. In part that's because the process of elaborating on what aspects of a given element is itself a means of analysis, so I can better separate the good stuff from the bad. So yes, speaking as a GM: I come down on the side of it being good when players are interested enough to ask "why not?" It doesn't imperil anything, and the results are frequently quite productive.

[quoteI would hope and assume the players are mature enough to pick the right GM, and then trust them to make the game fun for all, without crying over a missing element or two they really enjoy when those elements are probably a very small percentage of what they like and chose this GM because they offer the highest percentage of agreeable things for the gaming style they want to partake in.[/quote]

And I would hope that the GMs are mature enough to differentiate between being asked "why not?" and "crying". 



> and seriosuly? Trying to drag back up the player vs. GM thing, cant some people let it die, and rather than teach it to new generation that will have their own bad GMs, but promote trusting the GM to make a good game rather than setting up for a fight before the game starts. This is why the GM vs. player concept can never die, because so many are taught that a GM not allowing something for ANY reason is out to screw with the players and is a bad GM.




With all respect, the other side to why the player vs. GM mentality will never die is that so many are taught that to assume that if the players question the GM in any way, that they are by default wrong. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander: yes, players need to respect the GM, but if the GM doesn't extend them that same respect, that is problematic.



> If a GM doesn't like Glasswalkers so doesn't allow them, is there not enough clans of Toreador, Brujah, etc that a player can play and have just as much fun, or does White Wolf say that all Garou(sp) "functions" must be included before people can have fun?




Of course not. But that's not even the question here. The advice I'd give to an ST is not "the players are always right", but "if someone asks you why you don't like something, it's not a challenge to your authority that must be put down -- it may be an attempt to find some sort of compromise, or it may even be an attempt to understand your preferences better so that they can adjust their expectations of the game accordingly. It's fine to answer the question in more detail than 'because I don't, that's why', and you may like what happens if you do." 

If an ST disallows Glass Walkers but permits Toreador and Brujah, it would actually be more helpful to say "Because I want to run a pure Vampire game, to avoid diluting the focus on the themes of vampirism that I enjoy. A Garou character would be distracting, since they would engage with vampires only as an outsider." Or if it's a Werewolf game and the Glass Walkers are disallowed, "Because I want to portray werewolves as more primitive, primal creatures, and the Glass Walkers' modernity doesn't suit what I want to do with that" is also a much more helpful answer than "Because I don't like them." These answers actually tell the player something about the game -- about what it _is_, not just about what it isn't.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 24, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> And I would hope that the GMs are mature enough to differentiate between being asked "why not?" and "crying".
> 
> 
> 
> With all respect, the other side to why the player vs. GM mentality will never die is that so many are taught that to assume that if the players question the GM in any way, that they are by default wrong. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander: yes, players need to respect the GM, but if the GM doesn't extend them that same respect, that is problematic.




If you are who I think you are, and have been doing WW for near 15 years now, what outside of it have you GM'ed? I don't follow the twitter and blog crap of game authors, I could care les about their daily lives other than product X was something I want to buy, oh look this person happens to have worked on it.

Don't recall the timeframe I ST'ed for 100+ people either.

But I will tell you one thing, VtM has a VERY different sort of player that D&D, both LARP and TT. Maybe that has changed and WW player have become the dregs like D&D, but back them the players didn't much complain or argue of little things they wanted, and played. An ST saying they didn't allow specifically Glass Walkers wasn't even met with a "why not", but just "ok, how about this idea?" while trying to make sure the cairn didn't cause problems with the covens and such because of having to deal with the lapdog Brujahs anyway as they were viewed as housepets, but that is a different confrontation as opposed to DM v player and was a fun thing to have played out of their characteristics.

Maybe the nomenclature of ST gave more weight to the GM of Vampire, or the power insinuated in Dungeon MASTER wasn't well accepted after the rebirth of RPGs in 2000.

Either way it wasn't until around 2000 and D&D's rebirth and the player empowerment movement that these parts saw a lot of player V DM for things being disallowed.

It isnt about the players not being able to question the DM/GM/ST, but more the fact that it isn't questionsing a lot today, but that which you call "crying" from the players thinking the GM owes them something.

Now one good idea was had in this thread about players getting to choose one thing, so long as it didnt conflict with anothers players choice and involve too many other dependent parts, that they could remove or what have you form the game. The example was removing orc or something I think.

The problem is, and from my understanding it hasn't gotten better much since 3rd, that the GM puts in a LOT of work. This thread I have always talked about what I thought was things happening up front, but it could go for after the game ha begun as well. Before people sit down the first time, the GM has likely devised some idea of what to do based on the players tastes.

An example in the given somewhere around here mentioned on player wanting to throw 15 years worth of gaming away for him. When the game hasn't started yet, the GM has probably already done a fair bit of work. GM's love to write down ideas, and they probably have some stowed away and already added to it for the current/pending group.

We could stick with the Glass Walker example, but for the sake of other I will switch to AD&D 2nd as an example maybe more can relate to.

A DM doesn't need to be questioned why they don't allow "kits" or shouldn't. If they don't allow them, them someone should be smart enough to figure out that the entirety of them is not something the DM wishes to run.

Oft times it is that simple.

Sure you can question the DM, but if you pester them long enough they will get disinterested in running a game for you.

As others have said, you are not required to play.

On another forum the discussion is being had about why DMs don't allow "evil" characters, and saying DMs give no reaosn for it. In response to my "why did this person want to play one?" the response was similar many times but DMs are looked down upon for asking the players why they want to play it. "because I ran out of paladin builds", was the reason to want to play an "evil" character.

We are really broadening the topic, but it really is about disallowing things in general, but you know how those threads end up, the same route we are going here. This one just wonders why a player cannot accept a DM not liking something.

Players need to learn, or relearn in some cases, that the GM is also a player. They have a right to have fun to. They put a LOT of work into making the games obstacles and such for the other players to go through and have fun with, hopefully. So why should the GM have to use things they don't like, when those things they have a dislike for will only and ALWAYS lead to the GM becoming disconnected from the enjoyment, and with the falling interest the give, the game will become less fun for everyone else.

Ever had a GM that had a bad day, and they were not running a very fun game because of it? That is what could happen to the GM that has to deal with things they "don't like" as a part of the game on a constant basis.

Even if answering why, odds are the players will still try to change their opinion with the latest line about how this will be different from past experiences with it, and yet it becomes the exact thing that was the reason for them to dislike it. (kenders)

Some players won't take any answer at all, unless the answer given to them is "Yes you can play it."

There isn't the power struggle until someone creates it, as the DM only has power as long as he has players (see the walking away from the game thread).

The players have all the power in the game. Without them there is no game. Yes you can play ANY RPG without a GM/DM/ST but it will be a very different experience, but you cannot DM for empty chairs.

All RPGs are homebrewed. Even RAW games have some things omitted. Since someone should know this, then just accept what isn't a part of THIS game, and wait until the next one to use it there.

I it is a new player, then I don't expect them to know all the reasons why people may not like certain things, but again I don't expect them to be just handed a PHB and left alone either. Someone should be explaining them something about the game as they are creating their character, and if given a pregen then they don't have to worry about asking for anything as they didn't really get to choose in the first place.

DMs expect the players to screw up all the best layed plans within moment where it should have taken at least half an hour, and likewise players expect the DM to make the game work.

Part of that DMs job is exclusion of things, so that the game works for the group.

It really feels like the old DM v players argument. Yes there are bad DMs, jsut don't play in their games once spotted. But all DMs aren't out to give you a bad game. If you go into the game thinking the DM is trying to screw you over to begin with, you will often carry that throughout th game. That is why I say let it die. Let and teach people to trust the DM they chose to run the game for them. When you feel the game isn't working out, you can just leave it.

If the ST doesn't like Sabbat, then pick a Camarilla.

All games have so many choices, such as the "evil" discussion, just wanting this one thing is likely to end, and most times does, in that player becoming a disruption.

You are ALL GM and players working to make a cooperative game, so cooperative for the whole to have something, rather than one to have something.


----------



## VictorC (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I'm trying to wrap my head around why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something. Especially when the GM gives zir reasons.
> 
> For example, I don't like metals that start with "adamant-" or are pronounced "mithril" (regardless of actual spelling) because I think they are the most overused fantasy materials.




Perhaps, instead of just saying you don't like it, you could give the well thought out reasons why you don't like it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 24, 2011)

shadzar said:


> But I will tell you one thing, VtM has a VERY different sort of player that D&D, both LARP and TT. Maybe that has changed and WW player have become the dregs like D&D,




All of your posts make so much more sense, now.

Moving on ...



shadzar said:


> Not liking it often tells you all you *need* to know. Otherwise you are just trying to psychoanalyze the other person and their likes and dislikes?




"Because I said so" often tells you all you *need* to know, too.  That doesn't make it a satisfactory answer when given to an adult, either.

And I'm not psychoanalyzing anyone, I'm trying to understand a friend and their preferences and their objections to something, in this case, specifically as it applies to _a roleplaying game_.

But, based on your posts, you have a long history of not actually playing with groups of long-standing friends; our experiences could not be further apart, and therefore your "DM Uber Alles" reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jan 24, 2011)

VictorC said:


> Perhaps, instead of just saying you don't like it, you could give the well thought out reasons why you don't like it.






Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> "Because I said so" often tells you all you *need* to know, too. That doesn't make it a satisfactory answer when given to an adult, either.




So... what constitutes a "well thought out" and/or "satisfactory" answer? Is any reason given good enough so long as there is a reason? What if it is just a gut feeling? Or, something they can't quite express? Or, what if they just don't like to talk about why they don't like something?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 24, 2011)

The GM may run any game he desires, any way he desires, so long as he can find one or more players willing to play in his game.

The player may run any PC he desires, any way he desires, so long as he can find one or more GMs willing to accomodate him.

Neither one of them needs to explain *why* their preferences are as they are.  Certainly, there is no "logic" to preferences....any claim to the contrary falling far more into the realm of "rationalizing" than "rational".

And, as Porky Pig says, "That's all, folks."


RC


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 24, 2011)

Jacob Marley said:


> So... what constitutes a "well thought out" and/or "satisfactory" answer? Is any reason given good enough so long as there is a reason? What if it is just a gut feeling? Or, something they can't quite express? Or, what if they just don't like to talk about why they don't like something?




First, we're talking about roleplaying games - preferably played with people you consider to be friends.  The chances of "I'm disallowing this because _I don't like to talk about it_" being a valid reason is so miniscule as to be disregarded; we're assuming we've moved past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions.  (For people who can't get past that point, the "Stories of How I Left Games That Sucked" thread is thataway.)

Moving onward, the definition of a satisfactory answer will depend on what it is the GM is outlawing, but will in all cases indicate that he's put some thought into what he's removing from the game and why.

If, for instance, he's getting rid of spiked chains, then the answer "Because I think the combination of attacking at reach and adjacent, it being a tripping weapon, and the overpoweredness of the trip rules to begin with make it an unbalanced weapon; also, it looks silly," is a superior answer to "Because I don't like it."  It also says that, in this DM's campaign, you should stay away from trip-focused characters - and dedicated grapplers may want to be careful, as well.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 24, 2011)

Jacob Marley said:


> So... what constitutes a "well thought out" and/or "satisfactory" answer? Is any reason given good enough so long as there is a reason? What if it is just a gut feeling? Or, something they can't quite express? Or, what if they just don't like to talk about why they don't like something?




Communication will get us all on a better level of understanding each other and the ground expectations for the game. That, as far as I am concerned, will always trump "Because I said so" and other short form answers like "I don't like it".

A GM can run the sort of game he wants to play. A player can look for and play in the sort of game he wants to play. But without intercommunication between the two, they won't know a thing about what either wants and what that means for the game's expectations. 

And the general platitude that GMs and players can get what they want means pretty much nothing if they can't agree or negotiate out a mutually agreeable compromise.


----------



## Mort (Jan 24, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> If, for instance, he's getting rid of spiked chains, then the answer "Because I think the combination of attacking at reach and adjacent, it being a tripping weapon, and the overpoweredness of the trip rules to begin with make it an unbalanced weapon; also, it looks silly," is a superior answer to "Because I don't like it."  It also says that, in this DM's campaign, you should stay away from trip-focused characters - and dedicated grapplers may want to be careful, as well.




While the 2nd answer is certainly more intelectually satisfying, it might not be more honest - and instead could be a rationalization flowing from "I just don't like it."

The following is heavily generalized to keep in line with the no politics rule:

Quite a few years ago one of my best friends was at a barbeque hosted by a Supreme Court Justice. There had been a recent case about the use of a certain device, this justice had written the majority opinion and was clearly the driving force behind it. The opinion was a masterpiece of explanation touching on legality, reliability and many other factors.

My friend was curious and asked the judge about the opinion, which factors were the most significant etc. The judge looked at him and said "At the end of the day, I just don't like it, everything else flowed from there."


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 24, 2011)

shadzar said:


> If you are who I think you are, and have been doing WW for near 15 years now, what outside of it have you GM'ed? I don't follow the twitter and blog crap of game authors, I could care les about their daily lives other than product X was something I want to buy, oh look this person happens to have worked on it.




Among other things, I started running a D&D campaign that began with a one-shot when I came down for my interview, resumed when I got the job, and has been going off-and-on in various forms over three editions ever since. Champions has been another long-term favorite. If you'll pardon the "twitter and blog crap," I signed up for ENWorld back in the days before the 3rd edition release, and had a hand in several Sword & Sorcery products; that's why my handle on this board is taken from Hollowfaust: City of Necromancers instead of a Storyteller game. Before the rise of Vampire, most of my college games were Hero System, D&D or Teenagers from Outer Space. I played a lot (a _lot_) of other games, but these are the non-WW games I've run most consistently.



> But I will tell you one thing, VtM has a VERY different sort of player that D&D, both LARP and TT.




In my experience, there are a whole lot of people who enjoy both sorts of game. Most every game I've played has been with people who have enjoyed horror, fantasy, superheroes, post-apocalypse, science fiction and comedy in their own separate games. I'd be hesitant to try inferring a person's personality from the sort of game she preferred.  



> It isnt about the players not being able to question the DM/GM/ST, but more the fact that it isn't questionsing a lot today, but that which you call "crying" from the players thinking the GM owes them something.




I disagree. I think the line between questioning a call and feeling entitled is based on the individual player. I also think you can't tell the difference if you don't talk to the player in question. 



> A DM doesn't need to be questioned why they don't allow "kits" or shouldn't. If they don't allow them, them someone should be smart enough to figure out that the entirety of them is not something the DM wishes to run.
> 
> Oft times it is that simple.




To very loosely borrow a sentiment from a favorite book: "A DM is not beholden to explain himself to his players. A gentleman would be delighted to discuss the matter with them."

Which is not meant as a judgment on the moral character of GMs who don't explain themselves, but I think the courteous thing to do is to talk things over.



> On another forum the discussion is being had about why DMs don't allow "evil" characters, and saying DMs give no reaosn for it. In response to my "why did this person want to play one?" the response was similar many times but DMs are looked down upon for asking the players why they want to play it. "because I ran out of paladin builds", was the reason to want to play an "evil" character.




And I think it's foolish for anyone to look down on someone for asking a question like that, GM or player. If we don't ask for clarification, how exactly are we expected -- as players or GMs -- to play nicely off one another? 

I was talking with co-workers today about how some people play like three-year-olds: they play _next to_ each other, not with one another. It seems a crying shame to approach an RPG like that. 



> Players need to learn, or relearn in some cases, that the GM is also a player. They have a right to have fun to. They put a LOT of work into making the games obstacles and such for the other players to go through and have fun with, hopefully. So why should the GM have to use things they don't like, when those things they have a dislike for will only and ALWAYS lead to the GM becoming disconnected from the enjoyment, and with the falling interest the give, the game will become less fun for everyone else.




Some players do need to learn or relearn this. But many players don't. They know this already. And I flatly disagree that a player who asks "Why not?" is most likely a player who does not think of the GM as a person with a right to enjoy himself as well. Such a player is literally asking for more information on the GM's opinion. They may be doing it for poor reasons, but are the odds really in favor? I don't think so.



> Some players won't take any answer at all, unless the answer given to them is "Yes you can play it."




True. But I don't see how holding forth on "Because I don't like it" is a better solution than talking things over in more detail, realizing that you wouldn't be happy playing with players who don't want to listen to you anyway, and adjusting the plans for the game accordingly. 



> It really feels like the old DM v players argument. Yes there are bad DMs, jsut don't play in their games once spotted. But all DMs aren't out to give you a bad game. If you go into the game thinking the DM is trying to screw you over to begin with, you will often carry that throughout th game. That is why I say let it die. Let and teach people to trust the DM they chose to run the game for them. When you feel the game isn't working out, you can just leave it.




I'm all for that. I simply think it goes both ways. If your players ask a question, trust them to be trying to learn more about the game, instead of assuming the worst and expecting that they're trying to push some sort of entitled feeling on you. There's just nothing wrong with the practice of communication. If you have terrible players who don't listen to your reasoning, then perhaps you shouldn't run for them -- but how can any GM ever know if the players are that bad or not by refusing to answer questions? You can never know if someone will take your reasoning to heart if you refuse to provide it.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Neither one of them needs to explain *why* their preferences are as they are.




Neither one has to, no.  Put it is kind of polite to do so, and may lead to constructive discussion or compromise.



> Certainly, there is no "logic" to preferences....any claim to the contrary falling far more into the realm of "rationalizing" than "rational".




Oh?  Really?  *Any* claim otherwise?  Absolutes can generally be disproven with single counterexamples.  I hope you'll allow me one slightly excessive one to make the point:

My wife prefers to not eat strawberries.  The fact that she's deathly allergic to strawberries (as in, "I cannot breathe and may die if I don't get medication") doesn't stand as a logical reason for that preference?  She's rationalizing an emotional dislike of strawberries to the point of anaphylaxis?!?

Now, I'll grant that a great many preferences probably have no logic behind them beyond personal aesthetics.  And yes, humans do have a tendency to make non-rational decisions, and to rationalize afterward.  But some preferences really do have logic behind them, and expressing reasons when there's a conflict is usually a good thing.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 24, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Where to start? How about with answering what I multi-quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> Milan, MICHIGAN.




Oh. Never heard of it, I'm from Detroit.



Zhaleskra said:


> Actually, it's sort of gender specific for genders that are hermaphrodite, other, and not "it". In my opinion it is more distinct than the shi/hir hermaphrodite pronouns that again, in my opinion, do not sound any different from "she" and "her". And it's also what you said, in the possessive form.






> I'm all for allowing explanations of how a concept fits into a setting. What I'm having trouble with is why people would want to push a GM who is clearly uncomfortable with something to allow it rather than playing with a GM who will?




It depends on GM availability. You may have had to jump through some hoops to get one at all, and on the other hand you might have already made an investment in this campaign only for some point of contention to come up and not want to leave what development you have and start from square one. It may be more tempting for you to try to change  your GMs mind about something.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 24, 2011)

Mort said:


> While the 2nd answer is certainly more intelectually satisfying, it might not be more honest - and instead could be a rationalization flowing from "I just don't like it."




And yet, it still shows some thought beyond the initial gut instinct, provides information to the player about the specific case, and even provides some information about the more general cases of things that could also trip the GM's "I just don't like it" button.

Ergo, while at root you can keep deconstructing each step in the chain until you get to an "I just don't like it" situation (e.g., Why are the overpowered tripping rules bad? Because the GM doesn't like combats wherein people pop up and down like whack-a-moles; Why doesn't he like those? Uh ...), that is not sufficient justification to _stop_at the surface level.



> My friend was curious and asked the judge about the opinion, which factors were the most significant etc. The judge looked at him and said "At the end of the day, I just don't like it, everything else flowed from there."




And if the judge had stopped at, "I just don't like it," his peers on the SC, other judges, future barristers, etc., would have found it an ultimately unsatisfying (and, dare I say, infantile? useless?) opinion.


----------



## Mort (Jan 24, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Oh?  Really?  *Any* claim otherwise?  Absolutes can generally be disproven with single counterexamples.  I hope you'll allow me one slightly excessive one to make the point:
> 
> My wife prefers to not eat strawberries.  The fact that she's deathly allergic to strawberries (as in, "I cannot breathe and may die if I don't get medication") doesn't stand as a logical reason for that preference?  She's rationalizing an emotional dislike of strawberries to the point of anaphylaxis?!?.




Now that I'd like to see at a game session "I'm sorry but I'm deathly alergic to dwarves, you playing one may cause an alergic reaction to which they have yet to discover medication, so no, no dwarves!"


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 24, 2011)

billd91 said:


> People are going to have to figure out how to not sweat the broccoli example. Do I really care if someone likes broccoli? No. But it's an off-the-cuff example of something someone may not like because they've never had it well-prepared - their experiences are limited to poor renditions of the subject, an issue that certainly can occur in particular elements of games.
> 
> Ultimately, what someone likes to eat isn't my concern. Unless I'm the cook, it doesn't affect me. But if the GM is banning things I like simply because he doesn't like them, it may affect whether I like the game and whether I play that game or not. As I've said, whether the GM excludes something he doesn't like is his prerogative, but I think he has to be willing to countenance push-back from players, should be willing to examine his own reasons for not liking something, and keep an open mind about his players' preferences as well - including rethinking an exclusion.




I'm sorry but...

BROCCOLI or THE BEHOLDER?!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtLd0Nks5Kc&NR=1[/ame]


----------



## Mort (Jan 24, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> And yet, it still shows some thought beyond the initial gut instinct, provides information to the player about the specific case, and even provides some information about the more general cases of things that could also trip the GM's "I just don't like it" button.
> 
> Ergo, while at root you can keep deconstructing each step in the chain until you get to an "I just don't like it" situation (e.g., Why are the overpowered tripping rules bad? Because the GM doesn't like combats wherein people pop up and down like whack-a-moles; Why doesn't he like those? Uh ...), that is not sufficient justification to _stop_at the surface level.
> 
> And if the judge had stopped at, "I just don't like it," his peers on the SC, other judges, future barristers, etc., would have found it an ultimately unsatisfying (and, dare I say, infantile? useless?) opinion.




Absolutely true - but it does not change the fact that it was the most honest answer, with the rationale coming afterwards.


----------



## Tarek (Jan 24, 2011)

A lot of "gut instinct/I don't like it" responses do have a reason. Sometimes that reason goes way deeper than "I don't like that specific thing" and sometimes it doesn't. 

To expand on possible reasons with the example of not allowing Adamant/Mithril:

a> "I don't like it." - "Why?" - "I just don't like it." - Player thinks "What else doesn't he like that I don't know about that may affect my character?"

b> "I think they're overused" - Okay. Understandable. But.. "I like the idea of having a metal that's light yet durable and tough, to cut down on the weight my character's hauling around. Is there something similar?"
c> "I don't like special materials." - Okay. "So, I shouldn't expect any fantastic or unusual or magical materials to show up in this campaign?"
d> "I have my own list of unusual stuff." Okay. "So what would my character know about these special materials?"

The reason BEHIND "I don't like" might have considerably wider implications than just the game master saying "I'm not allowing this specific element in my campaign."

Also, these things go over a LOT better if they're introduced at the beginning of the campaign, or demonstrated in practice over time. "Hey, we're fifth level, and I still haven't seen a mithril chain shirt?" "Oh, my game world doesn't have mithril." "Oh. Why?" "I don't like it, so in my game, there are no mithril mines."


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jan 24, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> First, we're talking about roleplaying games - preferably played with people you consider to be friends. The chances of "I'm disallowing this because _I don't like to talk about it_" being a valid reason is so miniscule as to be disregarded; we're assuming we've moved past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions. (For people who can't get past that point, the "Stories of How I Left Games That Sucked" thread is thataway.)



 
Half-orcs spring to mind as a game element that often comes with some serious baggage. Issues that, in my experience, a lot of players do not want to have in their role-playing games. I don't think we should be too hasty in disregarding the "I don't like it and I don't want to talk about why" line.




Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Moving onward, the definition of a satisfactory answer will depend on what it is the GM is outlawing, but will in all cases indicate that he's put some thought into what he's removing from the game and why.



 
This is what I am trying to get a handle on - I agree with billd91 in that communication helps DMs and Players understand each other better. But, in my experience, the reason some people do not like certain things is often a gut reaction to when and how they first experienced that particular element. Their reasons often are little more than rationalizing thier first reaction.

For example, my initial reaction to 4th Edition Dragonborn was very negative - I just did not like them. I couldn't tell you why. Maybe it was how they were described. Or, maybe it was the artwork. Or, maybe I didn't like the designer who wrote the article? Etc. To this day I cringe looking at an image of a Dragonborn character. Of course, today I could give you plenty of *reasons* as to why I don't like them - they look silly and out of place in armor, they are clunky to fit into Greyhawk, etc.; although, all I am probably doing is rationalizing my initial reaction.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 24, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Why? The game functioned without Tieflings or dragonborn for many years just fine. So it goes back to what Mort said. Or more than he said, which player is willing to push the issue.
> 
> Do you need a game with tieflings in it? Do your need for them to exist since they are in this version outweigh the needs of everyone else to have a good game?
> 
> ...




The thing is though, the game works just fine with tieflings and drgonborn and whatever else. 

So if you're going to remove an integral part of the assumed game (hey both races are important enough to the new D&D setting to be in the PHB1) to me a DM should actually have a reason other than "just cause I personally don't like them" and explain why to the players.

There's nothing wrong with removing stuff- but using DM fiat as an excuse to not explain yourself to me is silly.

I myself don't like explicitly silly stuff in my games (like a dwarf fighter named Rocky Balboa or the like), but I explain to any new players why I don't like that stuff and ask they not do it in my game.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 24, 2011)

People don't like it because you can't argue against it.

And, as evidenced in this thread, people love arguing until they get their way.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jan 24, 2011)

Tarek said:


> A lot of "gut instinct/I don't like it" responses do have a reason. Sometimes that reason goes way deeper than "I don't like that specific thing" and sometimes it doesn't.



Yeah, "I don't like it" statements, whether followed by a reason or not, are often red flags. As "X is awesome!" statements sometimes are too.

A DM adjudicates a game much like a judge adjudicates a court room. If my judge is known for espousing ideas that I don't agree with, or for a lot of out-of-left-field statements, I'm likely to call for a mistrial and find a new judge.

Ex: "I don't like wizards, dwarves, long spears, water or meat pie." "I think animeshowthatI'veneverheardof, vampires, asparagus, muls and spirit shamans are the best things evar!"

Ahhhhh...have fun with your campaign, I just remembered somewhere I have to be.



Tarek said:


> But, in my experience, the reason some people do not like certain things is often a gut reaction to when and how they first experienced that particular element. Their reasons often are little more than rationalizing thier first reaction.



QFT.


----------



## Edgewood (Jan 24, 2011)

I haven't read the entire thread, and if I come off sounding repetitive with other posts, then my apologies in advance. As a GM I have never felt comfortable with simply saying, "No, because I don't like it." The way I see it. The players are there for the same reasons that I am. To have fun and tell a cool story along the way. If a player brings an idea to me that doesn't jive with the campaign, or seems out in left field, I always place the burden of explaining the reason for the idea on the player. It needs to make sense in the context of our campaign and of course I will work on it with the player once they have the idea roughly planned out. 

Saying no is a double edged sword to a player. Yes you may veto something you may not like or aren't "in to" but you may also be left out on a great idea. Some of the most amazing ideas, stories and placed  in my campaign world called Morvia had come from players. If an idea is so terrible that it simply won't work I'll explain to the player that it would simply not work in the context and ask them to re-work it. I always see these things as an opportunity.


----------



## Chzbro (Jan 25, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?




Why do I not think that's good enough? Because I just don't like it.

If that answer isn't satisfactory in this discussion, why should it be in another?


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 25, 2011)

The "finding another game" aspect is fine. I'm wondering why it seems to be coming off as a problem here.

How about another rephrase: Why does the GM controlling one tiny thing automatically make him a Control Freak and a Bad GM? I ask because this is what I see hidden in "I don't like it isn't a good enough reason" posts.

Maybe this is some phenomena that only usually happens on the Internet. Like people calling people they don't know elitists for having strong preferences. Or snobs for calling those preferences "standards" and assuming they must be impossibly high without even knowing what they are.

I don't like halflings because they were created by Tolkein, whereas Dwarves and Elves have existed in mythology well before T stole the Volsung Saga, claimed it as his own work, Britishized it, and padded it with 2000 pages of filler. Hey I like detailed descriptions too, but I think T over did it. Of course, opinion and all that.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 25, 2011)

Jacob Marley said:


> Half-orcs spring to mind as a game element that often comes with some serious baggage.




I should hope that, now that they've been a core race for ... a decade? ... we can all move past this trite background requirement?

I mean, I remember way back when, when half-elves were oft stereotyped as such.



> Issues that, in my experience, a lot of players do not want to have in their role-playing games.




I agree that certain things have no place in, at least, _my_ roleplaying games.  Which is why they get stopped at the door.  Please see my earlier points about having "moved past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions."


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> All of your posts make so much more sense, now.



Oh do tell, this should be good.



> But, based on your posts, you have a long history of not actually playing with groups of long-standing friends; our experiences could not be further apart, and therefore your "DM Uber Alles" reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me.



Follow me in the reply to the next quoted things, and no scheduling conflicts have prevented many a long game from me taking part, but it doesn't mean you can't learn people quickly.



Barastrondo said:


> If you'll pardon the "twitter and blog crap,"



You are welcome to it, I just don't do them, and could care less what Conan O'Brian has tweetered or blogged or whatever, nor anyone else for that matter. OK so, I know you played other things so you have seen the different types of players. Gives us a range of various games to discus this phenomena in.



> I disagree. I think the line between questioning a call and feeling entitled is based on the individual player. I also think you can't tell the difference if you don't talk to the player in question.




Here is where I disagree. With enough experience with people many can what general type of person someone is right away. As a DM it is part of your job actually to do this, as it helps you make a game that everyone will enjoy. You have to be able to read right away whether someone is liking something or not and what type of things to include or leave out. Also there are some that just wont accept any answer given. Those are not hard to spot at all.



> To very loosely borrow a sentiment from a favorite book: "A DM is not beholden to explain himself to his players. A gentleman would be delighted to discuss the matter with them."
> 
> Which is not meant as a judgment on the moral character of GMs who don't explain themselves, but I think the courteous thing to do is to talk things over.




Likely if the GM cared what you thought or hid behind false pleasantries. Dog are the creatures that sniff each other's butt upon meeting, not man, therefore I am not playing social butt-kiss with anyone, as I am not a dog, but a man.

A gentleman would not force an altercation where ones honor had not been sullied.



> And I think it's foolish for anyone to look down on someone for asking a question like that, GM or player. If we don't ask for clarification, how exactly are we expected -- as players or GMs -- to play nicely off one another?
> 
> I was talking with co-workers today about how some people play like three-year-olds: they play _next to_ each other, not with one another. It seems a crying shame to approach an RPG like that.




Looking down on someone? That is a classic example of how a person will not accept an answer given form a DM no matter what, because they have it set int heir mind the want to play an "evil" character and only that.

They were never given "don't like it" as the reason for disallowing "evil" but with every reason they continued to reject them, and surmised that "don't like it" was the reason.

Sadly the example given is how many people today DO play, they players play next to each other, but not _with_ them as is evident by the direction one game took to try to make itself more "balanced" by giving everyone the same stuff no matter what class so the classes wouldn't have to compete against each other, when it fact it was the players competing, not the classes, when they should have been cooperating.



> Some players do need to learn or relearn this. But many players don't. They know this already. And I flatly disagree that a player who asks "Why not?" is most likely a player who does not think of the GM as a person with a right to enjoy himself as well. Such a player is literally asking for more information on the GM's opinion. They may be doing it for poor reasons, but are the odds really in favor? I don't think so.




But the GMs opinion doesn't always really matter. If these people aren't friends then there will likely be a grace period of when they are learning each other and their limitations. It doesn't mean a GM is going to just tell you his life story. With a seasoned group of players and friends, then "don't like" should be more than enough if you really are a friend, then you should know if that is open for discussion.

That is the whole thing about discussion. It takes two, and both parties have to be willing. I can't really see why the GMs opinion on why they don't like something will better or shape my playing in their game at all. Again there are so many options I can choose something else.



> True. But I don't see how holding forth on "Because I don't like it" is a better solution than talking things over in more detail, realizing that you wouldn't be happy playing with players who don't want to listen to you anyway, and adjusting the plans for the game accordingly.




 Common sense has died then? Did I possibly wake up and things people do NOT like make them happy?

If one doesn't like something, then what reason could it have to add to their enjoyment of something?

Player's don't understand the GM is also a player and their to enjoy the game also? They don't understand that if someone doesn't like something, that the odds are highly in favor that they will not enjoy it?

Are we hazing the GM now with stuff they don't like?

Again players need to learn that a content GM is better for running a game than a discontent one. Be it something they don't like being in the game, a bad day at work, whatever...remove it. Don't add the thing the GM doesn't like, call of the game for the day, or do something to make the GM more ready to play and not worry about the negative stuff from work.

I guess some games an unhappy GM may make for a better GM depending on the theme of your games.



> I'm all for that. I simply think it goes both ways. If your players ask a question, trust them to be trying to learn more about the game, instead of assuming the worst and expecting that they're trying to push some sort of entitled feeling on you. There's just nothing wrong with the practice of communication. If you have terrible players who don't listen to your reasoning, then perhaps you shouldn't run for them -- but how can any GM ever know if the players are that bad or not by refusing to answer questions? You can never know if someone will take your reasoning to heart if you refuse to provide it.



Sadly If someone is asking about things a specific person likes and does not like, they left the realm of learning about the game.

When you ask things of others of a personal nature such as "why not" to "don't like it", you are passing judgment on them. Then it comes to who has the authority to decide ones likes and dislikes.

I don't know about tabletop games as I don't know if such a degree exists for them, but computer design games require a psychology and/or sociology course to understand these things so that the game is presented in a manner that doesn't come out and make judgment calls on its players. I know D&D loves to judge its players and determine who is worthy or not and probably set the bad atmosphere for all this to happen.

If you cannot accept the GMs first answer, then you don't have to play in their game. As someone posted around here, no game is better than playing in a bad one.

The problem is not everything need be communicated. Some things people need to just learn to accept. We are dealing with both types of people in gaming, extroverts and introverts.

The place to communicate abou the game is its rules, not the GMs personal likes and dislikes. Just accept thing GM doesn't like all the things you may. Again there is so much for any game, you can pick something else.

Also consider the GM might not like you that much to explain ANY reasoning with you, but they are willing to run a game for you. Best not to make them unwilling or you might as well have just found someone else to begin with.

I have tried not repeating other's responses assuming you read them, but I guess I should...

Some people may not be able to say exactly why they don't like something. They just can't find the words to express it.

Some details about the game you don't need to learn until later.

Sometimes you might jsut not NEED to know.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> And if the judge had stopped at, "I just don't like it," his peers on the SC, other judges, future barristers, etc., would have found it an ultimately unsatisfying (and, dare I say, infantile? useless?) opinion.




It is infantile to not like something without giving your reason to the world?

Clearly "don't like it' is biased and in some jobs that is not likely to be helpful, but a GM has the right to his biases.



The Human Target said:


> The thing is though, the game works just fine with tieflings and drgonborn and whatever else.
> 
> So if you're going to remove an integral part of the assumed game (hey both races are important enough to the new D&D setting to be in the PHB1) to me a DM should actually have a reason other than "just cause I personally don't like them" and explain why to the players.




The game work just fine without them so why ever add them?

You made the assumption you were wanted to make, that the game _needs_ them. No they were added to sell products. The game does not _need_ tielflings or dragonborn.

If you remove them is the game unplayable? Was the game unplayable for 25 years before they were included in the PHB?

This is an exact case of the players wants taking precedent over the games needs.

Yes the player ha a right to want to play something, but it doesn't mean every DM is going to give them that option because the DM might not want that.

When a players wants outweighs the games needs, that is the first and a good sign that player will become a disruption to the game at some point. These "special needs" or "special attention" players only add problems to the game.



> There's nothing wrong with removing stuff- but using DM fiat as an excuse to not explain yourself to me is silly.
> 
> I myself don't like explicitly silly stuff in my games (like a dwarf fighter named Rocky Balboa or the like), but I explain to any new players why I don't like that stuff and ask they not do it in my game.




The reason isn't DM fiat. Therein lies the problem of people not viewing the DM as a person, but a tool. DMs are people. They may have a reason, but maybe it isn't any of your business. 

Say you have a game club with several DMs available and have posted on a bulletin board the character rules. You don't go question, why cant some of the things be used, you just pick another DM and try the one you like most.

Stop trying to play soap opera and play the RPG instead.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 25, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> How about another rephrase: Why does the GM controlling one tiny thing automatically make him a Control Freak and a Bad GM? I ask because this is what I see hidden in "I don't like it isn't a good enough reason" posts.




Because, generally, the defenders of your side of the equation are making "The GM's word is law!" arguments for accepting the thin rationale? 

Also, the GM isn't "controlling one tiny thing."  He's controlling all kinds of things.  The question is why, of all the things he has in his toolbox, he has to disallow something from the players', and then why he won't even discuss it.  If he has a good reason for it, then, everyone being friends, we can talk about it!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Umbran,

I lost my reply to you.  Short version:  No, that is not a counter-example.

Either not dying is more than a preference (and your point is invalid), or it is a preference (and there is no rational reason to prefer continued existance over dying).

Preferences are emotive.  Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing.  And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them.  But the things you are pursuing?  They are not the result of rationality.

And, no, any expectation that a person must (or even should) explain his or her preferences to you....so that you can decide if they are valid or not, or maybe convince him to change his mind.....is not polite.  It is off the edge of rude and into the realm of offensive.

I can imagine the outrage if it were suggested that players be required to defend their preferences in making characters they want to play!


RC


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Umbran,
> 
> I lost my reply to you.  Short version:  No, that is not a counter-example.
> 
> ...



So, do you also mean that it is rude for one to ask why?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

It isn't rude to ask why; it is rude not to take No for an answer when the other person doesn't feel like explaining why.

There are times in life when it is worth being rude.  

IMHO, this isn't one of them.


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> It isn't rude to ask why; it is rude not to take No for an answer when the other person doesn't feel like explaining why.
> 
> There are times in life when it is worth being rude.
> 
> IMHO, this isn't one of them.



I mostly agree (EDIT: the last sentence is where I would disagree with you, but only in a couple circumstances. EDIT #2: I'm not disagreeing with it being your opinion. ).


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 25, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Because, generally, the defenders of your side of the equation are making "The GM's word is law!" arguments for accepting the thin rationale?
> 
> The question is why, of all the things he has in his toolbox, he has to disallow something from the players', and then why he won't even discuss it.  If he has a good reason for it, then, everyone being friends, we can talk about it!




You seem to be missing the fact that it has been explained, SEVERAL TIMES, on purpose. There's only one solution for that. Welcome to my ignore list. You will never leave it.

EDIT: Normally I don't tell people they're being added to my ignore list, but I have run into people on other forums who get upset to learn they're being ignored.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Sometimes, No means No.

You don't have the right to browbeat someone, physically or verbally, into doing what you want simply because you want it.  You are not forced to play in the game.  You cannot force others to play the game the way you want.

It is not rude to say No.  It is not rude to feel No is adequate.  It is not rude to refuse to engage in a "dialogue" intended to make you realize that you really mean Yes.

Please tell me that most of us are not so socially inept as to miss the implications here.


RC


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sometimes, No means No.
> 
> You don't have the right to browbeat someone, physically or verbally, into doing what you want simply because you want it.  You are not forced to play in the game.  You cannot force others to play the game the way you want.
> 
> ...



I tried to physically browbeat somebody once, but my brows weren't bushy enough.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 25, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> You seem to be missing the fact that it has been explained, SEVERAL TIMES, on purpose. There's only one solution for that. Welcome to my ignore list. You will never leave it.
> 
> EDIT: Normally I don't tell people they're being added to my ignore list, but I have run into people on other forums who get upset to learn they're being ignored.




Zee ironies, zay are too mush.

Also, that used to be a warnable offense.  I don't know if it still is; you might want to check the Ts&Cs.  At any rate, I'm not particularly miffed.

RC, I know it's fun to overly dramatize things, but asking, "What is it about tieflings you don't like?" is in no way akin to rape.  Srsly.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Please tell me that most of us are not so socially inept as to miss the implications here.




Sadly it seems some, or many, are just that as they cannot take the social cues that draw a line on some things to create that "personal comfort zone", but think they have the right to push ANY issue just for their further edification.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Sadly it seems some, or many, are just that as they cannot take the social cues that draw a line on some things to create that "personal comfort zone", but think they have the right to push ANY issue just for their further edification.




Oh, right. Because everyone who asks someone the reasons behind their preferences is always pushing their issues over the GM's rights. Why is it that no matter what's being argued, people feel the need to assume the worst in a position? 

A GM is free to not give answers, but I'd have to be concerned that being too taciturn would injure his game unless the players already trust him, in which case pursuing the question of preferences may not have been necessary in the first place. And he would have nobody to blame but himself. As I've said before, communication is better than lack of it.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> I can imagine the outrage if it were suggested that players be required to defend their preferences in making characters they want to play!
> 
> ...




But, players are required to defend their preferences all the time.  After all, what is a player background if not a defense of their preferences?  If a player wants to play X, he has to run it past the DM before taking it every single time.  A player who comes to the table with a character created without the DM's knowledge could quickly find himself rolling up a new character as the DM decides that the PC is too overpowered (or underpowered, or doesn't fit with the campaign etc.)

In what way is a player not required to defend their preferences?

-----------

I look at this like this.  I hate elves.  I've hated elves for a long, long time.  I hate elves because every elf I've seen played, or nearly so, has been a human that can see in the dark.  There's never any schtick that defines the character as an elf.  Dwarf?  Halfing?  Dragonborn?  Sure, I see those players bringing stuff to the table all the time that defines that character as a member of that race.  They make that character easily identifiable as a member of a particular race.

Elves?  I have almost never seen it.

But, and here's the but.  I don't ban elves from my table.  Why?  Because I know that there are people out there that can do justice to an elf character.  Who am I to tell the players that their character just doesn't measure up to my standards?  I am nowhere near that arrogant.  Well, maybe I'm close, but, still. 

To me, when a DM says, "There's no X, because I just don't like X" that raises HUGE red flags.  For one, what else doesn't he or she like that hasn't come up yet but might affect what's going on down the road?  For another, where does it stop?  After all, "I don't like elves, so you can't play an elf" isn't so far from "I don't like your character doing X, you can't do X".  

Not that that will necessarily be true.  It very well might not be true.  The DM could be a fantastic DM with this one small hangup.  But, that worry is going to pop up in my head because every single poor DM I've played with started with the line "I don't have X in my game because I don't like it".

Not that banning X makes you a poor DM.  Let's nip that little misread in the bud right here.  DM's most certainly can ban whatever they like.  But, when a DM stands up in the Big Daddy Chair and rules from on high, I'm going to be much more reluctant to sit at that table.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jan 25, 2011)

It's fine to just say "no."

Many DMs have a very nuanced vision of their world, and it's impossible to describe the "why" of everything. 

(If only players were even _interested_ in the "why" of everything.)

I think that an intended _feel_ can be conveyed in a few words and that specific gaps can be filled in later. 

E.g.:

*Humanocentric low magic 12th century Western European feel. Nothing stupid, please.*

And people should not be surprised when their half-dragon favored soul in magical plate armor with an _orcish double axe_* is politely declined.


But I only play with people I know and like - and who know that I'm not out to screw them out of arbitrariness or whimsy.

I suppose it might be different with an alternative social contract - i.e. between gamers who are not necessarily friends - but I can't really speak to that as that sort of game has never interested me.



*Stupid


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> To me, when a DM says, "There's no X, because I just don't like X" that raises HUGE red flags.  For one, what else doesn't he or she like that hasn't come up yet but might affect what's going on down the road?  For another, where does it stop?  After all, "I don't like elves, so you can't play an elf" isn't so far from "I don't like your character doing X, you can't do X".




 Over analyze things much?

No seriously.

But as to your next part, did you think that since you are assigning the "poor DM" to "dont like it so dont allow it", maybe the DM is assigning the "why dont you like it" from a player as an indication of a poor player?

Shoe, other foot; other foot, shoe.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Either not dying is more than a preference (and your point is invalid), or it is a preference (and there is no rational reason to prefer continued existance over dying).




Well, I think that's a matter that fits under the "no religion" rule, and we shall simply have to agree to disagree.



> Preferences are emotive.




A preference is a true statement.  

In a logical system, there are two forms of true statements.  One type is an axiom - these are statements that are assumed to be true, and so cannot be logically proven, or argued against - though it can be shown that some systems of axioms are inconsistent.  Emotive preferences might be akin to axiomatic statements.

However, for your archetypal logical system, there are an infinite number of quite logical statements that follow as true, once you assume the axioms.  In fact, no logic can be undertaken *until* you assume the axioms.

So, if we assume that my wife prefers to live as an axiom, then the preference to avoid strawberries follows from pure logic.  The two statements, are not equivalent, but one follows from the other.

If the GM and player agree upon their axioms, then showing the logic behind other preferences can lead them into agreement, or to suitable compromises.



> I can imagine the outrage if it were suggested that players be required to defend their preferences in making characters they want to play!




Well, I think you're upping the ante with, "required".

They'd be outraged if you insisted they justify every tiniest detail, sure.  But asking them for reasons behind a choice or two that seemed to be outside what we'd set as an expectation to start with?  That should not be an issue with a reasonable player.  

I get to ask some things as GM, they get to ask some things as players.  Sounds even and fair to me.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

Sepulchrave II said:


> It's fine to just say "no."
> 
> Many DMs have a very nuanced vision of their world, and it's impossible to describe the "why" of everything.
> 
> ...




But, here's where it gets a bit sticky.  Sure, the player trying to pick something that's wildly out of place is an easy issue to solve.  What if the player (assuming D&D for a second here) wants to play a D&D monk?  It's a bit out of the presumed setting, but, not too far out.  After all, 12th century Europe did have some contact with the East, so, a traveling Monk from the mysterious Orient is not completely out of line.

Or a Mongol horse rider for that matter?  Is that bending things too far?

Sure, it's easy to point out the far ends of the spectrum, but, there's lots of stuff in the middle that might be an issue.

If the DM says, "No monks", should the player simply accept it and move on or can he or she ask why?

No one, as far as I know, has said that the DM must change his mind if challenged.  But, is it okay for players to ask?



shadzar said:


> Over analyze things much?
> 
> No seriously.
> 
> ...




Wow, even with the caveat and explicit declaration, it still got taken wrong.  I'll repeat myself for the hard of reading:



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Not that banning X makes you a poor DM. Let's nip that little misread in the bud right here. DM's most certainly can ban whatever they like. But, when a DM stands up in the Big Daddy Chair and rules from on high, I'm going to be much more reluctant to sit at that table.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Big Daddy Chair DM



I tried to avoid it because of that Phrase, but you seem to want it discussed, your view of some DMs might be a root to your problems.


> After all, I don't feel that being the DM gives me the right to shove my personal preferences down someone else's throat and expect them to either meekly accept it without question or leave the room.




How is the DM shoving personal preference down your throat? You chose the DM. You can chose to leave.

I still don't get this idea that the DM owes the players anything. I also don't get why someone feels they have to play in the DMs game. You chose them, if you didn't want to play in their game or trust them to do their job as a DM, why did you choose them?

You sit down as a player and give certain rights and duties to the DM. If you didn't want this person to be able to make those choices, then why choose them? Why waste their time?

Are you just unhappy unless you have something to argue about?

It isn't like you picked someone for your carpool and they have aspirations to be a NASCAR driver and put those to use on the freeway. You don't have to open the door and tuck and roll, just get up and leave the game table if you don't want to play in their game, but odds are your leaving will get around to other DMs and maybe make them less agreeable to you joining in their games.

You make the choice as a player, so accept fault for your choices rather than blame the DM.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jan 25, 2011)

> After all, 12th century Europe did have some contact with the East, so, a traveling Monk from the mysterious Orient is not completely out of line.




I think that the "PC is unusual/unique" device is a well-tried get-around, and there are many cases where a DM should flex to admit borderline cases with this understanding.

But only the DM can decide if something is simply too incongruous for the game, for whatever reason: this judgment is aesthetic, based on the internal consistency of the game world, and cannot always be easily communicated.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 25, 2011)

> Obviously, other people have different views.




I'd even describe it as different _personalities_. I'm sure we all know people who can be opinionated, arbitrary, and stubborn regardless of which side of the DM's screen they're on. 

I try to be fairly easy-going. 

Say, there's something I have a strong personal preference against. Maybe like everyone's favorite whipping-boy of the moment, _Fortune Cards_...which I have an intense, emotional, largely irrational distaste of. 

Say someone wants to bring _Fortune Cards_ into my next D&D game.

My reaction would probably be, "Okay, here's the thing, I really don't like them, and would rather not use them. Maybe if you, I dunno, bring enough for everyone, we can give them a try for one session, if you really want to, but I'm warning you, I've got a bias here, and I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise. Maybe we can find a middle ground, like Paizo's Plot Twists deck or something? Just not anything sold by rarity or booster pack, okay?"

And the reaction I would expect would be something along the lines of "I'd really like to at least try them once, and we'll see how they are" or "Okay, I'll bring the Plot Twist deck next time, I like the idea of using cards," or "Nevermind, I thought they'd be cool, but if it's not going to be fun for you, I'm not that attached to the idea."

Those are all answers I can be cool with. And that's something that I feel kind of weirdly strongly about. Fantasy metals, races, and even game systems I don't feel that strongly about. 

If the person's worth hanging out with, they're not going to storm off in a huffy fury because I don't like their little cardboard bits. If _I'm_ worth hanging out with, I'm not going to throw a little hissy fit about my personal beef with the things like they should be ashamed of bringing them up. 

I know this is a game about pretending to be fairy elves in the gumdrop forest slaying the five fabulous fruit flavors of dragons and all, but I get the feeling that some gamers need to frickin' _grow up_ and _chill the heck out_.

It's only a game, d00ds.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jan 25, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> I should hope that, now that they've been a core race for ... a decade? ... we can all move past this trite background requirement?
> 
> I mean, I remember way back when, when half-elves were oft stereotyped as such.
> 
> I agree that certain things have no place in, at least, _my_ roleplaying games.  Which is why they get stopped at the door.  Please see my earlier points about having "moved past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions."




This trite background requirement was part of the reason that half-orcs  were not among the races in the first 4th Edition Player's Handbook; as  evidenced by James Wyatt here,  and the full article is here  for those with a DDI account. 

There are plenty of people out there to which the issue of how half-orcs came to be is anything but trite. Do they really need to explain why? There are some issues in which "I don't like and I don't want to talk about it" are perfectly valid. I think that this is one of them.

Re: your points about people moving past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a  real-world way]" stage of introductions." I am not so sure that it is that intentional. Rather, I think a player comes up with a character concept -- say, a half-orc fighter seeking to avenge his mother's situation -- only to find out that the DM has disallowed half-orcs from her campaign precisely because that situation. I am not so sure that the player intended to creep everyone out, but instead stumbled on an issue that bothered one particular player - in the case, the DM. Once the issue is brought to light, should we -- as players -- push the DM to justify why? Or, can we just accept "It's something I don't want to talk about?"


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 25, 2011)

Jacob Marley said:


> This trite background requirement was part of the reason that half-orcs were not among the races in the first 4th Edition Player's Handbook; as evidenced by James Wyatt here, and the full article is here for those with a DDI account.
> 
> There are plenty of people out there to which the issue of how half-orcs came to be is anything but trite. Do they really need to explain why? There are some issues in which "I don't like and I don't want to talk about it" are perfectly valid. I think that this is one of them.
> 
> Re: your points about people moving past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a real-world way]" stage of introductions." I am not so sure that it is that intentional. Rather, I think a player comes up with a character concept -- say, a half-orc fighter seeking to avenge his mother's situation -- only to find out that the DM has disallowed half-orcs from her campaign precisely because that situation. I am not so sure that the player intended to creep everyone out, but instead stumbled on an issue that bothered one particular player - in the case, the DM. Once the issue is brought to light, should we -- as players -- push the DM to justify why? Or, can we just accept "It's something I don't want to talk about?"




Half orc creation besides rape - RPGnet Forums

i.e.



> If orcs can spend time with similarly motivated humans without any more enmity than between any other evil characters, why shouldn't it happen consensually? I see no reason why it'd be THAT rare ... people do weird things. Some people might actually find orcs attractive, you never know ... others might think of it as some sort of breeding program (hybrid vigor super-orc-men!) I can even see evil humans (powerful ones, of course) being the exploitative partners... you never know what sort of weird kinks practicing evil magic for years can cause.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Jacob Marley said:


> Or, can we just accept "It's something I don't want to talk about?"




Many people can't but it isn't even that hardcore of an issue that can cause it. What if the DM just doesn't like a lot and is biting his tongue enough to play with some of the stuff the players want to, and just one more thing they don't like pushes them over the edge.

You question, and you find out that 50% of the game the GM doesn't like and would have rather removed, and then the players are stunned, and the game becomes hard for anyone to play.

I will deal with LOTS of stuff form the players character ideas and such, but when I draw the line, it is there. For whatever reason, odds are I would NOT play in many of the games I have run, because I do not like LOTS of the elements those I run games for do as a player. Since I am not a player, I don't have to deal with it a a PC party member, so hey it is there game. But still it sits there in my mind.

So if you the players get to choose their character and design it, why can the DM not do the same? Both have veto powers over the others playing piece in the game, but one side always wants more more more MORE.

Taking Vampire as an example because many wont come with loaded thoughts on it, STs gathered to decide where to take the story, and it was decided that since people often wanted to play Sabbat, that we would throw the concept in for the Seneschal known to be so by the Prince.

Let's just say this is something the rest of the players did not like and almost destroyed the game. The choice wasn't made likely to add this, but many didn't like it, but still felt the inclusion needed ot be made at one point for the sake of the game.

This is the tough job of a DM/ST/GM, and sometimes they DO put up with things they don't like, when given a flat no they "don't like it", it doesn't have to be as drastic as trumped up backstories for half-orcs* that you can easily throw away from day one, but they could just as easily be something small that would bother the game.

*There are plenty of other ways to explain half-orcs and half-elves other than Tanis' stoy and such. Who said it could never be consentual like half-dragons?


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jan 25, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> Half orc creation besides rape - RPGnet Forums
> 
> i.e.





Yeah I never understood that....half-elves obviously emerge out of love. Half-orcs? Well obviously there is rape involved. Do we really need to assume rape? Can't you have a setting in which half-orcs are the product of consensual relationships? Can't you have a setting where half-elves emerge out of rape and pillaging?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 25, 2011)

Jacob Marley said:


> This trite background requirement was part of the reason that half-orcs  were not among the races in the first 4th Edition Player's Handbook; as  evidenced by James Wyatt here,  and the full article is here  for those with a DDI account.




This, of course, represents an absolute failure of imagination.



> There are plenty of people out there to which the issue of how half-orcs came to be is anything but trite. Do they really need to explain why? There are some issues in which "I don't like and I don't want to talk about it" are perfectly valid. I think that this is one of them.




Which is, again, why you don't roleplay with people for whom rape forms an inescapable part of their character's motivations.

It's really that simple.  It is exactly ...



> ... about people moving past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a  real-world way]" stage of introductions."




I don't play with people for whom rape comes up in their forms of entertainment.  While we admit to the possibility that there are evil people in the roleplayed world, and that Bad Things Happen (TM), it does not come up during play.  Similarly, children are neither molested nor tortured.

Perhaps this makes our roleplaying "shallow" to some among the Real True Roleplaying crowd; I prefer the terms "light" and "friendly," and am quite happy down here with the "dregs."


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 25, 2011)

All I know is, when a DM starts banning stuff right out of the gate without explanation, I fully expect problems.

He probably wants for me to play through the fantasy novel he planned in his head in the summer between 5th and 6th grade that combines the D&D cartoon with the Franco-Prussian war. 

Oh and no Halflings or Gnomes, because he hates short races.

And no warlords, because Martial Healing wasn't in the Hobbit.

And keep in mind, I spend 80% of my time playing D&D as the DM.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

The Human Target said:


> All I know is, when a DM starts banning stuff right out of the gate without explanation, I fully expect problems.
> 
> He probably wants for me to play through the fantasy novel he planned in his head in the summer between 5th and 6th grade that combines the D&D cartoon with the Franco-Prussian war.
> 
> ...




How is this the case, but even people who wanted to play gnomes, bought and played 4th edition before gnomes were a playable race?

It is ok for the publisher to ban things: half-orcs, gnomes, assassins, bards, cavalier, demons, devils, etc etc etc, when they are not even at your table or know you nor have to run the game for you; but the DM does it and "HOW DARE HE!"?



What in the world makes the DM bad for not including things, but don't shoot a miffed glare up unto the Wizards Tower along the coast?

The designers decided to make things, they never said it would all be allowed.

I knew this thread would end up a generic "DM doesn't allow X" thread.

The DM has the job of getting rid of the crap the designers put in that doesn't work, and fixing the things that never did work.


----------



## thewok (Jan 25, 2011)

TL;DR: I got flamed on the WotC forums for not allowing stuff by default in my campaign world.

It's kind of funny with the timing of this thread.  The other night, I chimed in on a thread on the WotC forums and was promptly flamed from multiple directions.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible...

Some background: Back when 4E came out, I tried DMing Keep on the Shadowfell.  It was not my first DMing experience (that was a game of Vampire a year or so earlier), but it was one I was very much looking forward to.  One player was so dismayed by the changes between editions that the game fell apart.

In the second half of last year, I had finally come up with a nice 30-level arc for my group to 1) allow me to DM and give the normal DM a break, and 2) help me flesh out my campaign world some.  I gave the ultimatum: "I have an idea for a campaign that goes all the way to level 30.  I have it mapped out in general terms, and I want to DM it.  After the first of the year, I will do so."  One of my friends (whom I aleady had told about this, and wanted to jerk me around a bit) asked me what I'd do if the group said no.  "I'll find another group for two weeks a month.  Online, if I have to."

Near the end of the year, I send out an RTF file as a campaign primer.  I laid out the basics of the campaign, a (very) short bit of history, and the known state of the world.  This accompanied a list of races and their descriptions.  I made a surface version of drow (due to my love of EQ, and general dislike for inherently evil races) called, quite simply, dark elves.  I made deva naturally more tragic characters than their PHB2 write-up hinted at (inspired by an article on the D&D site regarding Deva roleplaying).  I included changelings, too.  But there were no Warforged, and no races from PHB3.  Similarly, I outlined that psionic classes are incredibly rare in the world, due to public fear of the phenomenon (i.e. manifesting psionics are generally lynched before they can grow into proper adventurers).

Why did I do this?  First of all, I really dislike warforged.  I just don't like them at all.  The mechanical reasons I disliked them in 3E are gone (no more need for Repair spells), but I still dislike the flavor.  So, I've reflavored them as an elite group of soldiers that the players have yet to meet, and no member of this unit would be able to reach where the players are currently located.

Second, I have never cared for psionics.  Again, this is a flavor issue.  In the thread I linked above, I gave the reasons that the public would fear psionics.  "It's the same as arcane magic!"  Arcane magic has rules.  The caster must obey the laws that govern that magic (or, in the case of the sorcerer, mimic them with an inherent talent) in order to cast a spell and get the desired result.  "It's like the difference between a paladin and a fighter!"  Divine classes are granted their powers by divine beings or intense faith.  Even if 4E's "Points of Light" campaign world says divine characters are permanently imbued with powers, in my world a paladin who loses faith or repeatedly and nonchalantly acts against his god's desires (or his virtue) loses those powers until he atones for his transgressions.

Thirdly, I really dislike the monster-as-PC phenomenon.  No kobolds, no minotaurs, no goblins, and so on.

Now, there is a caveat to these restrictions: they are not carved in stone.  This is how the world works.  If a player wants to play a psionic character, he may, but there are possible repercussions if people find out what the character is.  Similarly, I might allow a minotaur PC, so long as the player is okay with the fact that he will be feared and likely hunted by NPCs.

So, I tell the people in this thread about things that I do not allow by default in my campaign, and suddenly, I am the most vile creature in the world.  In that thread, it was said that I:

See psionics through the lens of a game I have never played (Warhammer 40K),
am too old to appreciate psionics (I'm 34),
am "hosing over" my players, and
am a "d-bag DM."

I have yet to ask if DMs who do not freely allow divine classes in Dark Sun are similarly evil folk, or if DMs who do not allow Essentials material at their table are "d-bags," but I would surmise that they would not be.

I'm all for "Saying Yes" to the players.  But the DM is a player, too.  I want to enjoy the game I'm DMing, just as I want my players to enjoy the game.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

thewok said:


> I'm all for "Saying Yes" to the players.  But the DM is a player, too.  I want to enjoy the game I'm DMing, just as I want my players to enjoy the game.




I couldn't read past the first few posts. The comment about "but in PoL...." made me want to wish D&D have never been invented. People that think the game is only what is in the books really make me sick. Sure there are some that want to play like that, go forth and enjoy; but the constant trying to force others with "RAW" or whatever style play is what makes me glad I do NOT visit WotC forums except when someone links to them from somewhere else.

I don't agree with some of the things you have in your world concept, but it sounds interesting none the less.

It dumbfounds me, like i said above, what people have against DMs altering the availability of things in any way, but a printed Campaign Setting can get away with it, "cause they own D&D" or some such.

Make your world and if your players like it, then play it and have fun and ignore looking for a witch to burn at the stake for not doing it exactly their way by the holy word of the designers.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 25, 2011)

IMO, if a DM doesn't want something in his games, it is _sufficient_ for him to simply say that he doesn't like it. However, it is seldom _satisfying_, especially if what he is eliminating is a fairly well-established game element and he does not give any supporting reasons for his decision.

In short, the DM has the right, but there is (usually) a broader social element to the way that he communicates his decision that he should be mindful of.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

Some thoughts on this:
First off, when you´re from an area (or even country) where Roleplaying and/or D&D are next to unheard of and quitting a group is more or less akin to quitting the hobby altogether, you quickly learn to say yes and roll with it.

Second, I think mostly lack of communication leads to that certain problem. If I as a gm start working on a world or campaign arc without talking to my players about what they actually want to play, I could as well write a novel and read it to them. Player imput should heavily influence the work we spend on our material here, else it´s a wasted effort.
Note that this doesn´t mean to simpy giving players what they want, you´re still the final arbiter of the game, but it´s easier to resolve conflicts well bevore they happen at the table.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jan 25, 2011)

Greg K said:


> I have no problem with a DM saying "No, I don't like it".   The DM is entitled to run the campaign he or she wants to run. Players are free to play or walk.




Sorry I thought RPGs were co-operative games, so negotiation and compromise were the sort of social skills both GM's and players should be bringing to the table, not "My way or the highway!" from the outset.

Also I've seen a number of people mention things along the lines of "the players are free to walk" that isn't exactly true for a number of reasons.

Often gaming is done with groups of friends people you want to be around, so walking from your regular game night raises other issues.

Then there is the fact finding a group to play at all in many areas is pretty hard, if the alternate to gaming with X group is not gaming at all, players and DM's are both likely to make compromises to meet each other wants/needs.

A highly authoritarian DM is likely to find he won't have a group to game with if his reasons aren't made clear and he makes it a choice of "like or leave."


----------



## GQuail (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm a bad ENWorlder and did something I didn't usually do: I only read the first page.  

I usually try to give more info than just "I don't like it" because, as Rel says, otherwise you can't really decipher intentions nor can you puzzle out an alternative.  If I say no to mithril items without any backup data then my players can't tell if it's because I don't like the fluff concept or if it's because I don't like the mechanics or if it's because I have a plot concept built in for this setting that means they can't know about it yet or whatever.  

I mean, even the OP didn't just say "I don't like them": he said "I don't like these fantasy metals because theyr'e so over-used".  A little bit of data beyond "I think it sucks" is the only way to work out if you should drop the topic or if you can adjust the idea to suit - for example, if I just need to accept all weapons will be made of "normal" metal or if I could still use all the mechanics for adamantine but call it something different like Dwarfblood Iron complete with it's own fluff. ("Metal mined from the mountains of the Dwarf catacombs: they say it gets so hard because the blood of the ancestors mingles in with it, for the only thing harder than steel are Dwarves)")

That said, "I don't like it" with a short rider is basically where I'd stop.  If the player doesn't like that then the door is that-a-way, and if enough of them take it then maybe I'll need to reconsider how much I don't like it.    Sometimes I specifically don't want to drag a session down with an hour-long debate on whether I'm right or not to, say, not like psionics or goliaths or half-vampires or whatever, for the same reason I don't like a session to turn into an hour-long debate about whether or not the Truespeech system is underpowered or the business rules in DMG2 are too difficult.  I want to "get to the good bit" and overly long debate won't help.

For example in a D&D 3.5 group I ran for before, one of my players insisted on playing a Half-Celestial and had this huge list of plans for their character, one of which was "get a demon like a succubus and convert it to good": I think the intention was to take Leadership at some point and make it a cohort. (It was a high level game, so this wasn't completely mechanically impossible)  informed said player that I wouldn't be up for that plan because I didn't like the idea of demons/devils/etc as anything other than Personification Of That Alignment's Beliefs.  In short, I Didn't Like Good Demons, but was open to some other similar notions.  (Like, say, a good Tiefling or a good Drow)

...And cue much complaint, spread over several _days_, as to why I was wrong and should just say yes.  Both in the flesh and over MSN the topic just would not drop, complete with examples from various campaign settings... even though we were playing in a custom one, complete with a different origin for demons as outlined before we even played in a little campaign booklet.  "I don't like it" wasn't good enough for him, but I'm not sure what would have been apart from "Sorry, you were right all along".


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 25, 2011)

Bagpuss said:


> Sorry I thought RPGs were co-operative games, so negotiation and compromise were the sort of social skills both GM's and players should be bringing to the table, not "My way or the highway!" from the outset.



It is a hobby, with specific qualities - and specific traditions, for that matter. It isn't _just_ socialising. Yes, it is a social activity - like any shared hobby, I guess.

But anyway. Traditionally, the roles of DM and player are very different indeed. And no, campaign/setting makeup is *not* (traditionally, and still to many DMs and players) an area where it's "co-operative" [sic]. At least, it _needn't_ be. It's an _optional_, _alternative_ approach, to whatever extent, and there's nothing wrong with _choosing_ to adopt that, if/when desired.

However, generally speaking, setting and campaign setup is the DM's prerogative. Setting up the players' [characters] "playground", as it were, is the idea here. Of course, onwards from there, the players have all the say in the world, as to what their characters do and choose, how they explore and manoeuvre, approach and (with any luck!) overcome challenges, and essentially, whatever else they so wish.... within the boundaries of setting and - to an extent - game system, that is.

And likewise, as per setting/campaign groundwork, system changes (i.e., house rules) are the domain of the DM as well. This is traditional, it's a system that works for many, _many_ groups, and it's perfectly fine and fair, what's more. And yes, once again, I say this equally as a player and as DM. I am content with this arrangement, in both cases. As is everyone else I game with, and ever have.

TTRPGs are not the only shared activity/hobby wherein the roles are "uneven", and just, well, *different*. I suppose there are those railing against such things elsewhere too. No doubt! Bizarre forms of political correctness should make their way into nearly every aspect of society and personal lives, according to some. Just for example. Not that *this* would *have* to be so, but in some cases... 

And that doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally wrong with "unbalanced" roles - even if they're not really!  - and that they should therefore be "fixed", ignored, turned on their heads, or whatever else.

By all means, those who wish to do just that, should! But, just to be perfectly clear here, they are not automatically "more right" than those sticking with the way things have been done for ages now. Nor are they necessarily more "enlightened", or even, let it be said, going to have a better gaming experience becuase of said choices!


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Bagpuss said:


> Sorry I thought RPGs were co-operative games, so negotiation and compromise were the sort of social skills both GM's and players should be bringing to the table, not "My way or the highway!" from the outset.



Doesn't work with every part of the game.


> Also I've seen a number of people mention things along the lines of "the players are free to walk" that isn't exactly true for a number of reasons.
> 
> Often gaming is done with groups of friends people you want to be around, so walking from your regular game night raises other issues.




You are still free to leave the game. Always drive yourself. No one or no ting can force you to stay in a game you don't enjoy.

There are other things to do other than play D&D while you wait for a group. Might stink while you can't play, but is better than playing something you don't like.

To stay IS a choice, so is to leave.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2011)

Umbran said:


> My wife prefers to not eat strawberries.  The fact that she's deathly allergic to strawberries (as in, "I cannot breathe and may die if I don't get medication") doesn't stand as a logical reason for that preference?





Raven Crowking said:


> Either not dying is more than a preference (and your point is invalid), or it is a preference (and there is no rational reason to prefer continued existance over dying).
> 
> Preferences are emotive.



Well, as it happens I incline towards a fairly reductionist/empiricist account of preference. So I'm happy with the idea that preferences are (in some sense) emotive. (My feelng is that the majority of contemporary philosophers of mind and action don' share this view - various forms of rationalism are currently enjoying a resurgence. In any event, whatever the precise balance of opinion, it's a matter of controversy among those who spend the greatest amount of time and effort reflecting on the issue.)

But I think the case of Umbran's wife shows that not all preferences are therefore unconstrained by reason. Assuming that Umbran's wife, for example, has a preference to live (as most of us do) then it is rational for her to cultivate an aversion to strawberries. This doesn't tend to show that preferences aren't emotive (in the relative sense) - rather, it shows that the contents of emotional states are subject to reason (at a minimum, constraints of consistency).

Which is, to an extent at least, relevant to the current discussion. A GM who simply says "I don't like it" and doesn't try to locate that preference in some deeper, consistent aesthetic vision of the game, is perhaps not doing everything that might be done to show that his/her preference fits rationally within his/her overall system of preferences.



Raven Crowking said:


> any expectation that a person must (or even should) explain his or her preferences to you....so that you can decide if they are valid or not, or maybe convince him to change his mind.....is not polite.  It is off the edge of rude and into the realm of offensive.





Umbran said:


> Neither one has to, no.  Put it is kind of polite to do so, and may lead to constructive discussion or compromise.



Well, on this one I'm inclined to agree with Umbran. If one is talking about very brute preferences that are mere matters of taste - do I prefer chocolate or peanut butter?, for example - than there may be little point in talking about it, but equally it often may not be very rude to suggest the plausibility, even superiority, of an alternative preference ordering (though it would of course be rude to badger excessively). After all, little is at stake here.

But once we get to more complex aesthetic judgement, which can be expected to have content that overlaps with other complex judgements, such that questions of overall coherence arise, then (_i_) discussion may help bring these relationships to light, perhaps altering judgements in the process, and (_ii_) (in my view, and provided one is civil about the whole thing) it is unexceptional to raise the issue as a topic of conversation.

For example, if someone tells me that s/he prefers Doug Niles' Darkwalker on Moonshae to Graham Greene's The End of the Affair as a work of literature, I'd expect to be given at least some sort of reason, just as I am ready to give reasons to justify some of my more idiosyncratic aesthetic judgements.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> It is a hobby, with specific qualities - and specific traditions, for that matter.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



But isn't what's at stake in these sort of conversations precisely the standing that we should give those traditions?

I must confess that over the years I have certainly been persuaded by the idea that the gameworld is best conceived of _not_ as something that the GM creates independent of any thoughts about being a vehicle for particular players to play the game, but rather _just as_ a vehicle for play by particular players.

That's not to say that the GM cedes control over all aspects of the campaign world. In particular, I think D&D mechanics tend to presuppose that the GM has ultimate authority over the backstory of the gameworld - so that even if a player intitiates a skill challenge/encounter to try and get the Big Reveal, it is the GM who is in charge of deciding what exactly the Big Reveal _is_. The encounter building and action resolution rules just don't envisage that players might be deciding this sort of stuff.

But the presence or absence of tieflings in the setting isn't typically a part of that backstory. And this is where I think being much more up front and ready to reach a group consensus can work better than a "take it or leave it" approach. Of course anybody can leave it at any time (as Gygax points out in the 1st ed AD&D rules, in his discussion of the supreme power of the Dungeon Master). But often compromise can be a happier road to take for all concerned.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

"You must spread some experience around before you can give it to permerton again".

You´re right, tradition for traditions sake alone has never been a good answer.


----------



## GQuail (Jan 25, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Because in saying, "I just don't like X" the GM is making it personal, relying on only personal authority.  It is saying, "I get to have it my way because I'm ME, and you aren't."
> 
> Now, occasionally the GM can play that card.  Occasionally, everyone should be allowed to - I just don't like anchovies on pizza, and I'll veto them.  But it ought to be done with care, and only occasionally.  Done too frequently, or over someone's strong preference, it can seem a bit petty and selfish.
> 
> Having supporting logic always comes across as less arbitrary than, "just because."




The power of veto is, as you say, perfectly reasonable when used correctly.  It's in your best interests sometimes, in fact - if they order anchovy pizza then they make you grumpy and possibly sour the whole night.  The problem is people who hammer it on all the time or without any real justification.

A rotating GM spot game I played had a sort of unofficial power of veto for everyone over what game we could play.  We all played games we weren't super-enthused but every so often someone had the right to say "Look, sorry, but I just do not want to play this game".  because most of us had a variety of other games in our to-run pile it was breifly frustrating but we got over it.  It's ultimately for the best rather than play with someone who hates a game so much that they'd veto it - I mean, if you can run something else other than Vampire for me, it's in everyone's best interests to.  

Our problem was that, in practice, only one guy ever used the veto.  Me and the other four dudes would grumble a bit (and in one case, I left a game early because I wasn't enjoying it) but there was one player who would be very quick to say "This game is stupid and un-fun, I won't play it" and shut down that idea.  It was expecially frustrating when he did for Warhammer 40,000 because I and three other players were really into the setting and super-enthused to play/run that game - and we couldn't get a coherent answer out of him and attempts to debate it just went round in circles.  

As some other posters have said, sometimes you can't get more out of someone than "I don't like it"... Or their proposed "fix" is so far gone from the initial premise as to be useless, like when someone suggests they won't play 3.X D&D as written and their alternative is to basically use every rule from AD&D 1st Edition as a "house rule".  ;-)  Sometimes, for speed, you just need to move on.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 25, 2011)

A little more detail on the Adamant-/Mithril bit: they're the Borg of fantasy metals. Interestering when they were fresh, but used so often they've become stale and boring.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> A little more detail on the Adamant-/Mithril bit: they're the Borg of fantasy metals. Interestering when they were fresh, but used so often they've become stale and boring.




And the counterpoint would be that a dwarf without a adamant axe is no real dwarf and an elf without elven chainmail is no real elf. Where does that leave us?


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> And the counterpoint would be that a dwarf without a adamant axe is no real dwarf and an elf without elven chainmail is no real elf. Where does that leave us?




With you assuming I'm running a world that even has dwarves and elves? Though, at the author's confession, one race of Diomin is pretty much elves with the serial numbers filed off - at least lifespan wise. And another fills the Made of Stone trope of dwarves quite a bit more than most actual dwarves.

I'm tired of the EDO trope too. Mostly because I think "do you have to use the same fantasy races as everyone else in your published game?"


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 25, 2011)

What is all the fuss about?  "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting something. There does not need to be any underlying logic to support something as arbitrary as a preference. 

We like and dislike things for a variety of reasons not all of which can be expressed in a laundry list of logical data.

A DM is always free to exclude something from the campaign as long as this information is shared before play begins. Players are likewise free to turn down such a game if what it excludes would ruin their good time. At that point we have a DM without players and players without a game. If everyone involved would like a game then a reasonable compromise needs to be reached. 

When all is said and done playing these games is not a job. We play to have fun. No one should feel pressured into either running or playing a game in which that fun would be diminished.


----------



## Belen (Jan 25, 2011)

The Human Target said:


> The game provides a baseline of content and if its removed from a game players understandably want a good reason why.
> 
> Its totally valid.
> 
> ...




This is certainly a poor argument.  If a GM wants to use the core rules of the game yet run a different style of setting, then you have to remove items.  One person does not have the time to account for every piece of splat when designing a setting.

Just because you're using a rules set does not mean that you should be forced to run a stock game.  "I do not like them" is a perfectly valid reason to exclude them from the setting.

Of course, a GM should specify what races and classes are available at the start of the game.  Players should assume that anything not listed is unavailable unless they ask for permission.


----------



## GQuail (Jan 25, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> A little more detail on the Adamant-/Mithril bit: they're the Borg of fantasy metals. Interestering when they were fresh, but used so often they've become stale and boring.




I can definitely appreciate that.  (And I sorta agree, too - I really like 4E's many alternate materials for magical armours because it gets around that omni-presence.)  Even if I didn't, at least I now know that you probably won't say know to other "magic metals" on principle.

But I think it's relevant that you had to explain it to get people to go "Ah, I get it", and that just saying "I don't like it" created confusion and queries.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> RC, I know it's fun to overly dramatize things, but asking, "What is it about tieflings you don't like?" is in no way akin to rape.  Srsly.




Nah.  You're just using the same rationalization as to why it's okay not to take No for an answer.....



Hussar said:


> But, players are required to defend their preferences all the time.  After all, what is a player background if not a defense of their preferences?




Um....In my neck of the woods, a character background is a background for a character.  We don't require *players* to submit their own backgrounds.  You guys are harsh!



> If a player wants to play X, he has to run it past the DM before taking it every single time.




IMHO and IME, only to ensure that it fits within the campaign milieu.  The DM is not saying to Hussar, "Sorry, man....Umbran explained why he wants to play a dwarf really well, but I'm not getting why you don't want to play an elf.  So, unless you come up with some better reason, you can be an elf."



Umbran said:


> Well, I think that's a matter that fits under the "no religion" rule, and we shall simply have to agree to disagree.




We can agree to disagree, but in no way does religion have to enter into it.

If you believe that desiring continued existence is more than just a preference for any reason -- religious or not -- then it invalidates your example.  What the reason is need not apply.



> A preference is a true statement.
> 
> In a logical system, there are two forms of true statements.  One type is an axiom - these are statements that are assumed to be true, and so cannot be logically proven, or argued against - though it can be shown that some systems of axioms are inconsistent.  Emotive preferences might be akin to axiomatic statements.




Indeed.  And, as "these are statements that are assumed to be true, and so cannot be logically proven, *or argued against*" you again cut the throat of your argument.  Axiomatic statements can be used by logic, but they do not arise from logic.



> So, if we assume that my wife prefers to live as an axiom, then the preference to avoid strawberries follows from pure logic.  The two statements, are not equivalent, but one follows from the other.




Sort of like "Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing. And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them. But the things you are pursuing? They are not the result of rationality." from the post you are replying, to, right?  

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5440263-post88.html



> If the GM and player agree upon their axioms, then showing the logic behind other preferences can lead them into agreement, or to suitable compromises.




So, let me see here:

Preferences are axiomatic, or akin to being axiomatic.

If the GM and player agree upon their axioms, then showing the logic behind other preferences can lead them into agreement, or to suitable compromises.

But, if the GM and player agree upon their axioms (preferences), then one would also assume that there is no problem to begin with!  



Jacob Marley said:


> There are some issues in which "I don't like and I don't want to talk about it" are perfectly valid. I think that this is one of them.
> 
> Re: your points about people moving past the, "But I want to play a [character which creeps everyone out in a  real-world way]" stage of introductions." I am not so sure that it is that intentional. Rather, I think a player comes up with a character concept -- say, a half-orc fighter seeking to avenge his mother's situation -- only to find out that the DM has disallowed half-orcs from her campaign precisely because that situation. I am not so sure that the player intended to creep everyone out, but instead stumbled on an issue that bothered one particular player - in the case, the DM. Once the issue is brought to light, should we -- as players -- push the DM to justify why? Or, can we just accept "It's something I don't want to talk about?"




Indeed.  There is no way to know if a reason is deeply personal without pushing, prying, folding, spindling, and mutilating.  But "Sorry, I didn't know" isn't really an excuse after you've pushed, pried, folded, spindled, and mutilated......



Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Which is, again, why you don't roleplay with people for whom rape forms an inescapable part of their character's motivations.
> 
> It's really that simple.




Is it?  Care to explain the logic of that decision in painstaking detail, until I tell you I am satisfied?  Or does No mean No?



The Human Target said:


> All I know is, when a DM starts banning stuff right out of the gate without explanation, I fully expect problems.




Yeah, he probably has a coherent world in mind, that he'll enjoy running games in.  The bastard.



FireLance said:


> IMO, if a DM doesn't want something in his games, it is _sufficient_ for him to simply say that he doesn't like it. However, it is seldom _satisfying_, especially if what he is eliminating is a fairly well-established game element and he does not give any supporting reasons for his decision.
> 
> In short, the DM has the right, but there is (usually) a broader social element to the way that he communicates his decision that he should be mindful of.




I agree with this completely.



Bagpuss said:


> Sorry I thought RPGs were co-operative games, so negotiation and compromise were the sort of social skills both GM's and players should be bringing to the table, not "My way or the highway!" from the outset.




"I don't run games with X, but you are welcome to do so (although I will not play in such a game)." is a compromise.  You cannot force people to like what you like, or want to play in the game you are seeking.

Seek (or better, make) a game that suits your preferences.  Life is too short for crappy games.  And, playing a game you are not enjoying -- either because it includes X or because it does not -- makes for crappy gaming.



> Also I've seen a number of people mention things along the lines of "the players are free to walk" that isn't exactly true for a number of reasons.




Friends can do other things than game.

Again, "Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing. And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them. But the things you are pursuing? They are not the result of rationality." 

If you know the game disallows X, and you choose to play because you'd rather play than not (for whatever reason), you are still choosing to play.  You can still choose not to.

As you say,



> Then there is the fact finding a group to play at all in many areas is pretty hard, if the alternate to gaming with X group is not gaming at all, players and DM's are both likely to make compromises to meet each other wants/needs.
> 
> A highly authoritarian DM is likely to find he won't have a group to game with if his reasons aren't made clear and he makes it a choice of "like or leave."




This is certainly true, and is certainly a consequence one must deal with when choosing what one prioritizes.  But, *one still has a right to choose what one prioritizes.*  That is, IMHO, an absolute right.  And it is a choice.



pemerton said:


> But I think the case of Umbran's wife shows that not all preferences are therefore unconstrained by reason. Assuming that Umbran's wife, for example, has a preference to live (as most of us do) then it is rational for her to cultivate an aversion to strawberries. This doesn't tend to show that preferences aren't emotive (in the relative sense) - rather, it shows that the contents of emotional states are subject to reason (at a minimum, constraints of consistency).




Again, "Logic and rationality can help you determine which you feel most strongly, and which are most important to you, so that you can determine which will bring you the greatest satisfaction in persuing. And logic can help you figure out how best to pursue them. But the things you are pursuing? They are not the result of rationality." 

From the post Umbran was responding to.



ExploderWizard said:


> What is all the fuss about?  "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting something. There does not need to be any underlying logic to support something as arbitrary as a preference.
> 
> We like and dislike things for a variety of reasons not all of which can be expressed in a laundry list of logical data.
> 
> ...




Bingo.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

GQuail said:


> I can definitely appreciate that.  (And I sorta agree, too - I really like 4E's many alternate materials for magical armours because it gets around that omni-presence.)  Even if I didn't, at least I now know that you probably won't say know to other "magic metals" on principle.
> 
> But I think it's relevant that you had to explain it to get people to go "Ah, I get it", and that just saying "I don't like it" created confusion and queries.




IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons.  Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Likely if the GM cared what you thought or hid behind false pleasantries. Dog are the creatures that sniff each other's butt upon meeting, not man, therefore I am not playing social butt-kiss with anyone, as I am not a dog, but a man.




Dogs also engage in dominance challenges. As a dog owner, I have to say that "because I said so" is pretty similar to dog behavior. 



> Sadly the example given is how many people today DO play, they players play next to each other, but not _with_ them as is evident by the direction one game took to try to make itself more "balanced" by giving everyone the same stuff no matter what class so the classes wouldn't have to compete against each other, when it fact it was the players competing, not the classes, when they should have been cooperating.




Well, in the interest of brevity, this gives me a chance to sum up how I generally feel about the whole situation: I don't think that refusing to answer questions in any more depth is a particularly _good_ tactic; I'm not saying it's not within the GM's rights, I'm just saying it's not a tactic I would ever recommend. 

In the case of players who are decent human beings, refusing to discuss preferences hurts the group's ability to make informed decisions. About the only thing it adds is time-saving (or perhaps it bolsters the GM's pride), but I find that to be an unfortunate lost opportunity to communicate.

In the case of players who are as stiff-necked and selfish as you describe (but thankfully, not as common in my experience as you describe), I would instead recommend the tactic of finding other, more reasonable players. I find it leads to better gaming overall.

And I don't by default think that players are stiff-necked and selfish. It's just not been my experience that the majority of them are that way. Of course, I'm counting those players who started out a bit more stiff-necked but became more open-minded once they actually started engaging in dialogues about the game outside the game as "less stiff-necked." And, of course, as part of the reason I stick by "communication is good."


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> What is all the fuss about?  "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting something. There does not need to be any underlying logic to support something as arbitrary as a preference.
> 
> We like and dislike things for a variety of reasons not all of which can be expressed in a laundry list of logical data.
> 
> ...




I guess that's where my problem lies.  The DM is holding the game hostage for his preferences.  You can either accept what he wants or leave, there's no compromise there.  And, some people here are loudly decrying even the attempt at compromise.

I honestly think that's massively abusing the priveleges of being a DM.  "Do what I want or get out" is not exactly the most mature method of dealing with a disagreement.

Again, I'm not assuming that either the DM or the player are being jerks here.  Both honestly believe what they are saying.  Both have the best interests of the game in mind as well.  

I just hate the idea of passing down the commandments from on high and my response to any criticism is, "Well, there's the door if you don't like it."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I guess that's where my problem lies.  The DM is holding the game hostage for his preferences.  You can either accept what he wants or leave, there's no compromise there.  And, some people here are loudly decrying even the attempt at compromise.
> 
> I honestly think that's massively abusing the priveleges of being a DM.  "Do what I want or get out" is not exactly the most mature method of dealing with a disagreement.
> 
> ...




Strawman.

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons.  Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are).  You are seeking to get your own way.

People can (and do) dress that up six ways to Sunday, but in the end, it is what it is, and no rationalization changes it to something different.


RC


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Strawman.
> 
> IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that_ it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it._
> 
> ...




If they dont want to/wont discuss it, arent _they_ getting their own way, by simply avoiding any discussion at all? It depends on what "pressing" the issue is. Did they give reasons, and then the players seek to debate ad nauseum, or were they given any reasons, was their any discussion at all. If they simply say "I just dont like it" that compromising either, that  just shuts everything down.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Friends can do other things than game.




That can really depend on circumstances. If my life is pretty busy with work and kids, I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to game. If I want to spend time with these friends, it may have to be around the gaming table for that night. Considering campaigns may last for years, the cost for walking can be very high. It's one of the reasons I'm still playing 4e, a game I don't like very much but other players are having some fun experimenting with. I could walk away from the game, but I'd rather spend the time with my friends. Fortunately, the DM is flexible enough that he's allowing us a lot of latitude in trying things out. Too many other constraints on top of playing 4e and I'd be pretty disappointed.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I guess that's where my problem lies. The DM is holding the game hostage for his preferences. You can either accept what he wants or leave, there's no compromise there. And, some people here are loudly decrying even the attempt at compromise.
> 
> I honestly think that's massively abusing the priveleges of being a DM. "Do what I want or get out" is not exactly the most mature method of dealing with a disagreement.
> 
> ...




There is no hostage taking here unless players allow it. If the players do not want the game the DM is offering then they are not forced to play in it. 

"The door" is powerful tool for players as well. Without them the high and mighty DM doesn't have much to lord over. If a player really can't stand to be in a game without X then why not offer to run such a game? 

In my experience the players who complain the loudest about any omissions of official material from a campaign are those who never want to run anything except amok in someone else's game. 

If you are not willing to put on the DM hat and show the gang how things are run properly with what you want included then perhaps being so nitpicky about the preferences of the DM isn't such a great idea. 

The only thing ever held hostage is a player by his/her own unwillingness to put up or shut up.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Strawman.
> 
> IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons.  Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.
> 
> ...




So, it´s not ok for me to get things my own way so you get things your way?
Forcing a certain vision on how the world should be and interacted with it on the players is ok then, insofar as it really affects the players for a long time, possibly longer then you as gm spent on making up the setting? Nope, I don´t buy that.
And for the "You can always quit that game"-answer, that´s really the ultimate expression of my will over yours.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> Well, in the interest of brevity, this gives me a chance to sum up how I generally feel about the whole situation: I don't think that refusing to answer questions in any more depth is a particularly _good_ tactic; I'm not saying it's not *within the GM's rights*, I'm just saying it's not a tactic I would ever recommend.




This is the crux of the matter. Some would say the GM doesn't have that right.

In a model world everyone would have time and such to talk about these things in depth all the time if it was something that allowed for discussion, but sadly finding time to game for many doesn't leave all that time. I doubt anyone in this thread is gaming while responding, or at least hope not. If you are put down the phone or laptop and return to your group and pay attention!

The majority of these questions come not to "stiff-necked" GMs, but when the time to play is and wastes other peoples time.

Just people learning to accept it is the GMs right, which you never really said wasn't, but now get where some are coming from with the discussion, is one major obstacle.

Not so much as a right many times except for those things they don't like enough that would cause them to DM poorly, but a duty to make sure that the DM is able to run a coherent game that is fun for all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> If they dont want to/wont discuss it, arent _they_ getting their own way, by simply avoiding any discussion at all?




Sure they are.  

OTOH, this is similar to baking chocolate chip cookies and then asking if anyone wants some.  The baker gets his own way as to what he wants to bake.  Everyone else gets his own way as to whether or not he wants to have some.

A problem only arises where the baker demands the right to force-feed you his cookies, or the potential recipient demands that the baker makes what he wants.

*I am allowed to get my way as to what I am willing to offer you.  You are allowed to get your own way as to what you are willing to offer me.*

I don't have to explain why I wanted to bake chocolate chip; you don't need an excuse to say "No thank you".

That said, if my motive is to bake cookies that you will want, I would be foolish to ignore what it is that you want.  If I strongly dislike making peanut butter cookies, and that's all you want, well....perhaps you need a different baker, and I need a different consumer.  I still don't need to explain why I dislike peanut butter cookies, nor do you need to explain why you crave them.



> It depends on what "pressing" the issue is. Did they give reasons, and then the players seek to debate ad nauseum, or were they given any reasons, was their any discussion at all. If they simply say "I just dont like it" that compromising either, that  just shuts everything down.




To paraphrase Dan Savage, a good GM is "good, giving, and game".  But being "game" doesn't mean that you can't know what you don't like.  And if you don't like something, it is okay to say so.

A good player is also "good, giving, and game".  Part of being "good and giving" is accepting that sometimes No means No, without demanding the reasons.

In that case, you either accept the relationship as it is, or you DTMFA, because whatever you do to change the other person is just going to prolong both of your agony.



RC


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Strawman.
> 
> IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons.  Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.
> 
> ...





Wow. This is pretty much as clear and as polite as you can put this. If people dont get it they're not trying to get it. AT. ALL. 

Especially THIS PART: 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are).  You are seeking to get your own way.




Part of being an adult is sometimes being able to accept what you cant change in other people. As an adult you make a choice, if a situation is untenable you can just walk away from it or you can stay cause further conflict in order to prove that youre way is the only right way or to make a point or whatever. 

You're not OWED an answer to ANYTHING. Just because my friend tells me that he doesn't like Broccoli or clams or oysters and wont tell me WHY doesn't make him a dick. That's his prerogative, if he wants to tell me he will. That's called RESPECT. If that same friend as a DM tells me no divine casters in his Pathfinder game and I wanted to play a Cleric? He doesn't have to tell me why because I trust him enough that there is a reason and I'll play something else even though I love playing clerics. Why? Because I trust my friend. If it becomes apparent during play why there are no divine casters then great if not then I'll still deal. He doesn't OWE me anything. 

If I'm joining a new game with a new DM and he/she hands me a guide for their game and there are no standard races just monster races, I have to make a decision. Do I want to be part of this game? No. Then I excuse myself. No hard feelings. I'm not going to sit there and be THAT douchebag who is going to argue and insist that he/she change their concept because I need to be that special snowflake. It's not a game i'm interested in playing, so I'll bounce and find another game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> So, it´s not ok for me to get things my own way so you get things your way?




See my response to Sorrowdusk.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

billd91 said:


> That can really depend on circumstances. If my life is pretty busy with work and kids, I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to game. If I want to spend time with these friends, it may have to be around the gaming table for that night. Considering campaigns may last for years, the cost for walking can be very high. It's one of the reasons I'm still playing 4e, a game I don't like very much but other players are having some fun experimenting with. I could walk away from the game, but I'd rather spend the time with my friends. Fortunately, the DM is flexible enough that he's allowing us a lot of latitude in trying things out. Too many other constraints on top of playing 4e and I'd be pretty disappointed.




It is a poor friend indeed who refuses to spend time with you unless it's around a gaming table.  

But, OTOH, I note you say "I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month *to game*" rather than "I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to _*spend time with these friends*_", so that might be the problem right there.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

I would also like to point out that, as a GM, if I have pointed out the door to you, the odds are very good that you no longer get to choose.  I have already chosen.  I don't need Dan Savage to tell me to DTMFA, and I have no trouble filling a table.


----------



## chaochou (Jan 25, 2011)

Morrus said:


> The GM doesn't "own" the game - it's a social activity between a group of people who have agreed to do this thing together.  Doesn't make him their king or anything.




Exactly.

A DM derives their authority from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

[MENTION=428]RaveN[/MENTION] Cowking:

Like I said earlier: Move over to my place and you´ll relearn what a luxury it is the even find players. I think you´ll change your mind on gm-right pretty quick.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Strawman.
> 
> IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons.  Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.
> 
> ...




Really?  No one is shutting down conversation?  How about the person you just posrepped?



			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> If I'm joining a new game with a new DM and he/she hands me a guide for their game and there are no standard races just monster races, I have to make a decision. Do I want to be part of this game? No. Then I excuse myself. No hard feelings. I'm not going to sit there and be THAT douchebag who is going to argue and insist that he/she change their concept because I need to be that special snowflake.




Note how it's being painted.  Anyone who complains is automatically a douchebag who needs to be a special snowflake.  How is this not completely shutting down any compromise?  ShinHakkaider is basically saying that the DM rules from on high and the players should put up and shut up or get out.

It has nothing to do with being owed anything.  It's about basic social interaction.  If the DM rules X, I should not be browbeaten into submission if I question that ruling.  Now, if no compromise is possible, sure, I have to decide if I want to play this game or not.  Fair enough.

But that should not be the first step.  That should be the last one.  

Oh, and on this little tidbit:



			
				RC said:
			
		

> and I have no trouble filling a table.




in all likelyhood, no one in this thread does either, so, trying to make it sound like you have the best answer because you've managed to keep people at your table isn't exactly saying anything.  Heck, look at the horror stories thread going on right now.  Most of those horror stories include people who STAYED at those tables.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 25, 2011)

I'd facepalm but I'd end up with a headache after some of these replies.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> [MENTION=428]Like I said earlier: Move over to my place and you´ll relearn what a luxury it is the even find players. I think you´ll change your mind on gm-right pretty quick.




Unless you live 500 miles from your nearest neighbour, I suspect my mind wouldn't change.

I've lived in a lot of places.  I've introduced D&D to places.  I've got no fear about being able to draw players.  And I've got no fear about spending my time in other pursuits if I do find myself 500 miles from my nearest neighbour.



Hussar said:


> Really?  No one is shutting down conversation?  How about the person you just posrepped?




IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

Now, read that again, and tell me what it has to do with what you are asking, because, AFAICT, you're doing the comparing apples and gamma ray bursts thing.

(1)  A person can ask the reason.
(2)  The person being asked doesn't need to supply a reason.
(3)  Perhaps, if the person being asked wishes to explore the topic, he will do so.  In this case, a compromise might be possible.
(4)  It (2) occurs rather than (3), anyone who attempts to press the issue is pretty much a douchebag.
(5)  The mature, non-douchebag thing to do is to either accept the relationship as it is offered (limitations and all), or DTMFA.  Anything else simply prolongs everyone's agony.
(6)  If you don't believe me, ask Dan Savage.



> trying to make it sound like you have the best answer because you've managed to keep people at your table isn't exactly saying anything.  Heck, look at the horror stories thread going on right now.  Most of those horror stories include people who STAYED at those tables.




Really?  I thought those were horror stories about people who LEFT those tables.  Heck, that's indicated by the bloody thread title!



EDIT:  The best compliment I ever received as a DM was when I ran into some folks talking about D&D in an elevator.  The DM was talking about one of his new players in a very complimentary way.  As we got talking, he started telling stories about how this player once had this "truly great DM" (his words, not mine).  As we talked, I began to recognize bits and pieces of what he was talking about.  So I asked the name of the new player, and he had been one of mine.  So I asked the name of the DM, and he was me.

But, then, I've had players from places I lived over 20 years ago find me on the Internet to tell me what a great DM I was.  And at least one is still using campaign materials I provided to continue a game I started, back when I lived in California.

And there are still plenty of people who's rpg itch I don't scratch.  *Nor do they have to explain why they'd prefer another game. * Sitting at my table doesn't obligate you to explain your preferences to me, or to anyone else.  If you imagine that sitting at my table obligates me to explain my preferences to you, well, there's the door.  

And, no, if you feel that sitting at my table obligates me to explain my preferences to you, the door is non-optional.  I have no interest in playing games with someone I wouldn't want to otherwise spend time with, and I don't spend time with douchebags.



RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Really? I thought those were horror stories about people who LEFT those tables. Heck, that's indicated by the bloody thread title!




I noticed a distinct lack of " The DM didn't allow X" as the focus of "the horror". 

Perhaps the issue isn't as widespread and common as this thread is making it out to be?


----------



## korjik (Jan 25, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> There is no hostage taking here unless players allow it. If the players do not want the game the DM is offering then they are not forced to play in it.
> 
> "The door" is powerful tool for players as well. Without them the high and mighty DM doesn't have much to lord over. If a player really can't stand to be in a game without X then why not offer to run such a game?
> 
> ...




This is pretty much my view. The only thing I would add is that the DM is playing the game too, and if he dosent like the game he should not have to play it either.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 25, 2011)

First, it's the GM's perogative to ban anything.  But if I am a player who wants to play something that gets banned, it's nice to be given some more solid reason than "I don't like it." so you know their desire to ban it is for as much reason as your desire to incorporate it.

I'm certainly biased because I'm overwhelmingly a player and I often make characters for fun.  So in a new campaign I can get excited for an idea and "I don't like it." (or something similar) can come off as a snap ruling that greatly affects me but has little or lesser affect on the GM.

In one campaign I wanted to play a race that was part of the core rules because they seem like an interesting and unique race to play that you don't get a chance to play in standard D&D.  I don't remember the exact details so while the GM's ruling may not have been "I don't like them." but it was something as vague ("I don't think they fit into the campaign.") and final.  It stinks when something (seemingly) inconsequential to the GM can scrap something that the player is passionate about.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I noticed a distinct lack of " The DM didn't allow X" as the focus of "the horror".
> 
> Perhaps the issue isn't as widespread and common as this thread is making it out to be?




Indeed.


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

Wow.  I was busy at a job all day yesterday (a GOOD thing!) and unable to return to this thread but I'm pretty amazed at how black and white and adversarial things are being painted.  Rape?  Showing people the door?

To me, this thread is about a fairly specific, simple concept.  And this...



shadzar said:


> It dumbfounds me, like i said above, what people have against DMs altering the availability of things in any way, but a printed Campaign Setting can get away with it, "cause they own D&D" or some such.
> 
> Make your world and if your players like it, then play it and have fun and ignore looking for a witch to burn at the stake for not doing it exactly their way by the holy word of the designers.




...has nothing to do with it.  I think it is in ever single way the right and obligation of the GM to change anything and everything they like about a game or setting for the sake of making it one that they AND the players will have fun with.  I don't for a moment support the notion that the GM shouldn't be changing things from how it is printed in some campaign guide book.  Hell I almost never even USE a campaign guide book!

From my perspective, the simple question posed by this thread is "Why is 'I don't like it' not good enough [an answer by the GM to the players]."  The answer to that question is that more communication is almost always better for any relationship than less communication is.  Have any of you ever heard of a therapist or counselor who said, "What you should try and do with your spouse/family member/friend is communicate less."?  Issuing denials conveys a very small bit of information ("I don't like it.").  Giving reasons, even if they are very small, very brief reasons, provides more information and conveys that the other party is worthy of a bit of consideration.  It helps foster the relationship.

Isn't that what we want?  Even if you are gaming with people who are not "friends", assuming (as established by the OP) that this conversation is taking place at the outset of a campaign, aren't you looking at regularly spending several hours at a time with this person over the course of the next several months or _years_?  That's a relationship!  I believe it is good for everybody involved in every way to try and make it a good relationship.  Good relationships require good communication.

I most certainly believe that good relationships have times when it's better not to discuss something _right now_.  I'm (usually) smart enough to recognize that my wife just needs a hug instead of a discussion.  But we need to have that discussion at some point or else that issue is still going to be hanging in the middle of our marriage where it gets in the way of the awesome stuff we want sitting in the middle of our marriage.  

In gaming this is akin to the GM making a spot ruling on something in the game with which a player disagrees.  I think it's good for the relationship if the GM gives a very brief reason for his ruling.  I think it's fine for the relationship if the GM says, "I don't want to talk about it now because we're in the middle of the game.  I'm happy to discuss it later."  I think it's BAD for the relationship if the GM says, "That's my ruling.  There will be no explanation.  Accept it or get out."

But having a discussion at some point will IMHO always be better than not having a discussion at some point.  The "why" that we do things is important to others.  It makes the relationship deeper and opens the opportunity to us to work together to make things better.  Without that "why" we are unable to gain further understanding and any working together is purely accidental.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> Have any of you ever heard of a therapist or counselor who said, "What you should try and do with your spouse/family member/friend is communicate less."?





Strawman.  

And one covered at length upthread (although perhaps you missed it while away).

IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.

So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).

When the other party doesn't want to discuss it, and you seek to convince him anyway, you are not seeking compromise (although you might tell yourself that you are). You are seeking to get your own way.

Have any of you ever heard of a therapist or counselor who said, "What you should try and do with your spouse/family member/friend is, when they don't want to talk about something, force the issue."? 

(If so, please report said therapist or counselor!)

Obviously not.  A therapist or counselor will want you to take personal responsibility for what you do, not to encourage you in forcing others to confrom to your demand/expectations.

To paraphrase Dan Savage, a good GM is "good, giving, and game". But being "game" doesn't mean that you can't know what you don't like. And if you don't like something, it is okay to say so.

A good player is also "good, giving, and game". Part of being "good and giving" is accepting that sometimes No means No, without demanding the reasons.

In that case, you either accept the relationship as it is, or you DTMFA, because whatever you do to change the other person is just going to prolong both of your agony.

Communication is good.  Knowing when to not force communication is just as important.

In short, there is a big difference between you communicating better (good) and you trying to force others to do so (bad).  

*As any reputable therapist or counselor will tell you!*

And trying to force others to do so is not so that they gain a benefit; it is so that you do.  It is both selfish and offensive.

People can (and do) dress that up six ways to Sunday, but in the end, it is what it is, and no rationalization changes it to something different.


RC



EDIT:  And, if the goal is really to have a discussion "at some point", then respecting the other person *now*, and allowing him to choose if & when he is willing to discuss it, is always a winning strategy over trying to force the issue.  Assuming lives are not at stake, anyway!


----------



## Bagpuss (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> To stay IS a choice, so is to leave.




Of course but my point is for some people it is Hobson's choice, rather than a case of well if they don't like this DM they can find another.

And for some a Morton's Fork put up with a authoritarian DM or stop hanging out with a group of friends. 

Presenting "my way or the highway" as the only options, creates a false dilemma as most DM's are actually open to negotiation and cooperation. It's at least worth trying.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 25, 2011)

As a counter question to the OP I would ask, why is the fact that something appears in a rulebook considered to *be* good enough? 


DM:OK guys lets talk characters. 

Player: I got an idea for a really cool cleric. I'm gonna...

DM: No clerics. At least no clerics with spells or clerical abilities.

Player: Wha....  They are a core class, you can't just ban them.

DM: They don't exist. The game is set in Krynn pre-war of the lance. 

Player: Ok cool. 

Why is not allowing clerics suddenly cool because an "official" world says so? 

What if the DM simply said that in his world clerics lost their powers long ago and nobody knows why? Would the player just accept that at face value?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Bagpuss said:


> Presenting "my way or the highway" as the only options, creates a false dilemma as most DM's are actually open to negotiation and cooperation. It's at least worth trying.




Of course it is worth trying!

And, of course, most of the time, a good GM is willing to engage in negotiation and compromise.  Again, a good GM is "good, giving, and game".  That means that a good GM isn't going to say No without reason, even if he is unwilling to discuss that reason.

And a good player is also "good, giving, and game", and is therefore unlikely to press the issue if the GM feels strongly about it, unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so.

In fact, in over 30 years of gaming, I've never seen a good (good, giving, and game) GM point a good (good, giving, and game) player to the door.  Nor have I seen a good player press a good GM when the answer was No, even if the GM didn't want to discuss reasons at that time.

No, IME and IMHO, we are far into the realms where we are discussing either a bad GM, a bad player, or both.

And, IME and IMHO, no game is better than a bad game.  Which actually does make the door the ideal solution, as far as I am concerned.  Regardless of which is the bad egg, getting out of the situation is the best result one can hope for.



RC


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> As a counter question to the OP I would ask, why is the fact that something appears in a rulebook considered to *be* good enough?
> 
> 
> DM:OK guys lets talk characters.
> ...




That one is simple. All implications are known. When you play Krynn as written, you know what you can expect, you know the reasons, you can plan and play accordingly. The last two things are the most important.

On the homebrew question, I think yes, they would accept it, simply because you already stated a reason. But you should be prepared for a lot of questions regarding other divine spellcasters and the healing ablities of bards. If, for whatever reason, only clerics are thus affected, I´d guess you´ll earn a lot of queer looks, though.


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Strawman.




Golly, that's a nice attempt to negate my point with one word.



> Communication is good.  Knowing when to not force communication is just as important.
> 
> In short, there is a big difference between you communicating better (good) and you trying to force others to do so (bad).
> 
> *As any reputable therapist or counselor will tell you!*




I wasn't under the impression that the OP was unwilling to discuss his reasoning out of some desire to protect a sensitive emotional subject.  I was under the impression that he simply found it an annoying waste of time to have to give his reasons.

I would further posit that it's completely valid for the player to ask, "Why don't you want to discuss it?"  Again, I find, "I just don't want to." to be an inferior answer to, "The subject of fantasy metals is one that I'm emotionally uncomfortable with and I'd rather not talk about my reasons for removing them from the game."  It is even an inferior answer to, "I don't consider myself as the GM to have any obligation to discuss my reasons for disallowing fantasy metals from my game with the players."  If that is the answer then I have just gained very valuable information from the GM that informs me a great deal about what to expect.



> And trying to force others to do so is not so that they gain a benefit; it is so that you do.  It is both selfish and offensive.
> 
> People can (and do) dress that up six ways to Sunday, but in the end, it is what it is, and no rationalization changes it to something different.




I'll dress it up like this:  I find this assertion to be wholly incorrect based on my experience.  On the few historical occasions where I've found myself pushing somebody for explanations it has been because I wanted to gain understanding _to our mutual benefit_.  It has very possibly been because I felt that the only alternative to gaining that understanding was to end the relationship.  And I felt that it was worth it, to both of us, to push them for answers rather than resort to "the door".

If that seems to be an extreme reaction to the situation posed in the OP, it's probably because nobody ever clammed up on me over something as trivial as why they were excluding some element from a roleplaying game.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 25, 2011)

As is often the case in heated ENWorld debates, this comes down to playstyle.

Some groups, and especially some gms, really do subscribe to the "DM HAS GODLIKE AUTHORITY" approach to gaming, or at least to some games (be it D&D, WoD or whatever). 

Others subscribe to a more democratic, player-empowering philosophy, and again, there are systems that actively encourage this (Amber diceless, etc).

For player-empowered groups, the gm is under an obligation to explain himself when he excludes something; sometimes such groups even have a rule where each player gets to force one campaign element in whether the gm wants it or not. 

For godlike gm style groups, the gm is under little or no obligation to explain himself; at the extreme, he never needs to explain any ruling, rules, exclusions, inclusions or anything else.

IME- speaking as someone firmly on the 'godlike gm' side of this particular dichotomy- this style works best when the gm _chooses to_ explain his rulings at least some of the time.  Maybe not during play but some time or other.  The real necessary element is trust; the players have to trust their gm for this style of play to work, and communication builds that trust up.

Here's something else about this topic that I think is worth noting.  In Ye Olde Days, a "campaign" wasn't a series of adventures one group went through, it was the milieu that served as a backdrop for (potentially) many groups.  These campaigns tend to be well-developed, closer to simulations of a world than a simple series of encounters for the pcs, with a scattering of high and low level monsters, npcs, etc. throughout the world.  

If a gm has been running the same campaign world for years and it has never had dwarves in it, the player expecting to play a dwarf needs to step off.  They ain't there, and the reason is- THEY AIN'T THERE.  Maybe the dm was just sick of dwarves back in '94 when he first started the campaign, it doesn't matter- THEY AIN'T THERE. 

Finally, on the terms of the discussion, as I said, communication usually improves things _if done right._ Bringing the game to a halt mid-combat so that you can badger me about allowing you to play a Drow? No, and you aren't going to persuade me of anything like that. A discussion during character generation about why I don't allow Drow pcs? Sure. But when I have clearly said "No" and made it clear that I'm not changing my mind, continuing to badger me is just that- badgering.  Knock it off or GTFO.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> On the homebrew question, I think yes, they would accept it, simply because you already stated a reason.



It would be nice, but WOTC boards suggests there are a lot of people that would not. They would either keep pressing the issue until you relent or agree to play and try to sabotage the game, because the could not get what they want.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> Golly, that's a nice attempt to negate my point with one word.




Golly gee, thanks.  

But "strawman" doesn't negate your point; it says that your point is not applicable to what the other person is arguing.  And, since your post references some of mine, it is accurate at least as far as they are concerned.

AFAICT, there are two issues involved here:  (1)  Whether or not it is better to communicate, and (2) Whether or not one has the right to expect certain types of communication.

The OP involves (2), whereas your reply involves (1).  I don't think anyone is arguing against your point re: (1), but I don't see how it is applicable to (2).



> I wasn't under the impression that the OP was unwilling to discuss his reasoning out of some desire to protect a sensitive emotional subject.  I was under the impression that he simply found it an annoying waste of time to have to give his reasons.




Again, I have to call strawman.  

This is a seperate issue.....Unless you are going to argue that I have a right to expect certain types of communication which is stronger than your right to disengage from something you find annoying.

Take this outside of gaming, and I think it becomes very, very clear how obnoxious the behaviour we are talking about is.  

And it may very well be that the GM's behaviour in this case is also obnoxious to you.  So be it.  People have the right to be obnoxious; they do not have the right to force others to put up with it.

Heck, the "Ignore" feature on EN World (and many, many other places) exists for just such a reason.



> I would further posit that it's completely valid for the player to ask, "Why don't you want to discuss it?"  Again, I find, "I just don't want to." to be an inferior answer to, "The subject of fantasy metals is one that I'm emotionally uncomfortable with and I'd rather not talk about my reasons for removing them from the game."  It is even an inferior answer to, "I don't consider myself as the GM to have any obligation to discuss my reasons for disallowing fantasy metals from my game with the players."  If that is the answer then I have just gained very valuable information from the GM that informs me a great deal about what to expect.




Again, though, this is a strawman.

AFAICT, no one is arguing that "I just don't want to" is a _*superior*_ answer to *anything*.  The discussion is about whether or not it is an _*acceptable*_ answer.

So, to all of the points you made in your last post, and above, I'll happily agree.  With the sole exception that they speak to what is being discussed.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Greg K said:


> It would be nice, but WOTC boards suggests there are a lot of people that would not. They would either keep pressing the issue until you relent or agree to play and try to sabotage the game, because the could not get what they want.




EN World suggests the same thing, IME.  

I remember the warforged ninja discussions very well........


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, no one is arguing that "I just don't want to" is a _*superior*_ answer to *anything*.  The discussion is about whether or not it is an _*acceptable*_ answer.
> 
> So, to all of the points you made in your last post, and above, I'll happily agree.  With the sole exception that they speak to what is being discussed.




So...let me tell you what I think you're saying and you can tell me if I'm right:

You're saying that, "I don't like it." is inferior to almost any other answer one could give, but it's still acceptable.


If I'm understanding you correctly then I'd counter by saying the purpose of places like ENWorld (to my mind) are to let us exchange ideas that will make our games better.  Therefore it is appropriate to respond to a thread such as this by askiing, "You could give that answer, but why would you since almost any other answer would be better?"


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Communication is good. Knowing when to not force communication is just as important.
> 
> In short, there is a big difference between you communicating better (good) and you trying to force others to do so (bad).




Beat me to it, but this is so key.  Some people repeat, "we'll just talk about it until we work it out," like a mantra.  But like any effective tool, communication works really well--right up until the moment that it doesn't.  

I believe that repeating that mantra as a mantra is ultimately actively detrimental to *good* communcation, because it creates false expectations.

If the DM and I just talk about this, he will either accept elves in the game, and I can play my character, or I'll accept his reason and feel good about not playing this particular character I had in mind.  It *may* work out that way.  In fact, it often does--often enough that you'll start assuming that it always does.  And then it will happen--probably not in the game, but something more serious, like your job or your family.  It turns out that you don't like or understand his reason well enough to let it go.  And he isn't moved to change by the discussion.

In the game, it is relatively easy.  You can bow out.  Or at least you can, if you don't have those false expectations.  If you have those false expectations, you are at an impasse.  Either the world has to change, or your expectations have to change.  Guess which one has a chance of actually happening?

Which brings up another thing, and it is definitely related to the point.  Don't ask a question for which you are not prepared to accept the possible answers.  By "accept", I mean "hear it, and do what is necessary"  And that does not necessarily imply that you have to think out all the possible answer ahead of time (though that might be useful in some cases).  Rather, it means that you aren't so wedded to an outcome that you can't adjust.  Consider this real example that happened in our group:

I asked if they would like to try a superhero game for awhile.  One of the players said if we did that, he would bow out for the duration.  Why?  He didn't like superhero gaming.   

Since when I asked the question, it was an honest question, I could accept that answer.  If the other eight players had been really excited about the possibilities, we'd probably have done it for a short while.  But no one else really cared that much.  Neither did I.  I was just throwing it out there (along with some other ideas) to see what reaction they would get.  That *is* effective communication, including that players' clear statement of a preference.

Suppose though, that the question was not "honest".  Suppose that I was really excited about running such a game, but I didn't say that.  I just threw it in with some other things to make it look casual, but as the one steering the conversation, I was going to really push that possibility hard. Wait, you say, but that isn't effective communication.  Yeah, it isn't.  And every now and then, the same thing happens with people "just wanting a reason" for why the DM isn't allowing X or your character idea or whatever.  Bullcrap.  The player didn't just want a reason.  The player feels a lot more strongly about it, but if they said what they really wanted, in plain language--you know, good communication--then they might not be able to argue or weasel or come on an internet forum and complain about getting no--because that would be being honest with themselves.

Churchill said (paraphrasing) that real (aka lasting, satisfactory) compromise was *impossible* unless and until all sides knew what they wanted and stated it clearly (aka communicated it well enough that the other sides understood what they wanted).  Well, same thing in small gaming compromises as with the more important stuff.  

If you really, really want a game world where you can play character X, in this kind of story, then say that--at the appropriate time.  (Hint, this is during pre-campaign discussions, not after I've spent several months putting together a campaign document, trying to accommodate all the preferences on the table so far.)  If you just want to badger me after the fact, under the guise of "being reasonable"--well, I've been wise to your BS since middle-school, and I ain't no spring chicken no more, no way.  

You'll note that I have none of this problematic issues with any of the people in my current group.  There is a reason for that, too.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

Greg K said:


> It would be nice, but WOTC boards suggests there are a lot of people that would not. They would either keep pressing the issue until you relent or agree to play and try to sabotage the game, because the could not get what they want.




Methinks its the age-old trust issue all over again.

Do I, as gm, trust my players to respect my role and treat my creation as I intended it?
Do I, as player, trust my gm to have a clue what he´s intending with the rules and not just using his position to enforce his will on me.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 25, 2011)

Somehow, "where on the doll did the DM touch you" doesn't say enough.

You are reading way too much into forbidding things. Many of you are ignoring the fact that these are things that are mentioned before my door even becomes a factor.

I GM a lot more than I play because I buy the games I want to play. Once I get other people to like them, I have a chance to play as a player.

I do think that we are in danger of an entitlement society that thinks the world just owes them stuff.

The GM says he will run a game in way A, you accept that game, the GM owes you that.
You as a player say you want to run such and such a character in so and so an environment, a GM agrees, then AND ONLY THEN does he owe you that.


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Somehow, "where on the doll did the DM touch you" doesn't say enough.




Frankly that's just insulting.  And I say that not as a moderator but as somebody who is trying to give a meaningful answer to a question you posed.  I guess I won't make that mistake again in future threads.



> You are reading way too much into forbidding things. Many of you are ignoring the fact that these are things that are mentioned before my door even becomes a factor.
> 
> I GM a lot more than I play because I buy the games I want to play. Once I get other people to like them, I have a chance to play as a player.
> 
> ...




How does any of that change the notion that give a reason is better than not giving a reason?

If you give a reason then yes, it's possible that the player might make a counter argument.  That might end with you having to tell that player, "Well I'm sorry you don't like my reasons but this is the way it's going to be in my campaign."  That's FINE.  But at least you have given the player the consideration of explaining your ideas and hearing theirs.  Net result:  Improvement.

But it might instead end in the player saying, "You have very good reasons for disallowing this.  Your explanation has given me greater insight into the sort of game you're trying to run.  I'm on board with this and I'm now actively looking for ways to embrace and encourage that theme."  Net result:  Improvement.

OR it might even possibly end with you saying, "Wow, Player, I had not considered the counter arguments you pose.  Those are very good reasons and my opinion has changed.  I think that allowing this thing will make the game better and I'm glad I took the time to explain my reasons."  Net result:  Improvement.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel, if those outcomes were the only possible ones, your argument would be a lot more persuasive.  In situations were those outcomes are the only highly probable ones, that argument is persuasive.  

Part of the disconnect between various posters in this topic is different experiences and thus opinions as to nature of the situation in a given instance.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:
			
		

> I'll dress it up like this: I find this assertion to be wholly incorrect based on my experience. On the few historical occasions where I've found myself pushing somebody for explanations it has been because I wanted to gain understanding to our mutual benefit. It has very possibly been because I felt that the only alternative to gaining that understanding was to end the relationship. And I felt that it was worth it, to both of us, to push them for answers rather than resort to "the door".




How is it "mutual benefit" when they've already either said "no" or theyre "not willing to talk about it"? 

It's to YOUR benefit at that point not theirs. 

DM: No divine casters in this game. 

Me: Why? 

DM: I dont want to discuss it. They just don't have a place in this particular game. 

Me: Yeah, I get that. But why? [joking] Could you show me where on the doll the bad cleric touched you? [/joking]

DM: *fixing me with a gaze that would kill with NO SAVE if we were in game*
EXACTLY. 

Me: *feeling like a complete heel* Oh. *slinks away*

Now that's an extreme example to be sure but not one outside of the realm of possibility. Now explain to me how pushing that was to my "mutual benefit". I got some more information, but now my DM thinks I'm an a-hole.


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> How is it "mutual benefit" when they've already either said "no" or theyre "not willing to talk about it"?




I didn't say that pushing for more of an answer would be to the mutual benefit of both parties.  That's impossible to predict.  I said that I wanted more understanding for our mutual benefit.

The conversation could go like this:

Player:  I'm going to be a cleric.

GM: No divine casters in this game.

Player:  Why?

GM:  I don't want to go into a long explanation but it is commonly believed that the gods have abandoned the world.  All divine spellcasting has ceased working.

Player:  When did that happen in the course of the world history?

GM:  About a year ago.  Other than that it's a big mystery and I don't want to say anything more about it.

Player:  Ok...so I think I'll still keep the same basic character concept that I was entering the clergy.  But when the magic stopped working then I had a huge crisis of faith.  My character feels personally betrayed that his god has abandoned him and is on an angry quest for why this happened.

GM:  Ok that sounds like you've got a good reason to go adventuring then since you're seeking answers to this mystery that is central to the campaign.


I mean obviously (addressing Crazy Jerome's point) the exchange could have gone poorly.  But I'm assuming that the GM and Player are both being friendly and both wanting a fun game.  These are not, in my opinion, wild assumptions.

I will further point out that, were I the player in this scenario, I'd probably also be asking questions like, "Have you considered how the lack of healing magic might interact with the core assumptions of the combat system?  What about the fact that no PC's will be able to be raised from the dead?  Should we have concepts already in mind for back up characters if this game is going to be more deadly than normal?"

If the GM is not going to be willing to discuss some of this stuff then he's either prevailing a great deal on my trust and history with him or he's got me pretty worried about whether he is considering the implications of this rather significant change to the game world.


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Now that's an extreme example to be sure but not one outside of the realm of possibility. Now explain to me how pushing that was to my "mutual benefit". I got some more information, but now my DM thinks I'm an a-hole.




Sorry but I forgot to address this part of the post directly.

If your GM thinks that you're an a-hole, it's probably because "Show me on the doll where the bad Cleric touched you." is kind of an a-hole thing to say to somebody you want to have a conversation with.

Nonetheless, if the underlying reasoning for the GM disallowing divine magic from the game is that, "The clergy is evil and bad.  Religion is bad.  I think that any world is better off without it.  And I'm going to use this campaign to show the players this fact." then...well holy crap that's probably going to be a game filled with tension and a whole lot of un-fun!  Whether or not the GM thinks I'm an a-hole, I'm probably better off having learned this information and getting the hell out of there!


----------



## Mallus (Jan 25, 2011)

I'll try to be brief... 

My advice to players: respect the person running the campaign. 

My advice to DM's: respect the people playing in the campaign and don't shut down their creative input unless you have a damn good reason. If you do have the aforementioned damn good reason, share it with them.

When you get right down to it, I see D&D primarily as a creative outlet. It's why I DM. It's why I'm an inveterate homebrewer. I like to make shi stuff up. 

Why would I want to deny a player the chance to do the same? 

What would the benefit of that be?

(one caveat: I'm assuming a traditional D&D kitchen-sink setting/campaign. If a DM is trying to run a tightly-themed game, set say in 17th century France or Middle Earth, then what I wrote is dramatically less applicable, though I would have to ask why someone would use D&D to run a campaign like that, which kinda flies in the face of most of D&D's default conventions/assumptions)


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, and AFAICT, no one is arguing that it is not okay to ask for reasons. Rather, the argument I (and, again, AFAICT others) are making is that it is not okay to keep pressing the issue if it is obvious that the other party doesn't want to discuss it.
> 
> So, no one is "decrying even the attempt at compromise" (loudly or otherwise).



You have said this more than two or three times in this thread, yet I am not sure it's true.  There are many posts where I could come away with the opposite understanding.

I have gotten the impression from a lot of posts that this exchange is perfectly acceptable:



> DM:  "I don't allow XX in this campaign."
> Player:  "Interesting, I am curious why, because I had a great character concept."
> DM:  "Because, I said so."  [or] "I just don't like it."
> 
> [and if the player asks why they don't like it, they are whiny or are unacceptably pressing the DM]




While this maybe within the GM's right, I don't believe that it is an acceptable response in an environment where the table is trying to establish a social contract, one that should be about having the most fun for everyone.

If a DM has a campaign guide and character creation guidelines, that is better, but if a player has an idea about a class or race not listed in the accepted options, it's still OK for a player to ask about it.  

Doing so does not assume that they are trying to get their way.  They might be trying to discover an explanation, either in-game or meta, that will help them understand why. Not every player that asks why is antagonistic.

Another thing I think is getting lost is the difference between "questioning the DM" and "asking for an explanation or further clarification".  The first might come across as challenging the DM's right to how they built their world.  The second is merely seeking greater understanding as to the DM's thought process.

Again, in the first case, persistent questioning is NOT acceptable.  But in the second case, better communication will almost always net a better result.  The ultimate result being that both the player and DM is satisfied with the outcome of the discussion.

Why is it hard to understand that better communication is...  well...  just....  Better!

Asking a question is not browbeating the DM.  

NOTE: I am a DM about 99% of the time.  And it bugs me a 1000 ways to Sunday when a player is constantly pressing me to play a concept that doesn't make sense in the campaign world just because he thinks it givz awesum powerz.   But if they are wondering why because they had a good idea in mind, then that's OK.

It's really not hard to distinguish the difference between the two.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> This is the crux of the matter. Some would say the GM doesn't have that right.




Which is why I say "don't play with people like that" is better advice to a GM than "call on your right to not have to explain yourself." 



> In a model world everyone would have time and such to talk about these things in depth all the time if it was something that allowed for discussion, but sadly finding time to game for many doesn't leave all that time. I doubt anyone in this thread is gaming while responding, or at least hope not. If you are put down the phone or laptop and return to your group and pay attention!




We've got email. Phones, too. And admittedly, I like to game with people that I would (and do) hang around with when I'm not gaming with them. Again, I really value communication as the grease that keeps gaming cogs turning. If a game didn't allow for that -- if it were with people I wouldn't hang out with or give my email address to otherwise, or who have no interest talking to me outside of actual game night -- I would expect a number of problems to arise. 



> Just people learning to accept it is the GMs right, which you never really said wasn't, but now get where some are coming from with the discussion, is one major obstacle.




Sure. In fact, I think we're both coming at this from similar angles: people not understanding a GM's rights is pretty related to my "communication makes things better" philosophy. From the start, my major point of disagreement is that although assuming that a GM must kowtow to the players' whims is bad, so too is assuming that players are incapable of understanding a GM's point of view. When they are, it's insulting to treat them as if they aren't. When they aren't, again, why play with them?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> So...let me tell you what I think you're saying and you can tell me if I'm right:
> 
> You're saying that, "I don't like it." is inferior to almost any other answer one could give, but it's still acceptable.




Erm.  Not exactly.

*In most cases*, "I don't like it." is inferior to almost any other answer one could give, but it's still acceptable.  However, it is impossible from the outside to predict where the "not most cases" lie.

One of the first things a therapist will teach you (and EN World mods, for that matter) is to walk away when you're feeling heated, rather than saying something you might regret.  If someone is annoying you by repeatedly questioning every setting decision, then, effectively, "I don't like it" is like walking away.

One of the first things that being a parent will teach you is that this is sometimes necessary.  Because children can and will use "Why not?" as a sort of verbal weapon.

One of the things one learns as a GM is that some players will do the same thing.

As I noted upthread, by the time "because I don't like it" appears in the conversation, it is almost certain that either there is a bad (badgering) player involved or a bad GM.  Someone who is actually curious about why you don't like something is far less likely to be annoying that someone who wants reasons to drive their own agenda.  

Frankly, if the player was merely curious, I doubt this thread would exist.  If the player is merely curious, and the GM is annoyed by that (respectfully addressed) curiosity, then perhaps being shown the door is actually a service to that player.  Before he gets too involved with that GM.

There is also a time and place where "But why not?" is appropriate, and a time and a place where it is not.  All things in their season.



> If I'm understanding you correctly then I'd counter by saying the purpose of places like ENWorld (to my mind) are to let us exchange ideas that will make our games better.  Therefore it is appropriate to respond to a thread such as this by askiing, "You could give that answer, but why would you since almost any other answer would be better?"




If you start with "You could give that answer", then the rest might actually help the poster, who has a question about player behaviour rather than his own.  

I would also note that, to some degree, your question is answered in the OP.  Being asked repeatedly to justify your design decisions/preferences can be annoying.



Coldwyn said:


> Methinks its the age-old trust issue all over again.
> 
> Do I, as gm, trust my players to respect my role and treat my creation as I intended it?
> Do I, as player, trust my gm to have a clue what he´s intending with the rules and not just using his position to enforce his will on me.




Methinks you've nailed quite a bit of it here.

I would add, common courtesy need yet apply, and if the answer is No to these questions, either as GM or player....._*run!*_  You can find a better game.  Or better no game at all.

IMHO.  YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> I have gotten the impression from a lot of posts that this exchange is perfectly acceptable:




I obviously missed that/those post(s).  Care to link?

In any event, I believe I covered that possibility.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5440960-post159.html

And, of course, most of the time, a good GM is willing to engage in negotiation and compromise. Again, a good GM is "good, giving, and game". That means that a good GM isn't going to say No without reason, even if he is unwilling to discuss that reason.

And a good player is also "good, giving, and game", and is therefore unlikely to press the issue if the GM feels strongly about it, unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so.

In fact, in over 30 years of gaming, I've never seen a good (good, giving, and game) GM point a good (good, giving, and game) player to the door. Nor have I seen a good player press a good GM when the answer was No, even if the GM didn't want to discuss reasons at that time.

No, IME and IMHO, we are far into the realms where we are discussing either a bad GM, a bad player, or both.

And, IME and IMHO, no game is better than a bad game. Which actually does make the door the ideal solution, as far as I am concerned. Regardless of which is the bad egg, getting out of the situation is the best result one can hope for.​


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I obviously missed that/those post(s).  Care to link?



Seriously?  I am not going to go back and search through 12 pages of posts...  And I said I got the _impression_.  That's why I didn't go back and line up a series of quotes of anyone.



Raven Crowking said:


> In any event, I believe I covered that possibility.



I am not saying that YOU agree with no communication.  In fact, you have a few posts here where you encourage discussion between player and DM.

I simply stated that there are other posts that seem to imply that it is acceptable, in the context of a group game, for a DM to take the attitude of "my way or the highway" without any communication as to why.  

Otherwise, why would so many other posts from respected EnWorld members get the same impression I had gotten, and responded with "more communication is generally better than none".



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> One of the first things that being a parent will teach you is that this is sometimes necessary. Because children can and will use "Why not?" as a sort of verbal weapon.



Well, this is why I don't play with gamers that use "Why not?" as a verbal weapon.  I've seen it and not put up with it.  But this is how these people often are in many other aspects of their life...

But just because when someone asks "Why not?" it doesn't mean that it's a tool to be used as a verbal weapon.  Most of the time, it's a simple, innocent, question.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> _It is a poor friend indeed who refuses to spend time with you unless it's around a gaming table_.
> 
> But, OTOH, I note you say "I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month *to game*" rather than "I may manage to carve out one night a week or even a month to _*spend time with these friends*_", so that might be the problem right there.
> 
> ...




It depends. Some people may be "friends" you ONLY know from work, but otherwise you never talk to them outside of that environment. You may have "friends" you play basketball with, but you dont know them outside of the activity. When the activity or job ends, you may never keep up with them. People use the word "friend" lightly to refer to aquaintances as well.


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> *In most cases*, "I don't like it." is inferior to almost any other answer one could give, but it's still acceptable.  However, it is impossible from the outside to predict where the "not most cases" lie.
> 
> One of the first things a therapist will teach you (and EN World mods, for that matter) is to walk away when you're feeling heated, rather than saying something you might regret.  If someone is annoying you by repeatedly questioning every setting decision, then, effectively, "I don't like it" is like walking away.




What I'll say is this:

If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, you're a bad GM.

If you get heated the twentieth time that player questions a decision by you as a GM, that's a bad player.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> How is this the case, but even people who wanted to play gnomes, bought and played 4th edition before gnomes were a playable race?
> 
> It is ok for the publisher to ban things: half-orcs, gnomes, assassins, bards, cavalier, demons, devils, etc etc etc, when they are not even at your table or know you nor have to run the game for you; but the DM does it and "HOW DARE HE!"?
> 
> ...




I knew your posts would devolve into basically "I hate WotC and 4e and I'll ban any of the horrible crap they produce I want" arguement.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 25, 2011)

Belen said:


> This is certainly a poor argument.  If a GM wants to use the core rules of the game yet run a different style of setting, then you have to remove items.  One person does not have the time to account for every piece of splat when designing a setting.
> 
> Just because you're using a rules set does not mean that you should be forced to run a stock game.  "I do not like them" is a perfectly valid reason to exclude them from the setting.
> 
> Of course, a GM should specify what races and classes are available at the start of the game.  Players should assume that anything not listed is unavailable unless they ask for permission.




I wasn't really using that as an argument, more just how I feel about the situation and my immediate reactions to it personally. 

And its not that I don't think DMs should not be able to add or remove things from the game. 

I just think we shouldn't just say "I don't like it" and move on, providing no explanation to players.

And really, not liking something isn't enough reason to remove something from the game in my opinion. 

I think Invokers are boring, so should I ban them from my game?

No. Because they don't hurt anything and if someone wants to play one why should I care?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am not saying that YOU agree with no communication.  In fact, you have a few posts here where you encourage discussion between player and DM.




Glad you recognize that.



> I simply stated that there are other posts that seem to imply that it is acceptable, in the context of a group game, for a DM to take the attitude of "my way or the highway" without any communication as to why.




Well, I do think that the GM has the right to do this, and I also think that the highway may well be the way to go in this case.  For that matter, I think each and every one of the players have the same right.  If it isn't working for you, you can and probably should call it a day.

However, I think the difference here is largely due to "reader filter".  I assume that, unless there is reason to assume otherwise, when the GM says No to something, he has a reason.

The GM assumes the brunt of the workload, and often the brunt of responsibility for whether the game soars or fails.  That being the case, the GM has the right to set parameters where he thinks he can make a game soar.

Moreover, if any given player is sorta unhappy about the game (but is doing his best to enjoy it), a game can still be fun.  But I have never seen a game where the GM is sorta unhappy about it, no matter how much he tries, that remains fun for long.  It is simply too much work to ask anyone to do if they are sorta unhappy about it.

Given the choice, I'd rather play my third character choice in the GM's first campaign choice than play my first character choice in the GM's third campaign choice.  IMHO, and IME, the game is a lot more fun when the GM is happiest.

Always assuming, of course, that the GM is at least of average calibre!



> Otherwise, why would so many other posts from respected EnWorld members get the same impression I had gotten, and responded with "more communication is generally better than none".




I'm not going to touch this, considering that I've already received an infraction on this thread.  But you can email me if you'd like to discuss it further.  ravencrowking at hotmail dot com.



> But just because when someone asks "Why not?" it doesn't mean that it's a tool to be used as a verbal weapon.  Most of the time, it's a simple, innocent, question.




Agreed.



Rel said:


> What I'll say is this:
> 
> If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, you're a bad GM.
> 
> If you get heated the twentieth time that player questions a decision by you as a GM, that's a bad player.




Agreed.

Caveat:  You can be a bad GM because you had a really crappy day, and you are lashing out inappropriately, then later pull it together and be a good GM.  I've seen it happen.....but if it happened more than once, or not under extraordinary circumstances, my "run!" advice stands.



Sorrowdusk said:


> It depends. Some people may be "friends" you ONLY know from work, but otherwise you never talk to them outside of that environment. You may have "friends" you play basketball with, but you dont know them outside of the activity. When the activity or job ends, you may never keep up with them. People use the word "friend" lightly to refer to aquaintances as well.




Okay, granted that.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

_I've PM'd you - Plane Sailing_


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, you're a bad GM.
> 
> If you get heated the twentieth time that player questions a decision by you as a GM, that's a bad player.



Dang.  You just said in 2 sentences what I have been trying to say in 9 paragraphs.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nah.  You're just using the same rationalization as to why it's okay not to take No for an answer.....




However valid you find the comparison of logical forms, I recommend you never, ever again, suggest that folks discussing hobby games are in any way like rapists.  

Really.  Don't do it.  If why you shouldn't do it is not obvious to you, I recommend you PM a moderator to discuss it.  



> We can agree to disagree, but in no way does religion have to enter into it.




If you don't politely drop it, you are not agreeing to disagree.    



> So, let me see here:
> 
> Preferences are axiomatic, or akin to being axiomatic.




That is not what I said.

Preferences are true statements.  Only some of them are axiomatic.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Glad you recognize that.








Raven Crowking said:


> Well, I do think that the GM has the right to do this, and I also think that the highway may well be the way to go in this case.  For that matter, I think each and every one of the players have the same right.  If it isn't working for you, you can and probably should call it a day.



Don't get me wrong, I have taken the "my way or the highway" -- MWotH(tm) -- approach before when a player was becoming unreasonable, or simply wouldn't accept my reasons.   But I believe that I should communicate why a certain thing is banned, and if the reason is really "just because", then make up some other in game reason and build it into your world.  You should have done this in the first place... and if you can't think of a reason off the top of your head, tell the player that there are in game reasons and you'd rather take it offline in case some of it is secret game lore.  Then think of a reason and move on...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have taken the "my way or the highway" -- MWotH(tm) -- approach before when a player was becoming unreasonable, or simply wouldn't accept my reasons.   But I believe that I should communicate why a certain thing is banned, and if the reason is really "just because", then make up some other in game reason and build it into your world.  You should have done this in the first place... and if you can't think of a reason off the top of your head, tell the player that there are in game reasons and you'd rather take it offline in case some of it is secret game lore.  Then think of a reason and move on...




Nothing here that I disagree with.

I think that you and I are largely in accord here.  



Umbran said:


> However valid you find the comparison of logical forms, I recommend you never, ever again, suggest that folks discussing hobby games are in any way like rapists.
> 
> Really.  Don't do it.  If why you shouldn't do it is not obvious to you, I recommend you PM a moderator to discuss it.




Umbran, as a moderator I assume that you are aware that Plane Sailing has already dealt with this issue privately.  I wonder, therefore, why you are bringing it up publicly?

But, yes, I can certainly accept that this is against EN World policy when so notified.  It's very much, actually, like accepting No from a GM when I am a guest in that GM's game!



> If you don't politely drop it, you are not agreeing to disagree.
> 
> That is not what I said.
> 
> Preferences are true statements.  Only some of them are axiomatic.




OTOH, I do not intend on rising to this bait.  Best behaviour, best foot forward, and all that.  I am sure that you will understand.

Anyone wishing to converse about either issue is welcome to email me at ravencrowking at hotmail dot com, where I will be happy to engage in a more spirited debate.



RC


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> What I'll say is this:
> 
> If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, you're a bad GM.
> 
> If you get heated the twentieth time that player questions a decision by you as a GM, that's a bad player.




Wow that's giving the player a lot of leeway and the DM, well....NONE. 

I see where you're coming from now.


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Wow that's giving the player a lot of leeway and the DM, well....NONE.
> 
> I see where you're coming from now.




You caught me.  You sussed me out.

Clearly, hidden beneath my almost 30 years of GMing experience, I have always harbored a decidedly anti-GM slant.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> ...has nothing to do with it.  I think it is in ever single way the right and obligation of the GM to change anything and everything they like about a game or setting for the sake of making it one that they AND the players will have fun with.  I don't for a moment support the notion that the GM shouldn't be changing things from how it is printed in some campaign guide book.  Hell I almost never even USE a campaign guide book!




So the designers removing things at a whim because they don't like it is ok and not needed a response, but a DM to do so for not liking it requires a response?

It have everything to do with it. Had the designers explained to players to begin with that everything wasnt meant to appear in every game, as opposed to recent accounts where they claim everything should be allowed. Then problems of disallowing ANYTHING for ANY reason would more readily be accepted. Even if that reason is as simple as "i don't like it."

Seriously, Random Douchebag X with their name on a product gets more respect than the person you know, is supposed to be a friend, and ask to do the work to make YOUR game run?

By adding something to Forgotten Realms without also adding it to Dark Sun, they have removed that from Dark Sun, and also the core of the game.

Why does Random Douchebag X get more respect than the person you have running your game for you?



Bagpuss said:


> Of course but my point is for some people it is Hobson's choice, rather than a case of well if they don't like this DM they can find another.




I didn't say find another, jsut simply leave this game. It is your choice to make to try to find another, if you can, but no one is holding a gun to your head and making you stay in a game you are uncomfortable or unhappy playing in.

And lets no go further on the fake "friends" excuse, because if they are friends to begin with they you wouldn't be trivializing over reasons why someone doesn't like something and just sit your butt down and play the game with your friends. Which is more important, the game element a GM doesn't like or the combination of your friends and spending time with them?

You need to get your priorities straight before you can make the choice, but it is still your choice to make. Does your want to have Element X in the game outweigh your want to play the game with your "friends".

If they really are your friends, then Element X being in the game or not should not matter.

You make your own chocies, don't place blame on others for them, as only you can make them for yourself.



ExploderWizard said:


> As a counter question to the OP I would ask, why is the fact that something appears in a rulebook considered to *be* good enough?
> 
> 
> DM:OK guys lets talk characters.
> ...




Because as Rel said, it "...has nothing to do with it."


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 25, 2011)

If the players are friends of mine, the whole question is moot.  Why?  Because friends are going to get at least some kind of explanation for stuff we do in the game.  But it is because they are friends, not because they are players.  Since in long-running campaigns, I only play with friends, then the only time it would arise for me is some kind of convention or pickup game.

Of course, one of the reasons I don't play long-running campaigns with players who aren't friends, is that you run the very real risk of getting a player that thinks being in the game gives him the same leeway as a personal friend.  

Using Rel's criteria, a friend can ask me "why" as many times as they want.  I'll never turn "bad DM" on them.  A mere player will never make it to 20 tries with that stunt, and I won't feel bad about it, at all.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]:

It this: When I get a book by Random Douchebag X, I can read what it´s all about, get my justification right there and can formulate a way on how I want to play.

If I join a Game by Random Douchebag Shadzar and he tells me "No. And I don´t tell you why, get lost if you ask again", than I don´t know anything usefull, can´t formulate a plan, can´t really imerse into play.

X can take something away because his workings are transparent and easy to follow, S just acts like a douchebag.

Sorry if this is getting topersonal, but like one shouts into the wood and so on ..


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So the designers removing things at a whim because they don't like it is ok and not needed a response, but a DM to do so for not liking it requires a response?
> 
> It have everything to do with it. Had the designers explained to players to begin with that everything wasnt meant to appear in every game, as opposed to recent accounts where they claim everything should be allowed. Then problems of disallowing ANYTHING for ANY reason would more readily be accepted. Even if that reason is as simple as "i don't like it."
> 
> ...




I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> Sorry but I forgot to address this part of the post directly.
> 
> If your GM thinks that you're an a-hole, it's probably because "Show me on the doll where the bad Cleric touched you." is kind of an a-hole thing to say to somebody you want to have a conversation with.




Not meaning to derail the thread, but now joking with someone who you might have some familiarity with is being an a-hole?  I know my point was that the joke kinda backfired but youre going to tell me that you've never made borderline inappropriate jokes with your friends or acquaintances at the gaming table? *You guys game in suits and ties too? 

*I have actually gamed in a suit and tie. Attended a function then ran right to a Mekton game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Wow that's giving the player a lot of leeway and the DM, well....NONE.




I don't think that's fair.

If you get heated the first time that a player questions a decision by you as a GM, the odds are very, very good that you are a bad GM.  Now, that's not really an absolute statement, because there are ways of making that first question really, really obnoxious.......but, Rel is pretty much right here.

OTOH, Rel doesn't say it takes 20 questions from the players; merely that, by that point, the odds are really, really good that the player is a bad player.

Between the two is a middle ground that could fall one way or the other.

Or, at least, so I read it.



shadzar said:


> So the designers removing things at a whim because they don't like it is ok and not needed a response, but a DM to do so for not liking it requires a response?




If memory serves, lots of folks thought that the designers removing things required a response in times past, whether it was the transition from 1e to 2e, or the transition from 3e to 4e.



RC


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Not meaning to derail the thread, but now joking with someone who you might have some familiarity with is being an a-hole?  I know my point was that the joke kinda backfired but youre going to tell me that you've never made borderline inappropriate jokes with your friends or acquaintances at the gaming table? *You guys game in suits and ties too?
> 
> *I have actually gamed in a suit and tie. Attended a function then ran right to a Mekton game.




I've gamed in a suit and tie too!  It was awesome!  I had no time between fusangite's Gamma World 1e Escape From The Embassy Suites game and True Dungeon and the ENnies and the strip club so I just wore my suit and tie to the whole shooting match.  I was pronounced, "The best dressed man to ever complete True Dungeon!"

As for making off color jokes with my friends, we're HORRIBLE.  We say things to each other that would make the Devil blush!  We'll make jokes about each other's mothers, hairlines and reproductive equipment.  Also we freely question why each other decide to ban certain things from our roleplaying games.  It's merciless.


----------



## Ralls (Jan 25, 2011)

It's not so much "Reasons" for allowing it or not that cause conflict. It's the player's and the DM's expectations clashing.

Here's an example: 
I got pulled over for the first time while speeding, and I've heard from my friends that the nice cops in the city usually let teenagers off the hook with only a warning, not a ticket. I got a ticket.

I was understandably more upset about getting the ticket because I expected a warning. Getting a ticket just didn't seem fair, even though it was. I was speeding.

Likewise, if the players expect minor in-game consequences for their in-character actions, and instead their characters are quickly arreseted and thrown into the in-game jail, there will be some harsh tempers, and harsh words. 


I try to communicate with my players before hand, asking them what they'd like the campaign to _feel_ like, or if I'm a player, I tell the GM what I'd like the campaign to feel like, being as general as possible.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> While this maybe within the GM's right, I don't believe that it is an acceptable response in an environment where the table is trying to establish a social contract,




AHA! Here is the, at least one, flaw.

The social contract was not MADE after you have a GM, but upon picking on and agreeing for them to be the GM.

You already established a social contract at that time and handed the keys over to the GM to drive the Fun Wagon.

You are welcome to get off the fun wagon at any time, I would suggest before it is in motion or at speed. But no single player has the right to ask for the keys back, so long as other players are enjoying the ride.

I see two camps here now.

Camp A has the "social contract" established when the GM becomes the GM. Sort of like borrowing money from a loan shark.

Camp B is constantly adding runners and fine text to the contract as the game progresses. Sort of like refinancing a home loan.

In Camp A you made your resolve and decision up front to accept the activites it offers. In Camp B you are deciding as you go what activities every at the camp will take part in. Both camps however can decide if they wish to return home form their camping trip at anytime. Just don't blame the campground for providing exactly what it offered, when you chose the wrong camp to go to.



Barastrondo said:


> We've got email. Phones, too. And admittedly, I like to game with people that I would (and do) hang around with when I'm not gaming with them. Again, I really value communication as the grease that keeps gaming cogs turning. If a game didn't allow for that -- if it were with people I wouldn't hang out with or give my email address to otherwise, or who have no interest talking to me outside of actual game night -- I would expect a number of problems to arise.




I have "gone off" on tech at the gaming table in another thread, goggle should return it if searched and the have ENWorld off their "may harm your computer" list.

The thing is players need to learn when the conversation is over. As others have said, when to stop badgering someone else.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> I've gamed in a suit and tie too!  It was awesome!  I had no time between fusangite's Gamma World 1e Escape From The Embassy Suites game and True Dungeon and the ENnies and the strip club so I just wore my suit and tie to the whole shooting match.  I was pronounced, "The best dressed man to ever complete True Dungeon!"




One wonders what you would have been voted had you _*started*_ at the strip club.










I mean....you were _*working there*_.....weren't you?


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> AHA! Here is the, at least one, flaw.
> 
> The social contract was not MADE after you have a GM, but upon picking on and agreeing for them to be the GM.
> 
> ...




So if I rolled my car payment into my home loan and then default on the payment then I can forget getting my keys back when the Fun Wagon gets repossessed while I'm at camp, right?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

The Human Target said:


> I knew your posts would devolve into basically "I hate WotC and 4e and I'll ban any of the horrible crap they produce I want" arguement.




Obviously, since I have banned things since Menzter Basic and AD&D 1st edition, it must be because I hate WotC and 4e. 

Assassins...banned!

Gnomes happens to be an example of the designers getting to say what is allowed int he game, but the GM does not.

When the designers don't have it in the book it is ok, but a GM that doesn't allow something that IS in a book, is BAD, BAD GM, shame on you!


----------



## Rel (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Obviously, since I have banned things since Menzter Basic and AD&D 1st edition, it must be because I hate WotC and 4e.
> 
> Assassins...banned!
> 
> ...




Why did you ban assassins?


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 25, 2011)

Rel said:


> Why did you ban assassins?





Because they are not fun. Only fun things allowed.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 25, 2011)

Shad. RC.

Simple questions:  Where in the Abyss are you getting the impression that I _personally_ condone badgering the GM for his reasons?  Where are you getting the impression that _anyone_ condones badgering the GM for his reasons?

To use your phrase, RC, I think you're both doing quite a bit of "reader filtering" of this conversation.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> shadzar:
> 
> It this: When I get a book by Random Douchebag X, I can read what it´s all about, get my justification right there and can formulate a way on how I want to play.
> 
> ...



Completely understand your use of the terms, not too personal.

Here is the thing, however:

When the DM is running Adventure Y written by Random Douchebag X, you do NOT get to read it, such as you do NOT get to read Adventure Shadzar-A written by Random Douchebag Shadzar. 

Both douchebags have designed adventures without 100% account of the players in a particular group, but the DM of the group, in this case Random Douchbag Shadzar, is more likely to offer things that suits the groups needs than Random Douchebag X that wrote Adventure Y, AND Random Douchebag Shadzar will be the one having to fix and make work things in either case, YET, Random Douchebag Shadzar takes all the grief for the work, while Random Douchebag X gets none.

Even when things are taken out of the core rules, there is a reason, but you don't always see it right away as even a PoL setting doesn't include anything to really play with except pitting a coliseum style of play against the PCs, where the monsters are jsut thrown at them.

Published "campaign settings", and homebrew worlds are no different, but the DM is faulted for taking things out to make his setting design work, yet somehow people more readily accept some settings published with a corporate logo on it.

I find that odd behavior.



Rel said:


> I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.




I hope the above explains it, if not, ask me and I will try to make it make more sense, best I can unles someone beats or has beaten me to it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

I can see two potential situations here:

Imagine that Poe, Lovecraft, Burroughs, and Howard get together to play D&D.  The first thing they do is decide who will DM.  They are all good DMs, and they share a lot of things in common, but not everything.  For instance, Burroughs loves a good non-human PC from time to time, but none of the others are willing to do this.  Lovecraft and Poe run fun games, but the PCs are always screwed at the end.  Howard likes to run these nifty games that seem like "kick in the door and take the stuff" at first glance, but are often much deeper than that.  Everyone knows what the other is good at, and what the other likes to do, so they go into choosing a DM knowing that.

Burroughs might manage to get Howard to run a planetary romance romp, but it will be far from his best work.  

Throw in another player.....lets call her Austin......and you might get questions about some of the base assumptions going on.  After all, women in all of these DM's camps tend to be secondary characters (Howard is arguably the best of the lot), and there is a heck of a lot of violence and horror.  Lovecraft's NPCs, frankly, have painful dialogue.

The reality is that, probably, Austin is a bad fit for the group (and vice versa).  But there need be no rudeness on any side to establish that.  Nor does Poe have to allow the optional Governess class into his campaign.  (Mind you, Poe _*will*_ allow it, if Austin keeps pushing it, but he'll make Austin wish she had not......)

In the second situation, across town, on the other side of Arkham, another DM has just completed the prep work to run a campaign, and he is setting out his shingle.  Let's call this DM Tolkien.  In Tolkien's world, you can play an elf, a halfling, a dwarf, or a human.  He's starting the PCs near a rather backwater Shire so that they don't need too much of an infodump, and because exploring the world will be a large part of the campaign.

Bradley, Moorcock, and Zelazny all answer the ads at the local game store, and meet at Tolkien's place to generate characters.  This is the place to discuss what classes and races are available, and to ask why.  And, if Tolkien is a good DM, he will have answers....even if those answers are "That's a secret of Middle Earth.  You'll find out over the course of play, if you're lucky."

Moorcock, however, decides that he doesn't like Tolkien's style.  Yet, being an adult, he simply excuses himself from the process, no muss no fuss.  Zelazny, though, is taken with the idea of playing plane-hopping champions, and keeps pestering Tolkien until he gets the boot.  Cool, though, 'cause Moorcock is starting just that game.

If Tolkien wants to run a game with more than one player, he's either going to have to bend, or find someone else to recruit.......


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> If memory serves, lots of folks thought that the designers removing things required a response in times past, whether it was the transition from 1e to 2e, or the transition from 3e to 4e.




Editing is not easy across pages, so hope this isnt piled post after post after post after post of responses from me....and this thread is moving quite fast...

But the designers don't have to give them, and when they don't they are still accept and the rules played with happily.

Gary actually had to do some explaining for things in 1st edition and why they were changed even though it set out to be compatible-enough with D&D, but set as a different game.

That was really the first I recall of it, while I am sure many asked why things differed between all the D&D versions that came prior.

In either case, you don't call a designer right away to ask them, maybe you can call customer support now to do so if you want some made up answer jsut as good as your GMs, but without your players being taken into consideration, as to why some things are done the way they are. But people are always questioning the DMs.

Sort of back to that whole trust issue I guess.

The people holding the copyright are trusted emphatically, while the GM is questioned for making, at items, ANY change or omission.

(That last sentence hopefully also answers the previous thing for you Rel. or was it Umbran?)



Rel said:


> Why did you ban assassins?




One trick ponies paid for a single job don't thematically fit with an adventuring party, and when they take other "jobs" while part of the group, they can cause WAY too many problems for the group.

And don't roll your car into your house, or you will likely be doing a LOT more camping than you had planned.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Shad. RC.
> 
> Simple questions:  Where in the Abyss are you getting the impression that I _personally_ condone badgering the GM for his reasons?  Where are you getting the impression that _anyone_ condones badgering the GM for his reasons?
> 
> To use your phrase, RC, I think you're both doing quite a bit of "reader filtering" of this conversation.




Any "you" in my posts is a generic "you", not you personally.



RC


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> You caught me.  You sussed me out.
> 
> Clearly, hidden beneath my almost 30 years of GMing experience, I have always harbored a decidedly anti-GM slant.




Hey, 28 years of GM experience here as well and those were your words, not mine. 

GM gets to give a "bad" response once. 

Player gets to be a bad player up to "twenty times". 

That's grossly slanting towards players. 

I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong. But hell, the Dm could be having a bad day and snap at a player over something that he'd thought that he made very clear earlier on. And according to your statement he's a bad DM. Sorry, but as that guy who is DMing about 95% of the time that sounds like a bit of anti-DM sentiment. 

Then again, I'm the guy who believes that the DM is doing most of the work in terms of prep and getting everything together and running the game. So yes If present you with some changes and you go "well why cant I have an adamantine weapon" and I go "because it's broken." and you open your mouth to argue I'm gonna stop you and say "Look, that's it. This is how it's going. You can either understand and stay or not understand and go. But in this I'm not budging." 

You all would call me a dick DM. Me, I'm saving time arguing a point that I'm really just set on. You're arguing the point because it's something that you eventually want for your PC and I'm saying that it's something that I dont want in the game world. 

The game I'm running right now I have a player who wanted to run a Assimar character. I'm not big on non-standard races, but I thought about it and said would it really break the game to allow him to run this PC? No? Then sure why not. This led to another player wanting to run a Tiefling PC. I said no problem I let the other player run a Aasimar right? Then at some point later on there was talk about possibly playing a thri-kreen or a Minatour or some craziness at the table and I shut that idea down with the quickness. 

When I assemble a group to play I have two page document, letting them know what's allowed, the basic guidelines and assumptions as it were. For the most part most things that are core are allowed. If they want something out of core they can ask and I'll let them know yes or no. To be honest, despite all this protesting I usually discuss why I allow or dont allow somethings. But there are some players where you see the gears turning and they're trying to work an angle that you're not interested in playing. For me those are the ones that get the verbal stiff arm because no matter how accommodating you're willing to be in explaining yourself they're just going to keep pushing.


----------



## Rel (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> One trick ponies paid for a single job don't thematically fit with an adventuring party, and when they take other "jobs" while part of the group, they can cause WAY too many problems for the group.




Ah.  Those are good reasons.  Thanks for explaining.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> But the designers don't have to give them, and when they don't they are still accept and the rules played with happily.





Actually, they did a lot of explaining.  They did a lot of explaining that I, in particular, didn't like.  They did a lot of explaining that I, in particular, didn't like, and I nether accepted nor played happily with the rules.

Indeed, the same happened with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

And, I know that there were explainations because those explainations, and my reactions to them, started me on the road to writing my own ruleset.


RC


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Shad. RC.
> 
> Simple questions:  Where in the Abyss are you getting the impression that I _personally_ condone badgering the GM for his reasons?  Where are you getting the impression that _anyone_ condones badgering the GM for his reasons?
> 
> To use your phrase, RC, I think you're both doing quite a bit of "reader filtering" of this conversation.




Did I say that?

If you have not experienced it as a GM, then congrats, if you have not observed it happen to any GM, then I am just reminding people it does happen, and in some areas more often than not. Not the condoning, but the badgering.

So It should be included in a discusion where it could be one cause of a DM not wanting to answer some players because of how many times htey HAVE been badgered about anything, let alone disallowing something simply for "not liking it".


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> But the designers don't have to give them, and when they don't they are still accept and the rules played with happily.
> 
> [...]
> 
> In either case, you don't call a designer right away to ask them, maybe you can call customer support now to do so if you want some made up answer jsut as good as your GMs




No group I've ever played in has trusted the designers implicitly.  There's always been houserules of some form or another.  In modern times, I've even gone on message boards and chatted with various designers about why they made certain decisions for the rules; somtimes, I agree with them, and leave the rules as is, and sometimes I don't, and change them (or ask my GM to change them).

The designers of 4Ed were questioned, extensively, on why certain things were removed from the core rules or altered.

So, basically, your tangential point is demonstrably wrong - and is, basically, a red herring.  The fact that I don't call up Ryan Dancey or Gary Sarli or Corey Reid is immaterial when discussing whether or not saying "What is it about the spiked chain you don't like?" to Andrew or Matthew or Connie is acceptable.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Any "you" in my posts is a generic "you", not you personally.




I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; so answer the second part?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Tell me what "for his reasons" means, and I probably do [EDIT:  have an answer for your question].

Email me if you want to discuss the benefit of the doubt.  I have the strong impression that discussing it within the thread will get me threadbanned or worse.

ravencrowking at hotmail dot com.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> As for making off color jokes with my friends, we're HORRIBLE.  We say things to each other that would make the Devil blush!  We'll make jokes about each other's mothers, hairlines and reproductive equipment.  Also we freely question why each other decide to ban certain things from our roleplaying games.  It's merciless.




I would tell you about the running joke involving a vagina tax and a PC Tiefling Inquisitor of Abadar in our Curse of the Crimson Throne game, but my players invoked the Fight Club rule regarding this.

"First rule of the Vagina Tax, DONT TALK ABOUT THE VAGINA TAX." 

Oh crap, here they come now...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 26, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Hey, 28 years of GM experience here as well and those were your words, not mine.
> 
> GM gets to give a "bad" response once.
> 
> Player gets to be a bad player up to "twenty times".




That's really not what he said at all.  You can stretch it to that, if you wanted to make a point, but that's twisting words - and all but you, here, realize that.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 26, 2011)

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]:

I think the main difference is that published settings (whether Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk or Wilderlands of High Fantasy) inklude a player section that preempts questions by giving or at least hinting at answers.

At one point, gms and players think alike: Both want the character to fit in as seamlessly as possible.

Many homebrews I encountered so far lack in this facility. They can´t help the player make an informed decision on what is possible and what not, what fits and what not.

Chapeau for the gm that not only creates a good setting to play in but also manages to ease the players into it.

Here´s one of he point the aforementioned question of "why" arises. Do I know everything I need to know to build a fitting character?

OTOH there are always people who are so afixed to certain ideas that they will never be able to fit their ideas into any setting if it is not the wildest kitchen sink, but that´s another matter.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Actually, they did a lot of explaining.  They did a lot of explaining that I, in particular, didn't like.  They did a lot of explaining that I, in particular, didn't like, and I nether accepted nor played happily with the rules.
> 
> Indeed, the same happened with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.
> 
> ...




We are about to go WAY off topic, bunt to make it simple, there was money involved, and had there not be someone with money at risk, such as a DM that isn't paid; they would have been under no obligation to explain them.

Since they want to sell more products, they have to make some concessions in order to get people interested, or drive them off.

A DM on the other hand has little to nothing to gain except, as your previous example that has pretty much ruined all fiction for me because I will forever see the writers sitting around tables playing fantasy RPGs now, someone to play in their games. But maybe they are just as content a DMs to have no game at all as opposed to a bad one and sit and wait like Tolkein until more players come along.



Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> No group I've ever played in....




That is the thing, there are many more people out there than you have played with, so you have a skewed view. Maybe a happier one, but skewed none the les.

There are, as evident on forums everywhere, people that DO trust the designers 100% but will smack down a DM for altering anything form those designers. I would say they are most often a part of the "RAW" players group.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

Wow, this thread ballooned.

Actually, RC, I think we agree much more than we disagree.  "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid answer.  It's not a very good one and probably not very satisfying, but, certainly valid.

Badgering a DM is a bad thing.  Totally agreed.

Since you do agree that asking in the first place is fine and reasonably expecting some sort of explaination is also acceptable, I don't think we have any points of disagreement.

Basically, what REL said.

---------

Just 'cos I can't leave it alone though.    On the Warforged Ninja thing.  My whole point there, in that whole discussion, was that if the DM's ego is so tied up in the setting that he cannot adjust his setting to accomodate a player who is entirely willing to adapt an idea TO that setting, the DM is very likely going to have additional problems.

Like I said WAY upthread, a DM who is unwilling to explain his decisions might be a perfectly good DM, but, as soon as the DM feels that he no longer needs to explain decisions, this is a big warning sign to me.  It's not a deal breaker by any means.  But, when the DM gets all high handed and simply refuses to answer perfectly reasonable questions (not badgering, just questions) then I see that as a big red warning sign.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> We are about to go WAY off topic, bunt to make it simple, there was money involved, and had there not be someone with money at risk, such as a DM that isn't paid; they would have been under no obligation to explain them.




Well, of course.

But my point was not why they explained, my point was that they explained.  The players demand an explaination, and, because they wanted to make money, they provided one.



> A DM on the other hand has little to nothing to gain




You and I both know that DMing is a reward unto itself.  The DM has plenty to gain, if he is running a game he enjoys running.

You and I agree that the DM is under no obligation to run a game he is not enjoying, and can run any game he likes, so long as his game can draw even a single player to run in it.  And he does not have to explain his preferences, or why he is running what he is running....although there are often cases where he should.

Personally, though, I would play in no game at all (DM or player) before I played in a bad one.



> your previous example....has pretty much ruined all fiction for me




My work here is done.





RC


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

Shadzar said:
			
		

> There are, as evident on forums everywhere, people that DO trust the designers 100% but will smack down a DM for altering anything form those designers. I would say they are most often a part of the "RAW" players group.




Really?  Maybe it's because I only hang out on En World and a couple of very small boards, but I rarely, if ever, see anyone smacking down the DM for simply altering things.  What I do see are disagreements as to whether a particular alteration is a good idea or not, but that's a different issue.

I've very rarely seen anyone try to say "Thou shalt not alter the RAW".  What usually happens is, "You altered the RAW.  Have you thought of this, that and the other implication?"

But, that could be because I don't hang out on certain forums.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Tell me what "for his reasons" means, and I probably do.




Throughout this thread, I have maintained that the following are a reasonable set of exchanges between friends:

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

Player: I want to play a spiked-chain wielding warforged.
DM: Spiked chains aren't allowed in this game.
Player: Why not?
DM: I just don't like them.
Player: Is there something specific about them you don't like?
DM: [Foo]
Player: I kind of wanted to focus on being a tripper in combat; can I use a khopesh instead?
DM: Sure.

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

Player: I want to play a spiked-chain wielding warforged.
DM: Spiked chains aren't allowed in this game.
Player: Why not?
DM: I just don't like them.
Player: Is there something specific about them you don't like?
DM: [Foo; including a description of the overpoweredness of the tripping rules]
Player: I kind of wanted to focus on being a tripper in combat; I guess I should do something else instead.  Do you have an issue with me playing a grappler?
DM: Grappling's a problem area in the rules, too, actually.
Player: So I guess I shouldn't worry too much about being attacked by snakes and other tentacle monsters, then?

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

Player: I'll be playing Soandso, the Tiefling Sorceror.
DM: This game doesn't include PC tieflings, and there's no spontaneously casting classes.
Player: Why not?
DM: Because [foo].
Player: What about [Other Race Class]?
DM: That's fine.

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

My point has always - and *only* - been that the player's question of "why?" or "why not?" is not only not rude, but should be expected in a group of adult friends, and that the DM providing the best answer he has to it can do nothing but help.

Moreover, my point is that stopping at an answer of "I just don't like it," is _unsatisfactory_ to an adult friend - which is the answer to the OP's question of, "Why can't players just accept it when I say I don't like something?"

Because, once again, we've moved past the "I wanna play a character that creeps everyone out in the real world" stage of things.  Which, apparently, some groups just can't do.  For them, the proper thread is over here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Actually, RC, I think we agree much more than we disagree.  "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid answer.  It's not a very good one and probably not very satisfying, but, certainly valid.
> 
> Badgering a DM is a bad thing.  Totally agreed.
> 
> Since you do agree that asking in the first place is fine and reasonably expecting some sort of explaination is also acceptable, I don't think we have any points of disagreement.




Good enough.



> Just 'cos I can't leave it alone though.    On the Warforged Ninja thing.




Sorry.  

My work was done in this thread when I ruined all fiction for Shadzar forever.  

I don't think I can top that right now.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Throughout this thread, I have maintained that the following are a reasonable set of exchanges between friends:




Sorry.  Maybe I am being dense here, but this hasn't enlightened me as to what your question is.  Can you reword it, please?


----------



## Rel (Jan 26, 2011)

I must apparently spread some XP around before I can give it to Patryn again.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> That is the thing, there are many more people out there than you have played with, so you have a skewed view. Maybe a happier one, but skewed none the les.




My view is no more skewed than yours, sir!

Which is, again, why I said upthread that your experience is so completely different from mine that we may as well be speaking different languages.

I don't roleplay with people I don't consider friends.  I don't routinely hang out for long hours with people I don't consider friends, and I certainly don't do so at non-work-related functions.

I play D&D with friends.

Friends are able to say, "Hey, Bob, why can't I play a warforged?" and expect a better answer than, "I just don't like them."

That _may_ in fact be the only answer they get, but it doesn't mean they are going to be satisfied with it or that it was the best or mo st helpful answer.  It is, at best, merely the _fastest_ and _shallowest_ answer.

The, at minimum, first derivative reasons behind the GM's call provide a wealth of information not only to the questioning player, but to the other players at the table.  If the GM doesn't like warforged because he doesn't like a single mechanical aspect (e.g., no food means that he can't use lack of supplies to motivate the players*), but otherwise would be fine with them, then there's room forward to a modified warforged that makes everyone happy.  If he dislikes nearly all the things about them, then the player knows it's a lost cause and he should roll up his back-up halfling idea.

* This also tells the other players, "Hey - unlike nearly every other campaign you've played in, keeping track of supplies is going to be important in this one."  Win-win-win!


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> shadzar:
> 
> I think the main difference is that published settings (whether Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk or Wilderlands of High Fantasy) inklude a player section that preempts questions by giving or at least hinting at answers.
> 
> ...




I think we are walking down the same road, but opposite sides. So we are going to the same place, but haven't gotten together yet...

As I said with PoL, FR, etc has no game to it. The adventure is required.

You can Run the FR setting with an adventure Published in Neverwinter. The game is happening in Neverwinter, and you may have read some about it, but you don't know what is in that module.

Likewise a homebrew world is FR, and jsut the backdrop, but the action happens in the adventure.

There is no player section for most adventures that gives you advance details about what you will see in the adventure. It may offer a little about Neverwinter for those that don't know, but nothing to tell about the adventure itself as that is all learned through playing no matter if published or made by the GM.

I tried an experiment years ago replacing gold with steel bits, and people that had not played the setting thought I was crazy for coming up with such a thing. Later when told it was a published setting somehow they instantly accepted it and took back all their accusations of me making some crazy adventure.

This is my proof that people will see the published things a ok, while DM creations to instantly be questioned.

New players don't often question so much either as they don't have preconceptions of what exists or who is right or wrong, which is why I mentioned earlier to avoid the GM v player to new players. Some things you just have to learn for yourself.

So settings too, not jsut my point of adventures, are more often more readily accepted from the designers than form the DM running the game for you.

The designers are trusted more than the actual person in front of you.


----------



## Rel (Jan 26, 2011)

I don't want to have to ban anybody from this thread so I'm telling you all in advance that none of you are allowed to say to shadzar, "Show me on the doll where the bad game designer touched you."


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry.  Maybe I am being dense here, but this hasn't enlightened me as to what your question is.  Can you reword it, please?






			
				Me said:
			
		

> Where are you getting the impression that anyone condones badgering the GM for his reasons?




Your participation in this thread has ... focused ... pretty strongly on arguing against, for lack of a better phrase, the-people-on-my-side-of-the-question for condoning badgering GMs in order to get them spill the beans.

You've used rather ... strong? ... language while doing so.

Rephrased, please quote the post where I, Rel, Hussar, Umbran, et al., says that this is okay and normal and expected.  Rather than our actual point:


Communication is good, and will probably improve the game for everyone.
The DM saying "Because I just don't like it" is communication, but is unsatisfactory as an answer for multiple reasons.
Asking for clarification is normal and expected, as part of a normal, friendly, adult relationship.
The DM doesn't _have_ to provide any more information if he really, really doesn't want to, but, given #1, it would be nice if he did.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

[MENTION=428]RaveN[/MENTION]: yes the DM has something to gain, IF it isn't a bad game.



Hussar said:


> Really?  Maybe it's because I only hang out on En World and a couple of very small boards, but I rarely, if ever, see anyone smacking down the DM for simply altering things.  What I do see are disagreements as to whether a particular alteration is a good idea or not, but that's a different issue.
> 
> I've very rarely seen anyone try to say "Thou shalt not alter the RAW".  What usually happens is, "You altered the RAW.  Have you thought of this, that and the other implication?"
> 
> But, that could be because I don't hang out on certain forums.




Well this thread I think the OP said was originally form a post made on WotC forums...so you are likely missing a lot os the "RAW" vs "RAI" arguements/wars if they still exist now that are there, or at least were when 4th was comely out in pieces in regards to 3rd edition.

ENWorld even has something to underline raw to show it stands for Rules As Written when you hover your mouse over it, so it had to be on here at one point and time as well.

Goes back to rules lawyers in general where their entire argument revolves around "but the book says do it like this", including but not limited to rulings, allowable races/classes, etc.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

Yes, I did lose my cool. And you know why? Because people ARE telling me I'm a Bad GM for forbidding something well before the game even starts. You're judging me without knowing what's really going on, and there are several books that say that's "bad juju".

Another reason I lost my cool is because of people who keep posting the "you can forbid, but they can walk" chant. Yeah, we covered that. On the first page. TWICE.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> My view is no more skewed than yours, sir!
> 
> Which is, again, why I said upthread that your experience is so completely different from mine that we may as well be speaking different languages.
> 
> I don't roleplay with people I don't consider friends.  I don't routinely hang out for long hours with people I don't consider friends, and I certainly don't do so at non-work-related functions.




Who said anything about "more"?

You should widen your view though.

Try playing games for game stores or game clubs. You will then see what some people in this thread are talking about, when you are running a game that isn't just for "friends".

It isn't that you are trying to, but you have a very narrow view of the whole, since you have closed yourself away from it to only game with friends. You might just have to experience DMing or playing with random strangers to understand better where some are coming from.



Rel said:


> I don't want to have to ban anybody from this thread so I'm telling you all in advance that none of you are allowed to say to shadzar, "Show me on the doll where the bad game designer touched you."




 Are you afraid I would answer it with a location?

I would probably laugh my glutius minimus off if they did though.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Who said anything about "more"?




It's a phrase.  If my view is skewed, yours is, as well.



> You should widen your view though.
> 
> Try playing games for game stores or game clubs. You will then see what some people in this thread are talking about, when you are running a game that isn't just for "friends".




This thread (and _the other one_) has been an excellent motivational tool to do no such thing!  Why, according to you, gaming in such places is merely an invitation to play with ... hah hah* ... the "dregs" of the gaming public.

Rather, I say to you, stop playing with people you don't like and whose personalities you find odious.  Play D&D, or Star Wars, or WoD, or whatever with your friends.  You'll have much more fun, and be a saner person, for it.

* Sarcasm.  That was still a rude comment.


----------



## Rel (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> You should widen your view though.
> 
> Try playing games for game stores or game clubs. You will then see what some people in this thread are talking about, when you are running a game that isn't just for "friends".
> 
> It isn't that you are trying to, but you have a very narrow view of the whole, since you have closed yourself away from it to only game with friends. You might just have to experience DMing or playing with random strangers to understand better where some are coming from.




Let me say this about that:

On Saturday night I had about 20 people in my house.  Friends.  Seven years ago I knew none of those people (apart from my wife).  I met all of them at game stores, GenCon or the local ENWorld gathering we host called NC Game Day.  Strangers who I gamed with the first time we met.

They were standing in my house on Saturday night, eating pizza (and corndogs!  Corndogs are mandatory!), drinking beer and sharing game stories from the day's events.  Why am I blessed to have such a wealth of nice people around me?  Because I treated them as friends from the moment I met them.  That's how I treat people I meet at game stores, GenCon and the like, right up until I'm given a good reason to do otherwise.

One more reason that I see little profit in brushing off those who ask a reasonable question of me as the GM.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> I don't want to have to ban anybody from this thread so I'm telling you all in advance that none of you are allowed to say to shadzar, "Show me on the doll where the bad game designer touched you."




 You're no fun anymore.



Zhaleskra said:


> Another reason I lost my cool is because of people who keep posting the "you can forbid, but they can walk" chant. Yeah, we covered that. On the first page. TWICE.




Well thats what it comes down to when all the BS is stripped away.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> Ah.  Those are good reasons.  Thanks for explaining.



I declare Rel the winner of this thread.

-O


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Well thats what it comes down to when all the BS is stripped away.




What I find amusing somewhat is the way people seem to be wielding that mantra like a threat.

You know what? I'd rather have a small group of people that I actually want to game with than a large group of people I'd rather not be around in general.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Yes, I did lose my cool. And you know why? Because people ARE telling me I'm a Bad GM for forbidding something well before the game even starts. You're judging me without knowing what's really going on, and there are several books that say that's "bad juju".
> 
> Another reason I lost my cool is because of people who keep posting the "you can forbid, but they can walk" chant. Yeah, we covered that. On the first page. TWICE.




Lets try and get back to the original question.

And keep in mind that if I was playing in your game and you banned mithril or adamantine I wouldn't actually care.

Why is explaining to your players "I don't think they fit in my game and I'll be replacing them with something even cooler!" so hard?


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> You know what? I'd rather have a small group of people that I actually want to game with than a large group of people I'd rather not be around in general.




Many (most?) folks feel the same way.  Telling people, "No. You can't do that, because I don't like it." is a good way to get into the latter group, rather than the former group.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> What I find amusing somewhat is the way people seem to be wielding that mantra like a threat.




It would only be threatening to those who submit to crappy gaming rather than finding another group or running a better game themselves.




Zhaleskra said:


> You know what? I'd rather have a small group of people that I actually want to game with than a large group of people I'd rather not be around in general.




Umm.. Yeah. This seems to be a no brainer choice.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

In a way, I was laughing at their attempts to use it as a threat.

Mithril. Let's take Diomin: ain't no elves, so ain't no mithril. Replace elves with dwarves and adamantwhatever is covered too.

And yes, there is other "cool stuff".


----------



## Rel (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> You know what? I'd rather have a small group of people that I actually want to game with than a large group of people I'd rather not be around in general.




I'd rather have a really big group of people who are all fun to game with and who will stand around my basement listening adoringly to my long winded, but ultimately hilarious, anecdotes about something vulgar that happened while we were playing Fiasco!

Mostly because they tend to leave large quantities of beer at my house when they go home.


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> In a way, I was laughing at their attempts to use it as a threat.
> 
> Mithril. Let's take Diomin: ain't no elves, so ain't no mithril. Replace elves with dwarves and adamantwhatever is covered too.
> 
> And yes, there is other "cool stuff".




Zhal. Can I call you Zhal? 

I wondered what your thoughts were if I planned and ran an all kobold and dragonborn campaign. If I disallowed all other races, despite about half of my players desires to play minotaurs, am I a bad DM?

I am conflicted. I want a certain type of campaign, and as RavenCrowKing has said, anyone who doesn't agree with the DM is right. But what if the DM is actively trying to stoke a new setting. I'm so confused. This thread makes me angry, yet interested. 


C.I.D.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhal and Zhale are fine.

Why do they want to play minotaurs when you told them it was a kobold and dragonborn campaign?

Thanks for bringing a little humor into this thread.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> I don't want to have to ban anybody from this thread so I'm telling you all in advance that none of you are allowed to say to shadzar, "Show me on the doll where the bad game designer touched you."




ROTFLMAO.  



shadzar said:


> /snip
> 
> I tried an experiment years ago replacing gold with steel bits, and people that had not played the setting thought I was crazy for coming up with such a thing. Later when told it was a published setting somehow they instantly accepted it and took back all their accusations of me making some crazy adventure.
> 
> ...




There's a reason that designers are trusted more though.  Look at the number of horror stories out there.  I polled En World a while ago to see what percentage of people would characterize the majority of their DM's as bad, and almost a third of respondents said that most of their DM's have been poor.

So, it's not really surprising that people might put more stock in the words of Monte Cook or Gary Gygax or David Noonan than me, particularly if they're new to my group.  After all, if they are new to my group, I haven't built any trust yet.  But those game designers are authorities - they wrote the game, so hopefully they knew what they were doing.

Add to that some really attrocious experiences where the DM didn't think through the consequences, or simply didn't care, of the changes that he made and it's not really surprising that players might side on the side of RAW.

Especially if the DM refuses to give any explanation for his changes.




Zhaleskra said:


> Yes, I did lose my cool. And you know why? Because people ARE telling me I'm a Bad GM for forbidding something well before the game even starts. You're judging me without knowing what's really going on, and there are several books that say that's "bad juju".
> 
> Another reason I lost my cool is because of people who keep posting the "you can forbid, but they can walk" chant. Yeah, we covered that. On the first page. TWICE.




Zhal, I cannot say anything about anyone else, but I certainly do not think you are a bad DM for banning something.  Banning something is perfectly fine.  If the players were constantly badgering you, then, yeah, they're wrong.  OTOH, if they asked you politely for reasons and your only response was, "Because I say so" then a bit of sensitivity training might be in order.

I don't know which situation is true, and likely, it's somewhere in between those two.

But, apart from any other argument I might make here, let me be 100% crystal clear.  Banning or removing elements from the game is 100% the prerogative of the DM.  Always has been and AFAIC always will be.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 26, 2011)

So what are your players reasons for wanting mithril and adamantine in the game?

How do they feel about no dwarves or elves?

Have you explained what neat stuff these things will be replaced with?

How important are these things in other games they've played?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Zhal and Zhale are fine.
> 
> Why do they want to play minotaurs when you told them it was a kobold and dragonborn campaign?
> 
> Thanks for bringing a little humor into this thread.




I'm not Cyronax, but, if I could jump in on this, because I do think this gets to the heart of things.  It's all about expectations.

There are any number of reasons that player might want to bring in a minotaur.

1.  They don't like kobolds and dragonborn, so they figure that one monster is as good as another.

2.  They don't think the restriction is terribly important to the feel of the game.

3.  They don't realize how important this restriction is to the DM's campaign.

4.  They have what they think is a really cool idea for a character and want to play that character.  Where that character is played isn't important to them.

5.  They are jerks.  

6.  They think there is a fair mechanical equivalency between dragonborn and minotaurs and like the aesthetics of minotaurs better.

That's off the top of my head.  Note, that other than 5, all are fairly reasonable thoughts.  They're not trying to destroy the game, nor are they dysfunctional gamers.  They honestly believe that their idea will lead to a better experience.

Now, if they're jerks, well, no amount of restrictions are going to change that and, well, don't play with jerks.

But, presuming that they actually do have the best interests of the group in mind, are they really being unreasonable at this point?  

And, is the game better served by the DM simply shutting down all conversation and saying "Cos I say so!"?

IMO, it's just better to compromise.  Minotaur isn't all that different from dragonborn, so, would it break my game to let him play one?  Unless there is some specific reason why not, I'll generally say yes.

But then, I'm just a big softie.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

Actually, I did once have an online player want me to me to allow a non core class in Diomin because he was bored with 3.x core classes. Because Diomin is a published setting, I told him I wasn't really comfortable doing that as the setting is different enough on its own.

On that same campaign setting . . . if you play a ranger who wasn't trained by the elf-standin race, you get your spell abilities replaced with . . . nothing. That's not exactly fair, and that's the authors doing that.

Why exactly is there Mithril on Drakan, the world of Order of the Flame, and the Ancient's Gates? I never played the PC game, but there sure aren't any elves in the PS2 one.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> Let me say this about that:
> 
> On Saturday night I had about 20 people in my house.  Friends.  Seven years ago I knew none of those people (apart from my wife).  I met all of them at game stores, GenCon or the local ENWorld gathering we host called NC Game Day.  Strangers who I gamed with the first time we met.
> 
> ...




20 alcohol siphoning litterbugs in your house? I would say cursed rather than blessed, but whatever floats you boat.

But you see you point to what I am talking about though. Why only 20 after 7 years with of all that? Is that all that showed up over those 7 years?

Your data really leaves too many questions to be of anything but more anecdote.

Why weren't all the rest there? Even if you were discussing thing, a key point that makes Obryn's post moot, is that we are all here in this thread because we WANT to discuss things. Take the answer I gave that you responding to as "good reasons" someone else hearing those simple reason could have had great fun playing an assassin and a strong liking to them. Had I said I don't like them, they may have asked why not, and gotten that as the answer. Then due to their affiliation with them or strong feelings about them, and argument erupts because somehow my dislike has hurt their past experience and potential future experience with assassins. In this case not giving a reason would have been better than giving it. An ounce of prevention versus a pound of pain....

As has been shown by others some people can get quite attached that a reason for one not liking something or doing it a different way, somehow instantly offends someone who does like it. It only gets worse when personal reasons are brought into it.

I don't know what kind of people you meet at NC State at your little things, but it had never interested me as it is a phony as other things claiming something that is not representative of the whole as far as I am concerned, but odds are you don't have every type of player attending because of lower attendance based on reasons such as Mace and StellarCon. Both of which will have people that are not very agreeable at them, at ALL game tables and wondering around the booths.

The many different people that would come into a game store or open game club as opposed to one held in places like a college, that seems and sometimes is, an event for those attending/enrolled there, are vastly different.

Don't even get me started talking about people from one specific store that was about as elitist as you could get as well snobbish.

So your weekend party didn't have everyone, couldnt have, from your events. There had to be a reason other than how many the house would hold as to why some didn't attend your house party.

Take the guy who left a game and never heard from again but passed on the street in the "walk away" thread. Different people are different. Some non confrontational and just walk away, other raring for a fight.

So someone saying "don't like it", might just also be one of those non confrontational people rather than have some DM superiority complex. Likewise some you invited might not have RSVP'd just so they didn't have to give a reason for not attending your get together.

As such simple questioning of anothers likes or dislikes is viewed by many as just plain rude....to bring this all back on topic.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> There's a reason that designers are trusted more though.  Look at the number of horror stories out there.  I polled En World a while ago to see what percentage of people would characterize the majority of their DM's as bad, and almost a third of respondents said that most of their DM's have been poor.
> 
> So, it's not really surprising that people might put more stock in the words of Monte Cook or Gary Gygax or David Noonan than me, particularly if they're new to my group.  After all, if they are new to my group, I haven't built any trust yet.  But those game designers are authorities - they wrote the game, so hopefully they knew what they were doing.
> 
> ...




All explanations do not come front-loaded to the game. Only that which you need to know to play.

I wouldn't trust Monte, Noonan, or Gary to run a game any more than anyone else. I don't know them and their writings show they do not share the same vision as me, though we are looking at similar things.

So what reason? None of them have built trust with me. They, some, just were a part of a product I bought.

Again find the post where I listed each DMG stating roughly these rules aren't to be played as-is, because those very people don't know every gamer and their tastes.

You are more likely to be able to trust someone you CAN speak to with about things, than someone you have never met.

I wouldn't trust them to run a game just because their names are on a product.

If I were to go by the old saying, there is NO WAY I would let them run a game for me, as the books are teaching aids for the game and the saying goes...those who can, do; those who can't, teach. 

Really what reason is their to put more stock into a designer of an RPG to have done things right for your group, than someone you have on hand?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Another reason I lost my cool is because of people who keep posting the "you can forbid, but they can walk" chant. Yeah, we covered that. On the first page. TWICE.




Welcome to the internet in which you will find many people saying redundant things. Now, show me on this doll where the duplicate comment touched you...


----------



## Rel (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 20 alcohol siphoning litterbugs in your house? I would say cursed rather than blessed, but whatever floats you boat.
> 
> But you see you point to what I am talking about though. Why only 20 after 7 years with of all that? Is that all that showed up over those 7 years?
> 
> ...




Wow.  Nearly every line of your post makes you sound like a complete dick.  If you wish to continue posting in this thread and on this site, you're going to adjust that attitude.

If there is any question about this then feel free to PM me.


----------



## kaomera (Jan 26, 2011)

The Human Target said:


> Why is explaining to your players "I don't think they fit in my game and I'll be replacing them with something even cooler!" so hard?



I've really just been skimming the thread (having come in a bit late), but I find myself wanting desperately to add my reply here, because I'm finding this very relevant to the situation I'm finding myself in with regards to the game that I'm running right now. I avoided banning anything in this game, and allowed several character elements that I was really not very enthusiastic about, basically just to avoid drama. And while the game is good I'm frustrated that it's not better; every time that the game is cool in spite of something instead of because of it, every time that, just for a moment, I feel like I would have been better off just staying in bed...

I have no problem giving detailed explanations of my decision-making process to people outside the game because there is no pressure on me to keep going with the discussion or argument that is going to ensue beyond the point that I am happy to have it continue to. And if my answer is "because I felt like banning it" then they are free to tell me I'm a bad DM and I'm free to not care in the least.

I'm willing to provide a detailed explanation of my decision-making process to my friends who I game with because I respect their opinions and I know that they respect mine. If my answer is "because I felt like banning it" or if I just get tired of discussing it I'm 90%+ sure that they won't mind because, knowing my tastes and style as a DM, the majority of the time they have either already come up with something that I consider cool, or they will have convinced me that what they're trying to do will be cool. And if there really is an issue I'm sure we'll be able to move past it - for one thing if it's a matter of personal preference or campaign flavor I can expect it to be discussed on those merits, and not just automatically default to a discussion of "balance".

I'm not willing to go into details about my decision-making process with my players whom I don't really know outside of gaming, because all of our interaction is framed as a game, and I'm interested in playing D&D, not "Can I get things my way even though the DM said 'no'." I don't want the players to have to waste their time compiling detailed arguments as to why item "X", which is not genre-appropriate for my game, is "not broken" despite the fact that this was never my argument. And it has been my repeated experience that this is how things will likely go.

I've really tried to avoid banning anything in my games the last ten years plus, and it just doesn't work for me. Players refuse to respond to requests that they justify their character choices, or rather they seem to misinterpret them somehow. It's not until I announce that something is off limits that they decide they have to argue the point. I don't want to deal with another player who insists on playing something that I'm not enthusiastic about and don't have any good ideas of what to do with, only to later complain that I'm not acting enthusiastic about their character and not coming up with cool things to highlight the many awesome qualities that they can best describe as "it's awesome".

It's really getting to the point that I think I would feel a lot more satisfied with my games if I just put my foot down, up front, and ban anything I think might be a problem, just because I said so and I'm the DM. Getting players might be a problem, but their are times when I really feel like not playing would be no less fun. The biggest issue with this is fairness - there are players who can take something I have no interest in and really turn my opinion around in play. But, unfortunately those players are significantly in the minority...

And the worst part is that I feel like the issue arises because I'm much more interested in not getting in the way of the players' fun than they are interested in not getting in the way of mine. I don't want to have to tell players "no", and I don't want to have show anyone the door, and I may wuss out anyway... (And I dunno, maybe I get this because I'm too much of a pushover?) But I'm starting to feel like that may just be what I have to do.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 20 alcohol siphoning litterbugs in your house? I would say cursed rather than blessed, but whatever floats you boat.




Wow.  Just wow.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 26, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I've really just been skimming the thread (having come in a bit late), but I find myself wanting desperately to add my reply here, because I'm finding this very relevant to the situation I'm finding myself in with regards to the game that I'm running right now.




Good post.

Yes it is easy for players to forget that the DM is there to have fun too and his opinions should matter (heck probably even more than the players, since the DM is the one spending the most time on the game itself.)

Sometimes you have to bring down the boot hard for sure, I'm just of the mind that it should only be as a last resort.

A Diplomacy check before an attack roll, always.

Whats a specific problem in your current game thats giving you trouble?

(Actually you should probably make a new thread on the topic)


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

kaomera said:


> And the worst part is that I feel like the issue arises because I'm much more interested in not getting in the way of the players' fun than they are interested in not getting in the way of mine. I don't want to have to tell players "no", and I don't want to have show anyone the door, and I may wuss out anyway... (And I dunno, maybe I get this because I'm too much of a pushover?) But I'm starting to feel like that may just be what I have to do.




This is what I mean when I say just accept "don't like it" from the DM, because in the long run the game will deteriorate from the DM becoming not interested. Worse is you sound like you are on the verge of snapping.

Maybe you have a group of those "dregs", or your players jsut don't know you aren't having fun.

Seriously, tell them it isn't working out, you have dealt with things in the game you really don't like and are tired of it. You would be more than welcome to run a game that limits to things you like and will ahve ideas for, but you cannot continue running games the way you have been, because you have lost interest.

Yeah start a new topic, but you show exactly what is being talked about in regards to some players that just don't get the DM should be having fun too, and if not, then the game will break down. Your game is almost there or at that point.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 26, 2011)

I'll tell someone "no", and I won't tell them the reason why.

Because if they know the reason why, it will make them metagame. And if I tell them that "I'm not telling you because you are going to metagame" they are going to do more metagaming with that knowledge until they figure out exactly what it is they were going to metagame about in the first place.

It's a vicious cycle, so it's better to stop at the first "no" and make them think I a bit of a tyrant. The payoff when they figure out what is going on is worth it, I like it when my players use their brains in-game rather than in preparation for it.

However, most of the time I simply tell them what they can do. It tends to make less questions.


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Zhal and Zhale are fine.
> 
> Why do they want to play minotaurs when you told them it was a kobold and dragonborn campaign?
> 
> Thanks for bringing a little humor into this thread.




They want minotaurs AND shifters really. They also really like wilden. I'm sorry, no plants. They are interested in exploring a more bestial type campaign. And by bestial, many want to play a primal character or have the multi-class druid feat which enables them to wild shape at-will. 

Are you familiar with the Marvel character Wolverine? Its like that time that Wolverine reverted to a more animalistic state during and just before the Onslaught saga. It was right after he got his adamantium (sorry stupid metal) skeleton ripped out by Magneto. 

I however want to explore the duality between Bahamut and Tiamat and how they would be able to join together to reform Io. 

Speaking of those two gods, I want to track down their minis. This blog post inspired me:

http://soldierhawk.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/around-world-mythology-in-dd-minis-bahamut/

Anyway back on topic. 

Zhal, I would not consider you to be a bad DM for banning something. Banning something is acceptable. If the players are persistently bothering you, then, yeah, they're wrong (depending on what it is). On the flip side, if they asked you maturely for an explanation and you on say 'I don't like it,' then I think communication is possibly shunted off into unpleasant areas. 


C.I.D.


----------



## nerfherder (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Why weren't all the rest there?



Well, some of us live several thousand miles away, otherwise we would have been delighted to float his boat and attend the party.

Given your stated desire not to offend people, I find your choice of words "alcohol siphoning litterbugs" strange.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

Because I actually have stated my reasons several time, the motions towards the communication seem to lead to a conversation like this.

GM: I don't allow adamant-whatever or mithril in my games because they have been done to death*.
Player: That's not a good reason, you're a Control Freak/Bad DM!
GM: Why do you need admant or mithril?
Player: <something I'm not allowed to say on ENWorld>!

I know that avoiding cliches is done to the point that it has become a cliche itself.

When I went to see the Eragon movie--thank the gods I hadn't read the books first--I got bored within 20 minutes because "Heroes Always Win". So to force myself to not walk out, I said, "okay, I know he's going to win, but let's see what scraps he gets into in the mean time". My opinion is that those scraps weren't very good, but I did make it to the end of the movie.

*I'm well aware that other people have read different fantasy literature, comic books, and played different video games and therefore may not have experienced how "done to death" these metals are.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Your participation in this thread has ... focused ... pretty strongly on arguing against, for lack of a better phrase, the-people-on-my-side-of-the-question for condoning badgering GMs in order to get them spill the beans.




I've been asked by the moderators to drop this, but will take it up with you in private email if you wish.  

Suffice to say, if you agree that saying No, without requiring some rationale beyond "I don't like it", is required, then you are not on the side I was arguing against.


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I've been asked by the moderators to drop this, but will take it up with you in private email if you wish.
> 
> Suffice to say, if you agree that saying No, without requiring some rationale beyond "I don't like it", is required, then you are not on the side I was arguing against.
> 
> ...



If a moderator asks you to drop a topic, please drop it. Don't keep making veiled and portentous statements about it. If you want to discuss it privately with someone, feel free to shoot them a PM, but the discussion thread is no longer the place to bring it up.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

nerfherder said:


> Well, some of us live several thousand miles away, otherwise we would have been delighted to float his boat and attend the party.
> 
> Given your stated desire not to offend people, I find your choice of words "alcohol siphoning litterbugs" strange.




Was I in the wrong thread and there wasn't beverage left behind and that was another poster? Did the alcohol consumption somehow add to the story in the context of this thread?

You answer one possible reason, but what others could be had. The point was it isn't always about "communication wins friends", that isn't what the thread is about, not the post responded to.

The thread is dealing with level of communication and what people accept, GMs specifically, when confronted with a query about the inclusion of material.

The story showed nothing about why so few appeared, just alluded to communication to be an endearing quality to make friends, which is not always what the GM is looking to do, but to make their current game work.

Which is why I said the information given has little use as helpful since it doesn't give MUCH information. How many were asked, how many didn't come, what reasons did they have for not showing up?

Again obviously more than 20 people had to have been met at all those things over the 7 year period. o what of the ones not attending, or not invited?

The whole post seemed to me to be a "I get better results than you because I am a better person", when it doesn't mention those that didn't attend, or those that weren't invited, and why they weren't invited.

The responses to that post also prove a point within that post itself.



shadzar said:


> As has been shown by others some people can get quite attached that a reason for one not liking something or doing it a different way, somehow instantly offends someone who does like it. It only gets worse when personal reasons are brought into it.



Whatever attachment was had to something I mentioned I disliked in that post, immediately offended some people.

Not the intention, which was to show the example didn't offer much example to it; but a strange side-effect. 

Seems the "litterbugs" portion should be withdrawn, because it WAS another poster in another thread that said that beverages were left behind after. What I get for reading several threads at the same time and coming back down the line of tabs to address them.

So as gamers have different tastes in game styles, so do other aspects of life that people differ on, and giving "reasons" for "why" "i don't like it" can cause some to get very upset when those reasons come to light and personalities and preferences clash on a higher level.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Cyronax said:


> I wondered what your thoughts were if I planned and ran an all kobold and dragonborn campaign. If I disallowed all other races, despite about half of my players desires to play minotaurs, am I a bad DM?
> 
> I am conflicted. I want a certain type of campaign, and as RavenCrowKing has said, anyone who doesn't agree with the DM is right. But what if the DM is actively trying to stoke a new setting. I'm so confused. This thread makes me angry, yet interested.




I'm not sure what you are trying to say Raven Crowking has said.

Everyone is allowed to attempt to seek the gaming experience that they want.  GMs, players, everyone.  

A GM is allowed to propose any game he likes, and, if he can find players willing to follow the proposition, to run it.

A player is allowed to propose any PC he likes, and, if he can find a GM willing to follow the proposition, to run it.

But "No Means No" is an absolute barrier in this case, beyond which none should cross.  Both sides have an absolute right to determine what gaming they are willing to offer, and what gaming they are willing to accept.

If you want to run campaign X, you are right to propose it, and right to run it if you can get players.

If Bob doesn't want to play in campaign X, he is right to not do so.  Even if Bob is your friend.

If Bob wants to play in campaign Y, he is right to propose it, and right to play in it if he can get a GM to run it.

If you don't want to run campaign Y, you are right not to do so.  Even if Bob is your friend.

It is absolutely wrong, in this circumstance, for Bob to try to force you to run campaign Y, or for you to try to force Bob to play in campaign X.  Sometimes it is better not to play at all.

It is okay for Bob to ask you why you are not interested in campaign Y; it is not okay if his motive is to find a way to force you to do so.  Such as, for example, by wearing down your resistance with multiple questions, until you just get so tired that you give in.

I hope that position is clear.



Zhaleskra said:


> Because I actually have stated my reasons several time, the motions towards the communication seem to lead to a conversation like this.




Good, because I am ready to talk about Warforged Ninja now.

In the thread where this arose, I (and others) explained in painstaking detail why (1) a warforged ninja did not fit the setting, (2) how a warforged ninja in the setting would automatically steal focus and attention from the other PCs (which we didn't think fair to those players), and (3) how allowing a warforged ninja would open the door to other character concepts that could have these same problems.

There are those in this thread who say they simply want to know the reasons.  Well, in this case, the reasons were given.  Multiple times.  And, still, the warforged ninja has been unable to go to his well-deserved rest without still being argued about as an example where the DM should bend.

_*And we are not even talking about a real game.*_

If you really want to understand why sometimes a GM will simply say No, and will assume that -- regardless of what the player says -- there is more involved than simply knowing the reasons, you need look no further.

Finally, as should be relatively obvious, if there are 1,000 elements that can be used to throw together a campaign, different groups of those elements can create novelty that will last far longer than any human lifetime.  

OTOH, if every campaign must use all those elements, you have only a single set.  Eventually, everything seems to look a lot like everything else.

Me, I'd rather game in a world with some form of cohesive vision, from either side of the screen.  I've never seen a kitchen sink (even with a good GM) that came close to the cohesive vision a more judicious pruning can create (even with an average GM).  YMMV.

(I find a cohesive setting with a good GM even better, and a great GM can make anything work....But, Hussar's poll, mentioned upthread, would tend to indicate that most GMs are not great.)


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Because I actually have stated my reasons several time, the motions towards the communication seem to lead to a conversation like this.
> 
> GM: I don't allow adamant-whatever or mithril in my games because they have been done to death*.
> Player: That's not a good reason, you're a Control Freak/Bad DM!
> ...




Ok, if that's the actual interaction that occured, then yup, you're right, the player was being a douche.  If the player automatically plays the "You're a bad DM card", then yeah, he's a bad player.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

I haven't actually had that conversation, and I get the feeling that some of the posters in this thread would do that. As my idea for a game is discussed well before anyone gets to the door in the first place, I would not invite a player who behaved like that.


----------



## Rel (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Was I in the wrong thread and there wasn't beverage left behind and that was another poster? Did the alcohol consumption somehow add to the story in the context of this thread?




I don't know if for some reason you've got a problem with the consumption of alcohol.  If you do then I don't care and I certainly don't want it discussed in this thread.  You specifically made a point to belittle that portion (among others) of the activities (I assume based on the fact that you made no mention of them that you have no problems with pizza or corndogs, so hey, there's some common ground!).

I did in fact mention that this crowd tends to leave behind beer at these events.  Why anybody would imagine that extra beer would be a "litterbug" problem I suppose would relate to whether they had an issue with alcohol consumption.  Again, I don't want it discussed here.  Suffice it to say that I don't consider it to be a bad thing.  I *especially *don't consider having friends come over to my house for a friendly gathering to be more of a curse than a blessing.



> You answer one possible reason, but what others could be had. The point was it isn't always about "communication wins friends", that isn't what the thread is about, not the post responded to.
> 
> The thread is dealing with level of communication and what people accept, GMs specifically, when confronted with a query about the inclusion of material.
> 
> ...




I don't hold parties at my house after our Game Days as a way of gathering data and measuring what percentage of people attend.  I will represent however that the number of such folks that I've met locally and from all over the country and (in the case of my trips to GenCon) world, measures well over a hundred.

Clearly not all of them live close enough to me that they can attend all of our Game Days.  They are all always welcome and I hope as many as possible will attend.  The turnout for the January Game Day tends to be smaller and I'd say that the total attendees this time was actually pretty close to 20.  About 75% showed up at the party but some of them brought along wives and kids who didn't attend the Game Day and thus rounded out the 20ish figure that I tossed out in my earlier post.

I'm not explaining all of this because it matters to my point.  I'm explaining it because you asked about it (in about as insulting and belittling a way as possible).  Which further goes to prove my point that communication and consideration is more friendly than a lack of it.

You had taken Patryn to task over his limited perspective of gaming with only friends and not with people at game stores and conventions and the like, with whom he was unfamiliar.  My point, which I believe is absolutely related to the core of this thread, is that treating anybody with enough consideration to answer a question is more friendly, and more likely to lead to friendship, than not doing so.

You seem to suggest that some GMs might have the attitude that, "I'm here to run a game, not to make friends."  And if that is their goal then I suppose that the more taciturn approach is likely to help them in that goal.  I would simply counter that, even if you're not looking for friends, you're looking for people that you're going to be spending a LOT of time with.  Why not adopt a friendly tone regardless?

Lastly I'll say that there are those in this thread that seem to be interpreting my approach as one that is anti-GM and pro-player.  That's not the case at all.  I would give the exact same response if a GM asked a question of the player.  I'm saying (and I don't feel like I can put it more simply than this) that being willing to give an answer and communicate is to the benefit of both parties because they will each have additional information.  

I absolutely hold forth the possibility that the player in question will take the opportunity to stridently push an agenda that the GM doesn't want in his game.  I absolutely uphold the right of the GM to run a game that doesn't cater to such an agenda.  It is however my belief that a GM might learn through the course of that communication that this pushy jerk of a player doesn't need to be in his game in the first place!  And wouldn't it be better to know that sooner than later?

Again, shadzar, if you care to continue discussing the general points in this thread you are free to do so.  If you have any questions about my moderation above and are unclear about how to post without being jerkish then I suggest you PM myself or one of the other moderators (Piratecat is a good option).


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> I'm saying (and I don't feel like I can put it more simply than this) that being willing to give an answer and communicate is to the benefit of both parties because they will each have additional information.



I find it mind-boggling that, after 19 friggin pages of posts, this is still difficult for some people to comprehend.


----------



## Aramax (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Not out of air, out of a lack of completing communication. And it wasn't even those two metals. That was my fault for not saying "this setting doesn't necessarily have lycanthropes" when I noticed a short term player with a lot of silvered weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Your general thesis is sound,but I probobly would have put SOMETHING in the world for him to use his silver weopons on(undead?)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> I find it mind-boggling that, after 19 friggin pages of posts, this is still difficult for some people to comprehend.




I don't think it is hard to comprehend, or that it is bad advice.

But I think there is a major difference between this and what the OP asks.

After all, examples have been given in this thread where (1) fuller explainations are deeemed inappropriate at the time (by the individual being asked to explain), (2) fuller explainations fail to resolve the situation, or (3) both.

It's like asking, "Why can't I go out the front door?" and being told "Well, you could go out the back door".  And, certainly this is true, but it doesn't answer the question.  

Moreover, even if the poster saying you could go out the back door has 1001 reasons why going out the back door is better than going out the front door, it still doesn't answer the question.

When a person asks "Why can't I go out the front door?" you can say, "Why would you want to?", but no matter how many reasons you have not to want to, at the end of the day, the question is still unanswered.

If there is anyone in this thread who is, in general, anti-communication, I hope that person will please respond and identify him/herself.  [EDIT:  On re-reading this post, I realize that this is a rather forlorn hope.  Anyone who is anti-communication is by definition unlikely to respond and communicate this information!   ]  Otherwise, I hope we can stop assuming that anyone who wants (for whatever reason) to go through the front door is therefore anti-back door.  Perhaps they use the back door 99 times out of 100, but think that there is that 1 in 100 chance when it should be okay to go out the front.

That shouldn't be hard to comprehend, either.

Can't we simply assume that most of us assume good communication is good, and then answer the question:  Why can't the DM occasionally simply say No to something because he doesn't like it (with no further reason necessarily forthcoming)?


RC


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

Aramax said:


> Your general thesis is sound,but I probobly would have put SOMETHING in the world for him to use his silver weopons on(undead?)




Or I could have said "this particular campaign doesn't have lycanthropes, but that doesn't mean they don't exist in the world." And there is something special that happens before the end of the third part of the adventure.

I also could have allowed him to replace those weapons with something similar of equal value. Masterwork weapon by a Gnolaum friend? That'd work.

There is no reason the PCs couldn't go on to do other things after the campaign ends.

I'll give you a hint: it will actually make players happy to have their characters captured. That's all I can say without revealing too much.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 26, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I'll give you a hint: it will actually make players happy to have their characters captured. That's all I can say without revealing too much.




Did they tell you this, or are you assuming? 

Because in my experience, this is VERY rarely true.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 26, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Did they tell you this, or are you assuming?
> 
> Because in my experience, this is VERY rarely true.




I'm assuming based on what happens after they get captured. And then what happens after that*. That's all I can say without spoiling the reveal.

*I will be making a handout to be passed out at this point. At the very bottom of which will be the words "if you are the last player to receive this note, it's time for a game break. Something really cool is about to happen."

Also, this adventure is deliberately set up with the possiblity of unbalanced encounters. So I might have to say something like "There are 4-6 of you, I have more than enough some of whom are higher level than you to capture you/take you out. Would you prefer to roll the battle or would you like to just roll with it?" At which point, I'd do which ever one got the most votes.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 26, 2011)

For a long time -- at least a decade of my GMing life -- it was very difficult for me to articulate exactly why I despise psionics in D&D.  (And I'm pretty good with words.)

So my response, by necessity, was, "Because I don't like them.  They don't exist in my campaign."

Players were free to accept that, and play, or not accept that, and not play.

I don't think there's _anything_ wrong with that, even now that I have a much firmer grasp on why I dislike psionics-in-D&D so much and am able to articulate it if I choose to do so.  I simply don't believe there's any obligation, from social contract or even just nice-guy-ness, to explain it, any more than I am entitled to an explanation from a player why she plays nothing but elves or humans.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> You had taken Patryn to task over his limited perspective of gaming with only friends and not with people at game stores and conventions and the like, with whom he was unfamiliar.  My point, which I believe is absolutely related to the core of this thread, is that treating anybody with enough consideration to answer a question is more friendly, and more likely to lead to friendship, than not doing so.



As mentioned in another thread, it isn't always about "friends" when one DMs, but about someone running a game so that others may have a game.

I don't DM because I have some need for more friends. I DM so that others have a game to play it. Sometimes games I really didn't like as a stand-in for a DM who was a friend, but for players I didn't know and could really care les about. The only thing that mattered to me was I was the only one available to take the task at hand, so did the job.

So I don't see it being about this thread because the thread isn't about "how to make more friends as a DM", but about "why some people can't accept 'dont like it' from a DM, be they friend or new acquaintance."

So again the view from the "friends only" section of the bleachers doesn't show what people are talking about, as well the view from "trying to make these players into friends" doesn't show it, and actually dismisses a portion of DMs that do it because there is no one else, and for the sake of there being a game, no matter who is playing.

Also your story didnt say anything but you met them, not what position you held during the game, so it doesn't offer that to the discussion. Were you the DM at the game stores? I would assume you were at Cons since several posts today indicate so.

So how often and how many did you run games for people at game stores? Which game stores?

You experiences could be just a few similar people, not viewing the whole of gaming like the initial person I responded to.

I mentioned two other NC based cons that you did not mention, nor respond to. Have you done things at those to see what kind of people were at them? Or are you self-segregating yourself from them, such as the initial person by playing only with those that are friends, so basically, and quite possibly unintentionally, viewing it with blinders on?

Also are you segregating yourself only to RPGs, and dont see gamers in general that show evidence of this behavior? Where the person running the game has set forth some rules based on whatever reason, and players hen-peck them about it.

Being dismissive of those who are doing it to make sure it is done, only acts as a disservice.

It would be great if the game was popular enough in all areas for people to be able to make friends with enough people to game with, but that isn't the case. Sometiems you have to do things so that the job gets done, in those cases, the job comes first before these emotional ties.

You also seem to hint at a posibility that if one running a game for people that are not friends, they view those people as enemies. that is not true, if it is the case. It may just be the person doesn't need anymore friends for gaming or other. Not everyone seeks to have the entire world be their friend, nor needs it. (See the thread about finding a good group)



> You seem to suggest that some GMs might have the attitude that, "I'm here to run a game, not to make friends."  And if that is their goal then I suppose that the more taciturn approach is likely to help them in that goal.  I would simply counter that, even if you're not looking for friends, you're looking for people that you're going to be spending a LOT of time with.  Why not adopt a friendly tone regardless?



What I get for replying to parts as I read them.....  

What is not friendly about not wishing to explain the reasoning behind your likes or dislikes to total strangers?

I would say it more unfriendly to be sticking your nose into someone's business so deeply you just met. Which brings back to the first part of your post, Yes I do have a problem with it and thank you for not directly asking about it, since you DID take the social cue and recognized and didn't ask further. Which is what this thread really is all about. Someone infers or says directly they "don't like" something, then don't push the subject. Now if players within a game were as wise to take that social cue and not push elements for whatever reason, we probably wouldn't have this thread at all.



> Lastly I'll say that there are those in this thread that seem to be interpreting my approach as one that is anti-GM and pro-player.  That's not the case at all.  I would give the exact same response if a GM asked a question of the player.  I'm saying (and I don't feel like I can put it more simply than this) that being willing to give an answer and communicate is to the benefit of both parties because they will each have additional information.



But why is it unacceptable to just take the answer? Why is an honest answer not acceptable, because your need to know more about the "reasons" behind it leave you with an empty feeling.

As someone else said, to communicate MAY offer more beneficial to at least one party, it doesn't always do so for both parties involved.

Why can't someone not liking something be enough for you (in general as always), to accept their decision?

This is mostly psychological. What is your need for knowing more?

Since we are discussing "reasons", would you care to share your specific reason or reasons and DM not liking something would not be enough for your personally? Is it because it doesn't give enough information for you? Is it because you feel they aren't being friendly enough for you? Is there some other reason?

There is really a lot of psychology going on revolving around all this we all are discussing. But all in all it is still personal preferences. A DM with a preference against something, and players with a preference to know more about the DMs preference.

Which one's preference gets the greater weight?


> I absolutely hold forth the possibility that the player in question will take the opportunity to stridently push an agenda that the GM doesn't want in his game.  I absolutely uphold the right of the GM to run a game that doesn't cater to such an agenda.  It is however my belief that a GM might learn through the course of that communication that this pushy jerk of a player doesn't need to be in his game in the first place!  And wouldn't it be better to know that sooner than later?



Possibly, but if shown that the "pushy jerk" wont be allowed to push, then like all bullies, they are likely to leave of their own accord when they do not get a reaction, or they are likely to change their ways and not try to bully but become a better player.

Again the psychology and all that coming into play.


> Again, shadzar, if you care to continue discussing the general points in this thread you are free to do so.  If you have any questions about my moderation above and are unclear about how to post without being jerkish then I suggest you PM myself or one of the other moderators (Piratecat is a good option).




I have been discussing the general points, and also trying to explain why I view your anecdote as not related so you would know, as well others, and I could try to figure out how it is related.

Maybe you are seeing jerkish as tone does not translate via text, but I am as calm and enjoying the discussion, save that that part I dislike, so maybe you should PM myself if you think there is something you said but maybe I missed?

I am looking at all things in the thread from the same light as the one where I continued "Random Designer Shadzar" as a variable.

Maybe you misread or misinterpreted something I wrote, and will be more than happy to discuss it. We have one point out of the way already I think with these last two posts.

Otherwise I am still curious about those "non friend" places you were, as to whether you may have segregated yourself from some gamers from being in very specific focused places, such as that of Patryn.

Did you DM at the game stores? Whose idea was it? Have you attended a Mace or Stellercon? Have you ran games for either?

These sorts of things can help the position of many, as well show if the different views of gamers are causing the different, well, views. (Hope that makes sense.)


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can't we simply assume that most of us assume good communication is good, and then answer the question:  Why can't the DM occasionally simply say No to something because he doesn't like it (with no further reason necessarily forthcoming)?




The DM certainly can simply say no.  As stated, it is acceptable because at the end of the day the DM should have the final say about worldbuilding (and such).  Maybe I should re-qualify that it is generally considered _preferable_ if the DM would communicate more than a simple "no" or "because I said so". 



Jeff Wilder said:


> For a long time -- at least a decade of my GMing life -- it was very difficult for me to articulate exactly why I despise psionics in D&D.  (And I'm pretty good with words.)
> 
> So my response, by necessity, was, "Because I don't like them.  They don't exist in my campaign."



And if someone asks why, a perfectly fine answer would be "I dunno, it's hard to articulate why the idea of psionics bugs me, but it's enough that I don't want it to exist in my campaign world."  

Almost every player I know would accept this politely and move on.

If a d-bag player persists, then you are starting to get a pretty good idea what you'll be in for with this player and you may have an entirely different problem to deal as a result.

A response I got from someone once was: "I've already done a lot of work on the campaign and to shoehorn X in - even though it goes against the tone of the world - wouldn't be worth the effort for me."

That's basically a "because I don't want it", but it helped me understand that a certain tone and verisimilitude is important to him.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 26, 2011)

Jeff Wilder said:


> For a long time -- at least a decade of my GMing life -- it was very difficult for me to articulate exactly why I despise psionics in D&D.  (And I'm pretty good with words.)
> 
> So my response, by necessity, was, "Because I don't like them.  They don't exist in my campaign."



That's how I feel about firearms in D&D. I try to accommodate player requests, skinning them for my world, but like everyone I have a few hard lines.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Then maybe we can stop pretending that Rel's point is somehow hard to understand?

Surely, a "How can you communicate better?" thread would be a boon to many, but it wouldn't answer the OP.

In any event, it seems that there is (now?) a consensus opinion that the GM should be able to simply say No sometimes, without offering more than "Because I don't like it."


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I mentioned two other NC based cons that you did not mention, nor respond to. Have you done things at those to see what kind of people were at them? Or are you self-segregating yourself from them, such as the initial person by playing only with those that are friends, so basically, and quite possibly unintentionally, viewing it with blinders on?



OK, wait a sec...

So you are saying that because someone can't or doesn't want to drive 85 miles to MACE, they are self-segregating and therefore wearing blinders about tabletop gaming?

And just because someone prefers to run and/or play in games with friends, or even perchance ends up making friends with new players, that they are self-segregating?


----------



## chaochou (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can't we simply assume that most of us assume good communication is good, and then answer the question:  Why can't the DM occasionally simply say No to something because he doesn't like it (with no further reason necessarily forthcoming)?




Maybe because there isn't an answer which accounts for all groups, all GMs, and all players at all times?

What the OP asks, in essence, is 'Why did this behaviour seem to break the social contract between these people (myself as GM and a player)?'

No-one has an answer for that. The answer lies within the details of a specific relationship at a given table at a given time.

Beyond advising communication and negotiation, diplomacy, trust, respect, some give and take, how much more specific can anyone be?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 26, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> That's really not what he said at all.  You can stretch it to that, if you wanted to make a point, but that's twisting words - and all but you, here, realize that.




His statement came across to me as: DM gets to be a dick once and he's a bad DM. A player gets a lot more leeway before being called a bad player. 

If he wants to clear that up fine but I'm open to interpret what he said just about as much as you and anyone else here is. I'll accept clarification from him since I was addressing his post. From you? Not so much.

Edit: At this point I'll consider the matter dropped since he did clarify (through sarcasm) that that wasn't what he meant. Thanks for the attempted dogpile though...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

chaochou said:


> What the OP asks, in essence, is 'Why did this behaviour seem to break the social contract between these people (myself as GM and a player)?'






Zhaleskra said:


> I'm trying to wrap my head around why some players don't think "I just don't like X" isn't a valid reason for a GM not to allow something. Especially when the GM gives zir reasons.
> 
> For example, I don't like metals that start with "adamant-" or are pronounced "mithril" (regardless of actual spelling) because I think they are the most overused fantasy materials.




Not what I am getting from the uneditted original post.

Not what I am getting from the OP's later posts, either.

However, if that is the question being asked, then at least I see why the answers being given (by some) are as they are.

[MENTION=20544]Zhaleskra[/MENTION], could you clarify your question please?

Thanks.


RC


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> ... Finally, as should be relatively obvious, if there are 1,000 elements that can be used to throw together a campaign, different groups of those elements can create novelty that will last far longer than any human lifetime.
> 
> OTOH, if every campaign must use all those elements, you have only a single set. Eventually, everything seems to look a lot like everything else.
> 
> Me, I'd rather game in a world with some form of cohesive vision, from either side of the screen. I've never seen a kitchen sink (even with a good GM) that came close to the cohesive vision a more judicious pruning can create (even with an average GM). YMMV.




Yeah, with the caveat that the purpose and fun of a kitchen sink setting is not found in a cohesive vision. The whole point of it is that it just goes all over the place. 

I've *always* seen the primary purpose of having a giant monster manual as: "Here is a list of things from which I can pick a subset to make an interesting campaign." As games have added options for different kinds of magic, races, etc., I've felt the same way. Sure, every now and then you can just use the whole thing, but that is really just the "subset that happens to include everything." 

People who study creativity sometimes do this little exercise with children. They'll get two groups of, say, six year olds. One group is given a box of crayons and some paper and asked to draw something. The other group is given a box of crayons and some paper and is asked to pick from a short list of things to draw. 

Now the interesting thing is that at least a few people in both groups will be very frustrated, either by the wide-open or restricted nature of their respective groups. And even more interesting, in the first group you may get someone that feel restricted being limited to crayons and paper, while in the second, you may very well get someone that wants you to pick something from the list, for them. But the most interesting part, at least to me, is that once you get all of the "deciding what to do" part settled for everyone, the amount of "creativity" demonstrated will be more or less the same.

Generally speaking, people who want some guidance, aka "limits are freeing", outnumber the other side, aka "wide open", by a substantial amount. Differences in the amount of limits found useful obscure this fact in everyday life.

Where people naturally fall on this range varies quite a bit. However, as we get older, we start compensating. Note that we compensate; we don't change our essential natures. Most people who want you to pick for them learn how to pick for themselves. But they will probably never be really "creative" in their picks. They will be creative once they make the picks. Most people who want everything wide open will learn to accept some practical limits and then get on with producing something. (Possibly using their grudging acceptance as a spur: See Michelangelo the frustrated sculpter with a commission to paint a certain ceiling.) There are, however, exceptions--whether from experience, training, temper, or real extremes in creative thinking--no one really knows yet.

If you've made it this far, there is a relevant point. I'm pretty much in the "limits are freeing" camp. I *need* some hard limits to be easily creative, whether imposed by others or myself. Moreover, *everyone* in our group is the same way. We can do wide open, but wide open necessarily means a certain amount of floundering around while we impose the limits on ourselves, so that we can get on with the fun parts.

Heck, our pre-campaign discussions are essentially about throwing things out. Either we throw something out directly (e.g. this 3E campaign has no goblins, kobolds, or orcs; all the low-level humanoid threats are PC races or gnolls) or implicity (e.g. this campaign is about humans and dwarves; other races will be niche, no more than one per player, and rarely encountered). This goes round and round, with people throwing out, discussing, and accepting/rejecting ideas, until we have enough to work up a pre-campaign document. Sometimes, the players are more vague--just do one of your niche campaigns--which means that I'll limit myself to about 20 monsters as recurring foes, and maybe another 20-40 as rarely appearing.

Say you are from the other side of the creativity spectrum. You are going to be a little frustrated with our campaigns. If you came in mid-campaign, you'd probably be pulling your hair out. Because not only am I not going to allow you to play your kitchen sink idea, the reason is likely inexplicable to you. Even if you participate in the pre-campaign discussion, you'll be frustrated. Because for some reason, it is difficult for many of the "wide open" creativity folks to really grasp that other people aren't like them--much like night owls sort of understand morning people, if only from having to get up and go to school or work, but morning people seldom really understand night owls. Just get up on a regular basis, and you'll like it and be cheerful like me! Sounds a lot like "trying broccoli," doesn't it?

Strangely enough, I ran a few games in college where we accommodated this divide somewhat. We had one radically "wide open" person in a group of otherwise "limits are freeing" group. It was actually a house rule in our campaigns that the "wide open" guy got to break any limit he chose. This was a bit of group judo--it kept the limits there and useful for everyone else, but also gave him something to react against. It worked well enough for college, but it was very draining for the three of us who GM'd. I'm too old to do that anymore. (Also, it worked because we were all friends, and the "wide open" guy was one of the nicest people you would ever meet. He knew we were making an exception to enhance his fun, and he was very careful not to use it to dick with the game. If a GM blanched at one of his character ideas--well, he had 20 others that he would consider.)

I suspect that some of the talking past each other in this topic, and some of the, well, knee jerk reactions from both sides, is coming from different sides of this same issue. I know for me, a person saying, "the player can do anything they want with their character, and the GM should find a way to accommodate them," is setting off all kinds of buttons. "Accommodate" his character is sometimes not "reskin a couple of flavor ideas in town X and just roll with it." Accommodate his character is sometimes "rip out the heart and soul of what drives the creativity for the GM and every other player in this campaign." And from the outside, it will be really hard to tell where on the spectrum a given request falls. 

And it is hard to explain. This long post is barely scratching the surface. That's why the last new player I had in the game got essentially this explanation: "We like restrictions. Some of them may not make sense at first, and we won't always give clear reasons. But there are good reasons. Stick around for awhile, and it will become clear to you." It's a lot easier to explain once a person has experienced it for awhile.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> OK, wait a sec...
> 
> So you are saying that because someone can't or doesn't want to drive 85 miles to MACE, they are self-segregating and therefore wearing blinders about tabletop gaming?
> 
> And just because someone prefers to run and/or play in games with friends, or even perchance ends up making friends with new players, that they are self-segregating?




It may be unintended, but yes, by only viewing a small sample you are self-segregating yourself form the experiences others have had by not viewing a sample of that part of the range of players.

Does WotC or Paizo, only ask about their games of those working in the building? Those living around the company office?

The choice not to drive that distance or only to play with friends is your own, so why isn't it self-segregation? 

It doesnt mean it is done to avoid certain types of gamers, but rather the consequences of it has quite possibly led to a blinding affect to those types of gamers.

Out of sight out of mind...

Seeing is believing...

etc...


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> It may be unintended, but yes, by only viewing a small sample you are self-segregating yourself form the experiences others have had by not viewing a sample of that part of the range of players.
> 
> Does WotC or Paizo, only ask about their games of those working in the building? Those living around the company office?
> 
> ...




Sooooooo...when was it Rel segregated you?   Did you get 'non-invited' to one of his shindigs?  

Hey - now I'm ticked off at Rel!  I live only 1600 miles away, don't know him in the slightest, yet he hasn't personally made an effort to get to know me!  WTF?!


----------



## Mort (Jan 26, 2011)

Bit of a tangent, but I wanted to respond to this:



Zhaleskra said:


> I'm assuming based on what happens after they get captured. And then what happens after that*. That's all I can say without spoiling the reveal.




You know them getting capured is good, they don't. Often, players tend to treat getting captured as badly or worse than getting killed and can react very strongly to the concept (fight on despite overwhelming odds, not surrender etc.) You know your players, so hopefully you can judge. A friend of mine made the mistake of doing a "you're captured" scenario with a new group that didn't know him (except for myself)- he even had the note etc. idea that you propose. The group reacted so poorly that most players refused to read the note,  and there was certainly a break - but the campaign came to a screaching halt and never resumed (this despite me saying, hey you might want to trust him here)!



Zhaleskra said:


> *I will be making a handout to be passed out at this point. At the very bottom of which will be the words "if you are the last player to receive this note, it's time for a game break. Something really cool is about to happen."
> 
> Also, this adventure is deliberately set up with the possiblity of unbalanced encounters. So I might have to say something like "There are 4-6 of you, I have more than enough some of whom are higher level than you to capture you/take you out. Would you prefer to roll the battle or would you like to just roll with it?" At which point, I'd do which ever one got the most votes.




If you're going to do this, why give the choice to play out the encounter at all - players hate encounters with a foregone conclusion - most can see it coming from a mile away. Seems better to do a cut scene and be done with it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> His statement came across to me as: DM gets to be a dick once and he's a bad DM. A player gets a lot more leeway before being called a bad player.




Not Rel, and not attempting to dogpile.

The way I read it included a comparison between different behaviours:  getting heated because a question was asked on one hand, and asking a question on the other.  

IMHO, asking a question is more reasonable when it is the first question, and less reasonable as they pile up.

OTOH, getting heated because a question was asked is less reasonable when it is the first question, and more reasonable as the questions pile up.

So, it isn't a direct comparison.  The player asking the first question, or the DM getting heated after the 20th, isn't being a dick.  

In my understanding of Rel's argument (@Morrus;


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 26, 2011)

Piratecat said:


> That's how I feel about firearms in D&D.



Me, too!  _Exactly_.  Firearms and psionics used to hold the same low place for me, for pretty much the same reason (shorthanded: "genre dissonance"), but for some reason my distaste for firearms-in-D&D lessened, while my distaste for psionics-in-D&D has not.

I still don't accept firearms as a default part of my D&D campaigns -- not even in my beloved Golarion, where they are a big part of the upcoming _Ultimate Combat_ -- but (e.g.) I was just fine using them when I ran a Freeport campaign.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> It may be unintended, but yes, by only viewing a small sample you are self-segregating yourself form the experiences others have had by not viewing a sample of that part of the range of players.
> 
> Does WotC or Paizo, only ask about their games of those working in the building? Those living around the company office?
> 
> ...



WOTC and Paizo are in the business of developing consumer products and therefore perform a wide range of sampling so that they can reach the most players.

Deciding to play or run a D&D game is simply that.  Getting a game together.

People don't run observational analysis on wide ranges of player types just to see if they can get some D&D [or insert other RPG] goin' on.

Just because I don't travel 3000 miles to a Con in the Pacific NW doesn't mean that I am self-segregating, unintentionally or not.  It is not an "out of sight, out of mind" issue either.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Can someone XP Crazy Jerome for me.  Excellent post!


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Holy Bovine said:


> Sooooooo...when was it Rel segregated you?   Did you get 'non-invited' to one of his shindigs?
> 
> Hey - now I'm ticked off at Rel!  I live only 1600 miles away, don't know him in the slightest, yet he hasn't personally made an effort to get to know me!  WTF?!




Huh? 

*Self*-segregation, meaning he did it to himself, not he did it to others.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

I have run and played games in several states (in the US) and in Canada, with literally hundreds of players.  Yet, by the definition offered, I am self-segregating.

Oddly (or not), I'm okay with that.  I am selective about who I am willing to game with!


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have run and played games in several states (in the US) and in Canada, with literally hundreds of players.  Yet, by the definition offered, I am self-segregating.
> 
> Oddly (or not), I'm okay with that.  I am selective about who I am willing to game with!




Yes but you can see it from both sides, which has made you less segregated, where some are missing a view because of it.

Some may be taking the self-segregation a bit personal, but it is just the point that if you only are around one type of player, you will only see that type of player. Being dismissive of other types, doesn't prove they don't exist, even if the reason is because you haven't seen them.

We are all self-segregated, but I can't think of a better word for it. What other word describes removing one's self from the whole...."in a vacuum" doesn't seem to fit as that would not include reading about things on a forum, but doesn't offer the experiences and some are more readily able to dismiss things said on a forum, they have not seen for themselves?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Yes but you can see it from both sides, which has made you less segregated, where some are missing a view because of it.




Like this fellow?







BTW, [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION], does your User Name come from Fraggle Rock?  Enquiring minds want to know!


RC


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 26, 2011)

Why we self-segregate gets back to giving an explanation. 

I know why I do it, but I doubt the reason is very common.  After playing with a lot of different people and different styles, I have learned that people are rarely ambivalent about my preferred gaming style.  They either really like it, or they don't.  Since I've never had any problem finding people who like it (even though they are a minority of gamers, near as I can tell), then I see no good reason to:

1. Deprive someone who likes it of the opportunity to get it from me, by giving a slot to someone who doesn't.

2. Inflict myself on someone else who won't really appreciate me.

3. Put myself through extra and totally unnecessary friction.

I've done the "broaden myself though experience" tour, got the T-shirt, and now I'm settled down in what I like to do.  I get my "touch base outside my comfort zone to see what has changed" thrill via occasionally playing with someone else.  So I'm covered.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

First you ruin literatue NOW Wembly Fraggle? What is wrong with you man! What enxt, you will ruin Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch, or Dirty Dick Dastardly somehow? 

Jerome, but it is possible for that segregation to come so early, that some things of the view outside of it are missed, correct?

It isn't that gamers can't choose who to game with, but in discusions like these, a missing view ay just make the image a little less focused on what others are speaking of. Blurred if you will.


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'm not sure what you are trying to say Raven Crowking has said.
> 
> Everyone is allowed to attempt to seek the gaming experience that they want.  GMs, players, everyone.
> 
> ...




Yes precisely Raven Crowking. Good points all of them.

I agree with you that not everyone should allowed to attempt to seek the gaming experience that they want.  GMs, players, everyone should have some denial of their basic interests in order to further the needs of the game as a whole. 

A GM often required to propose a self-limiting game he may not like in order to find a certain calibre of players. Just like you said. 

A player is allowed to propose any PC he likes, but sometimes they have to rein in their most base desires -- in your case it seems PC backgrounds involving certain unsavory activities. 

But does "No mean yes" as you have said earlier in the thread? Or is it "No means no"? Is it an absolute barrier in this case, beyond which none should cross?  In this case I really must disagree with you. But moving on to another point. 

What If Gerald wants to play in campaign A, but he can't find a DM? So he tries campaign H instead because he is able to find a stable group. 

And yes I agree with you: it is absolutely not wrong, in this circumstance, for Gerald to try to force some elements of campaign A into ths campaign H. Or maybe campaign B as well. Its all about being creative and being true to your inner compass. 

Is that more clear when I fully explain it Raven Crowking?

C.I.D.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Jerome, but it is possible for that segregation to come so early, that some things of the view outside of it are missed, correct?
> 
> It isn't that gamers can't choose who to game with, but in discusions like these, a missing view ay just make the image a little less focused on what others are speaking of. Blurred if you will.




Sure, but now you are walking right on the edge of the very line we've been discussing.  IMHO.  I mean, if someone wants to know why we self-segregate, why can't, "I just feel like it," be a good enough answer?  

Some busybody is always trying to broaden our horizens for us.  Some of it is useful and can be taken as such.  Push me out of my comfort zone, make me go to the party even though I'm not very social, because you knew that I'd like a few of the people there.  If I feel up to it, cool.  OTOH, if its some generalized "people should get out and do things to broaden their horizens" and not really taking me (the actual, real me) into account, then it is actually this guy doing the very thing that he accuses me of. I always want to say, "So if generally broadening one's horizens is good, and you spend all your time going to social events to meet people, why don't *you* broaden your horizens and come hang out with a homebody for an evening?"  I don't say it, because when it is true, the other guy would never understand the point.

And it is rude.  Never underestimate the ability of attempted politeness to completely torpedo understanding.

I don't like turnip greens or chicken liver.  I can only handle so much spice in my foods.  I grew up in the south, were it was not uncommon to get invited to a meal where you had cornbread, liver, and turnip greens--with super hot pepper sauce to make the greens taste "good" and to obscure the taste of the liver for the half of the table that also didn't like it.  Especially in the '70s, when meat was expensive.  

I don't like it, but I can eat it--to get some nutrition, such as it is, and be polite.  "Eat what is set in front of you and don't complain," that was the injunction.  If you served it to me now, you'd never even know that I don't like them.  (After getting to know me, I'd eventually tell you, if you kept serving it.)  So we go along like this, and everything is acceptable, if not roses.

Then you try to serve me yellow squash.  The last time I ate it, I was ten.  I turned green and threw up all over the table.  This convinced my otherwise "food strict" parents that perhaps squash was an exception.  You serve it to me now.  You tell me a polite way to handle this:

You:  I noticed you missed the squash.
Me:  No thanks, it isn't my favorite (notice the waffling).
You:  (jocular) You really need a yellow vegetable.
Me:  That's true, but I don't like it much (stronger but still waffling).  
You:  Why?
Me:  Just can't handle the flavor for some reason (being vague).
You:  Is it the texture?
Me:  (Curbing my temper) No, I was made to eat it for two years as a child, and it was very much the flavor.  I like Zuchinni just fine. (notice more explanation given, as we are now starting to actually argue about it, it taking two to argue).
You:  Maybe your tastes have changed, here try some more (shoves it in my face).
Me:  (Goes off into a "You can't handle the truth!" style rant that makes Nicholson look tame, with graphic details of the throw-up incident, that turns everyone at the table pale and ruins the meal completely.)
You:  (hurt) Gee, I was only asking a question.

Take out squash and replace it with another vegetable I don't much like, and *nothing bad happens.*  This doesn't change the fact that if you dick around with me about squash, and refuse to back down, it is going to end badly. 

Sometimes when someone doesn't want to give you a reason, they can see the trajectory of the conversation, and they'd really rather not go there.  Just because they were ok with the same conversation about elves, clerics, vorpal swords, green dragon breath, and minotaur rogues--it doesn't follow that you really *want* an explanation for their views on Dark Sun.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> First you ruin literatue NOW Wembly Fraggle? What is wrong with you man!




Next up.....Linda Carter as Wonder Woman.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2011)

Cyronax said:


> Is that more clear when I fully explain it Raven Crowking?




I am not sure if you are trying to be funny, or if you are trying to break The Rules?  Should I be laughing or calling a moderator?

EDIT:  You know what?  I'm going to give you "best possible reading" and assume that you just have a strange sense of humour.  Not exactly a rarity among gamers, and no harm done.

RC


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Nope sorry Linda will not be the new Wonder Woman on NBC....



Crazy Jerome said:


> Sure, but now you are walking right on the edge of the very line we've been discussing.  IMHO.  I mean, if someone wants to know why we self-segregate, why can't, "I just feel like it," be a good enough answer?




Edge? I thought I was staying fully in the circle of what we are talking about. I don't care why others segregate themselves, just noting that some may have forgot they have, and may be missing the view from the other side of the fence by not walking around it to see what is there.

I don't care and don't mind if they do, but in the interest of understanding what others se, some may just need to experience it, since the words on the screen aren't providing enough weight to that side of the argument that says, those people outside of their direct circle of influence exist. IE: the blinders.

So segregate all you want, don't play games with people you don't like or with people you don't like, but you should at least take the opportunity to see them so you might be able to understand them when they come up in topics of discussion.

See what I mean?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 26, 2011)

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION], I wasn't saying you were off-topic.  You are squarely on the topic.  I was saying that you were pushing right up to the edge of pushing catsclaw for an explanation the same way the OP was feeling pushed for an explanation.

"Just peak over this fence and see the other side" for a few minutes is fine most of the time.  However, when it isn't fine, it isn't ok at all.  

Not that I should necessarily be casting stones, since I was going right up to the same edge discussing why some creative types don't typically understand what drives other creative types.  However, I like to think the line is drawn at pointing out the fence, versus "pushing" people to look over it.  The fence is there, whether they want to look over it or not.  The initial "self-segregating" post sounded a lot like, "you *ought *to be looking over the fence," to me.  That's all.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> shadzar, I wasn't saying you were off-topic.  You are squarely on the topic.  I was saying that you were pushing right up to the edge of pushing catsclaw for an explanation the same way the OP was feeling pushed for an explanation.
> 
> "Just peak over this fence and see the other side" for a few minutes is fine most of the time.  However, when it isn't fine, it isn't ok at all.
> 
> Not that I should necessarily be casting stones, since I was going right up to the same edge discussing why some creative types don't typically understand what drives other creative types.  However, I like to think the line is drawn at pointing out the fence, versus "pushing" people to look over it.  The fence is there, whether they want to look over it or not.  The initial "self-segregating" post sounded a lot like, "you *ought *to be looking over the fence," to me.  That's all.




Wasn't taking it as accusatory. Not ought to look, but HEY LOOK OUT FOR THE FENCE!, cause some may not have seen it int he first place.

I think [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] sums it up pretty good in a way, in another thread...



Celebrim said:


> I've tried the FLGS route.  It doesn't work.  What you find is that you end up attracting the gamers that have been kicked out of every gaming group that they've ever been in.




I am still trying to find, if there is, a better word for self-segregating...but can't think of one.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 26, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Then you try to serve me yellow squash.  The last time I ate it, I was ten.  I turned green and threw up all over the table.  This convinced my otherwise "food strict" parents that perhaps squash was an exception.  You serve it to me now.  You tell me a polite way to handle this:
> 
> You:  I noticed you missed the squash.
> Me:  No thanks, it isn't my favorite (notice the waffling).
> ...



OK -- as an example to emphasize gametable... 

Replacing "You/player" and "Me/DM" and about the third or fourth "You" and you're getting into "d-bag player" territory.  I agree with Rel's scale.  But the variances may fluctuate depending upon how quickly the player's "asking questions" starts becoming "trying to convince me".  And at what antagonistic level.

I can go cold-hearted DM in two questions, but if the discourse is good there's nothing to lose in having a discussion about your game world.  It might be productive. (without allowing it to escape into metagame info that the players and PCs shouldn't know.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2011)

I want to share 2 real life examples...


1) Ken...and the paliden

  I got into a 2e game mid run (around 3 or 4th level) and asked if I could play a paliden... (mind you I did not know the DM, only 2 of the players) he said no, so i asked why...and got "Becuse I said so". I almost walked, but I played for 2 or 3 levels as a fighter (archer). During that time another player (my best friend) told me the reson the DM disallows palidens was becuse he read a book once that had each god having only 1 paliden, and that was more of an avatar. when my archer got pasted by a whight level draining... so I asked if I could play a 'lesser holy warrior' and just use the paliden rules...

  he said no again, so I droped it. but a little over a year later both that gm, and I played in a game...and guess what he played... a paliden of Azuth.

he finaly told me he had no problem with palidens, he just likes to denie each player atleast 1 thing every now and again to prove who is in charge...


2) me and the mutants and masterminds

   I had a sheild like org in my superhero game. It was supose to be an 'anti viglanti' task force that was very much int eh grey side. They never went after heroes that were good guys, except half heartedly when already having the villian in prision.
     However they showed up like clock work in almost every super fight...way sooner they would be expected.

     I had all my players ask me how it was possible and I told them all the same thing "you have to find out in game" One player quite becuse I would not answer them...

     well just 3-4 games after that player left was a time travel set of games...and they found out, when they where forced into setting up an elabrate plan to stop an invasion comeing in there own time...and they did exactly what I had hoped and set up a covert group that would become my sheild... and when they set it up, they uploaded all the logs of there tech hero...then went back in to there time... and it was 2 games after that before they relized they themselves gave them the info to intcept every fight...




sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 27, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Zhaleskra, could you clarify your question please?




Why does "I don't allow X, for reason Y, break the deal?" Basically, why is it so important that the game include all the published elements?

As for the capture scenario, it gives the players the chance to go down fighting or just do as the module says. I'd also remind them to think about horror movie tropes.


----------



## Rel (Jan 27, 2011)

Back from another job this afternoon and still woefully lacking any bourbon in the liquor cabinet.  Shame because I feel like it would really go well with this thread.

Shadzar, I have neither the inclination nor energy to go through point by point upon whatever issues we may disagree.  I will however, because for some bizarre reason I'm semi-obsessed with the headache that this thread has become, make an effort at a couple of clarifications that are important in my own mind.

The notion that we all have our own, limited perspectives is of course tautological.  Suggesting that, without having had extensive experience with all these various types of gamers, one is less qualified to offer up an opinion on this, or any, topic seems counter to the whole point of a messageboard such as this one.  We are here precisely for the purpose of gathering diverse opinion on topics that interest us as gamers.

I can only ever offer an opinion based on my personal experience, tailored to whatever specifics are offered by the OP, and generalized to what I believe will apply to most such situations.  That is exactly what I have done in this thread in every post I've made.

*I believe that it is most beneficial to most GM-Player relationships for the GM to be willing to answer a few* (Yes, somewhere between 1 and 20) *questions about why something is banned from the game.  I believe that consideration and communication are of benefit to most relationships, even those of gamers with one another.*

I don't believe that this general rule has exceptions based on whether the player in question is a friend, somebody you hope might become a friend or somebody you have no particular intentions of making a friend.  No doubt there will be personalities and situations where such an approach is not the best one.  Those are, in my opinion, the exceptions that prove the rule.

By way of answering a point that I'm about to claim is largely irrelevant, I have never been to MACE (though I'm considering going this year - problem is that it falls too close to the April NC Game Day for comfort) or StellarCon.  I have been to another local Con, TriNoCon because it was a lot more geographically close and I knew the organizer.  

My experiences at GenCon have focused on gaming with people that I already know or whom I am looking forward to meeting from ENWorld and Circvs Maximvs.  About my GenCon experiences I can say definitively that nearly all of them have involved friends and nearly all of them have involved meeting somebody new, many of whom I have since made friends with.  Also, ENW/CM GenCon games are AWESOME.  That's another General Rule that can be relied upon.

However I would point directly at all such gaming experiences at conventions and say that they have almost nothing to do with the point of this thread.  Regardless of whether your players at a Con are friends, acquaintances or strangers, there simply isn't a lot of Q&A going on between them and the GM.  Most such games that I've ever seen involved pre-generated characters.  Furthermore there simply isn't enough time to spend on asking why some feature might be absent from a particular game setting.  And lastly, one of my favorite things about one-shot games at Cons, you don't have to worry about setting precedents.  There is never a better time to "Say YES!" than in a one-shot game where it is likely to jack up the Awesome with no lasting repercussions.

Yeah I'd say that about covers it for now.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 27, 2011)

GM down
Player up
All together

All three of these are "have a conversation".


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 27, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> GM down
> Player up
> All together
> 
> All three of these are "have a conversation".




1. Prehaps! I'm've was to make football often times.  Play? Know. Best football results twice again. 

2. Every age I have seen out as a baby.  I think I has the solution:  width times height. 

3. As a wery old, I can fathom the scene to be with me.  Looking always as I ever did.  It was not came's.  He borrowed mine. 

Okay, Zhaleskra, I hope that answers your questions. I think we're on the same page.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 27, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Then maybe we can stop pretending that Rel's point is somehow hard to understand?
> 
> Surely, a "How can you communicate better?" thread would be a boon to many, but it wouldn't answer the OP.
> 
> In any event, it seems that there is (now?) a consensus opinion that the GM should be able to simply say No sometimes, without offering more than "Because I don't like it."




Nope.

I think its silly and a bit childish.

DMing is a position of Authority.

If I asked my boss something and he said "No" and I asked for a more elobarate explanation and was denied I'd be a little miffed.

Same thing IMO.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 27, 2011)

The Human Target said:


> If I asked my boss something and he said "No" and I asked for a more elobarate explanation and was denied I'd be a little miffed.




Don't know if any humor is in there or not, so taking this at face value, I would wonder if you still had a job.

Herein lies where the same attitude could be worse in other areas of life, if someone is repeatedly asking about something they have been told no to.

Just using your post as an example...not disagreeing with it, since I am a bit confused on what it is trying to say overall except ~the DM and boss of a job are both positions of authority to be respected, and if either denied you an explanation for a NO, you would be miffed?


----------



## jonesy (Jan 27, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Don't know if any humor is in there or not, so taking this at face value, I would wonder if you still had a job.



I'm obviously not The Human Target, but now I'm a bit curious. You consider 'being a little miffed' a valid reason for firing someone?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 27, 2011)

jonesy said:


> I'm obviously not The Human Target, but now I'm a bit curious. You consider 'being a little miffed' a valid reason for firing someone?




No, questioning the boss after being given the answer of "no". I thought Human Target was miffed at the boss denying more information?


----------



## Tewligan (Jan 27, 2011)

Rel said:


> Back from another job this afternoon and still woefully lacking any bourbon in the liquor cabinet.  Shame because I feel like it would really go well with this thread.



I blame those no-good booze-leeching "friends" you invite over to your house!


----------



## Mircoles (Jan 27, 2011)

I've never known a boss unwilling to explain the reasons for their decisions, unless there isn't time for one.


----------



## Supergyro (Jan 27, 2011)

*It's good enough*

Demanding why someone doesn't like something is a tricky thing.  We do not have 100% understanding of even our own tastes.  

I would much rather the DM say "I just don't like it, can't put my finger on why, but I'd rather leave it out." than the DM give a phony reason (which is all too often in gaming and life).


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 27, 2011)

Rel said:


> *I believe that it is most beneficial to most GM-Player relationships for the GM to be willing to answer a few* (Yes, somewhere between 1 and 20) *questions about why something is banned from the game.  I believe that consideration and communication are of benefit to most relationships, even those of gamers with one another.*



Accepting this as a given, is, "I dunno, I just don't like 'em so there're none in this game," a reasonable answer?

Frex, I never, ever played 'kitchen sink' _D&D_; from the first time I read the _Monster Manual_, there was stuff I liked and stuff I didn't, and when I began dungeon mastering I excluded the stuff I didn't. Sometimes my reasons could be readily articulated, and sometimes they were, "I dunno, I think it's just kinda dumb."

I haven't used kobolds in most o the games I've run - the only humanoids the last couple of times I ran some form of _D&D_ were goblinoids (gobbos, hobbos, and buggos) and gnolls. Why not use kobolds? I don't have a particularly good reason - I just don't like them, so I don't use them.

Playing (up to) twenty questions about why I don't put kobolds in my fantasy settings isn't going to make for much of a discussion.

I don't think every decision made by the referee about what's in or out of a setting needs much more in the way of explanation. However, I get the strong feeling that there are some players out there for whom this is just unacceptable, that if the referee doesn't have either some mechanical reason for excluding something - 'goliaths r teh brwkn!' - or a specific in-game setting explanation for the absence, then the default position should be, 'Anything Goes!'

In my opinion, at the end of the day, "I don't like fantasy robots" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, "So why _don't_ you allow warforged?"


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 27, 2011)

Tewligan said:


> I blame those no-good booze-leeching "friends" you invite over to your house!




I must agree. Alcohol takes away from the pure pleasures of gaming. Much like other self-segregating behaviors, drinking only makes you a "friend" to one person: alcohol.  It is a common gaming social fallacy that one must enjoy the campaign you play in. Its more important to soldier on for the pure purpose of the art.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm sure what I'm about to say will be unpopular with many people here. Before I get to the point, I have not moved to D&D 4E and have only one product for it, which is not a PHB.

For the most part, I carpet ban splat books, unless I own them. Why? Because I don't want to have to spend time learning a subset of rules to make your character work. I don't have the sort of "ooo shiny" I did in my early years in college. Additionally, small apartment, so I have to have less "stuff". And you know what? I like it that way. Feels more like I own my stuff than my stuff owning me.

As for why I don't like Warforged, I picked the Eberron setting up once, then put it back on the shelf after reading the brief. Plus, Diomin has a similar race, that does have actual genders, that I think is cooler, and because Diomin was published in 2000 they're an older race.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 27, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I don't think every decision made by the referee about what's in or out of a setting needs much more in the way of explanation. However, I get the strong feeling that there are some players out there for whom this is just unacceptable, that if the referee doesn't have either some mechanical reason for excluding something - 'goliaths r teh brwkn!' - or a specific in-game setting explanation for the absence, then the default position should be, 'Anything Goes!'




Yeah, this is the heart of the problem.  There is a huge difference between:

1. "Why did you take out X.  I'm really curious, because this affects my understanding of the campaign world, how I make my character, etc," versus ...

2. "Why did you take out X.  Explain yourself!"

Communication is nearly always useful in the first case, if even of the "I don't really know, but something rubs me wrong about them."

In the second case, we already have too much communication, and the topic is no longer why X is not in the campaign.  The topic is whether or not the questioner is going to let us suspect he is a socially inept jackass, or keep talking and remove all doubt.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but some won't let me. 

Now, every now and then you get the socially inept non-jackass who is really trying to ask an honest question, but hasn't learned how yet.  That's why if the GM can be a saint and endure it, it might help someone out some day.  Personally, being far from a saint, I only give this leeway to people with a good excuse for being somewhat socially inept--e.g. teenagers, chronic wall flower, etc.  If your 35, been out in society some, and you haven't figured this stuff out, chance are you won't.  And if you do, it won't be because I listened to your blathering.


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 27, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> BTW, [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION], does your User Name come from Fraggle Rock?  Enquiring minds want to know!




I was reading this thread trying to figure out how my name got mentioned...

Nope. My name comes from a nickname I got due to a combination of the following:

- Dragonboat race with bunny ears (just because)
- Raining for 2 days straight
- Large (as in 10s of metres in diameter) mud puddles on what was smooth grass
- A desire to get the hot girls on our team/other teams sliding in the mud.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 27, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I'm sure what I'm about to say will be unpopular with many people here. Before I get to the point, I have not moved to D&D 4E and have only one product for it, which is not a PHB.
> 
> For the most part, I carpet ban splat books, unless I own them. Why? Because I don't want to have to spend time learning a subset of rules to make your character work. I don't have the sort of "ooo shiny" I did in my early years in college. Additionally, small apartment, so I have to have less "stuff". And you know what? I like it that way. Feels more like I own my stuff than my stuff owning me.
> 
> As for why I don't like Warforged, I picked the Eberron setting up once, then put it back on the shelf after reading the brief. Plus, Diomin has a similar race, that does have actual genders, that I think is cooler, and because Diomin was published in 2000 they're an older race.




Now you just seem to be randomly justifying your lifestyles choices to strangers on the internet.


----------



## Rel (Jan 27, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Accepting this as a given, is, "I dunno, I just don't like 'em so there're none in this game," a reasonable answer?
> 
> Frex, I never, ever played 'kitchen sink' _D&D_; from the first time I read the _Monster Manual_, there was stuff I liked and stuff I didn't, and when I began dungeon mastering I excluded the stuff I didn't. Sometimes my reasons could be readily articulated, and sometimes they were, "I dunno, I think it's just kinda dumb."
> 
> I haven't used kobolds in most o the games I've run - the only humanoids the last couple of times I ran some form of _D&D_ were goblinoids (gobbos, hobbos, and buggos) and gnolls. Why not use kobolds? I don't have a particularly good reason - I just don't like them, so I don't use them.




This is a great example that I think can be used to show what reasonable, effective communication is like.

I tend to view the monsters and foes in the game as more squarely in the province of the GM.  It's hard for me to envision a player caring very much about whether the game includes Kobolds or not.  I do think it would be reasonable for them to ask on the basis of something like a Ranger's Preferred Enemy and stuff like that.  Obviously they don't want to pick Kobolds if there are no Kobolds in the world.  

It would be reasonable for the Player and GM to have some conversation about what monsters are likely to be common in the game world.  If the player wants to ask "Why?" and the GM says, "I just don't like them, so I don't use them." then that's a reasonable answer.  I think that a reasonable player could also follow up with another question like, "Do you just not like the aesthetic or that they are cliche or that they're wimpy or what?"  That might prompt consideration of one of those options by the GM and maybe adds clarity to his own thoughts.  Or not.  Either way these are all reasonable questions and answers.

If the player on the other hand wants to play a Kobold character then he's got a more vested interest in that particular monster race.  If the GM says, "No Kobolds in my world." then I don't think it is unreasonable for the player to ask why.  At that point, "I just don't like them, so I don't use them." is probably not a very satisfying answer for the player.  It might still be the truth.  If I were the GM in that circumstance and those were my feelings about Kobolds then my reply to the player in addition to stating my dislike of Kobolds would be, "What about this character concept requires you to be a Kobold?  Perhaps we can work out a reasonable substitute."  Or I might simply ask, "What is it about Kobolds that you like?  Maybe I'm missing part of the charm?"

Again, even if this conversation doesn't lead to the inclusion of Kobolds in the campaign (which I think is entirely up to the GM), you've shown the player some consideration AND you've each gained a greater understanding of the other's thought process.  I believe that can only be to the benefit of the game going forward.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 27, 2011)

The Human Target said:


> Now you just seem to be randomly justifying your lifestyles choices to strangers on the internet.




Up to now, I was willing to read your responses even if I do find your comment that a GM restricting things without explaining why to be "a bit childish" to be even more childish.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 27, 2011)

The Human Target said:


> DMing is a position of Authority.
> 
> If I asked my boss something and he said "No" and I asked for a more elobarate explanation and was denied I'd be a little miffed.
> 
> Same thing IMO.




I agree and disagree. A DM does not have absolute executive authority, only responsibility for certain aspects of the game, and only as allowed by the group. The DM is a part of the game and the group, just the same as players are...just with different roles. A DM is not as much an authority figure, as they are a member of a collaborative team... although usually the sole member with the responsibility and challenge of adjudicating the rules and presenting/shepherding the story (unless running a sandbox game, in which case the players are responsible for the story also).

Which is why I don't agree with the Boss/Employee analogy.

A DM only has authority over that which the group allows them to, and is subject to accountability to the group. A gaming group is an almost purely democratic entity where division of responsibilities are agreed upon by the entire group (even if by assumed conceits). These roles are not absolute and can be changed at any time by group fiat.

A Boss/Employee relationship is quite different.

A Boss, for the most part, only has responsibility to those above them in position, and not to those below them. A Boss does have a responsibility to deal with those under them fairly (or at least a good Boss does), but still is not "beholden" to the desires or authority of those underlings. Employees do not have authority over their boss, playes in a game do have authority over the DM. DM's run games only because the group allows them to.

A DM who felt they were entitled to positional respect or felt they had absolute authority over the game, is someone I would not participate in a game with. A DM who continually acted as if they had the "authority" to do things contrary to the will of the group, is a DM who will most likely end up running out of people willing to participate in their games.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 27, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I agree and disagree.




I mean you are right, but I think its a close enough example to get what I'm going for. 

Lets try a Spider-Man reference- With great Game Mastering power, comes great responsibility.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jan 27, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Yeah, this is the heart of the problem.  There is a huge difference between:
> 
> 1. "Why did you take out X.  I'm really curious, because this affects my understanding of the campaign world, how I make my character, etc," versus ...
> 
> 2. "Why did you take out X.  Explain yourself!"



Yeah, tone and attitude make the difference. A candid but polite "I don't like it. I'd let you play it, but I know I'd subconsciously favor the other characters over yours" is acceptable, while an emotional "X is _stupid_, so I don't like it' is a big fat red flag.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 27, 2011)

Tone and attitude make a big difference on either side.

It's one thing if the tone and attitude of the player comes across as polite and curious, and another if it comes across as rude and demanding.  No one has a right to know what is happening in another person's head.  Obviously, there are often good reasons to share, but the decision always resides with the person sharing.

(Whether or not you want to hang out/play games with a person may, obviously, be affected by the decisions they make!)

Or maybe it's just that I'm old enough to remember when a concept of person privacy wasn't unusual at all......?  


RC


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 27, 2011)

Rel said:


> Again, even if this conversation doesn't lead to the inclusion of Kobolds in the campaign (which I think is entirely up to the GM), you've shown the player some consideration AND you've each gained a greater understanding of the other's thought process. I believe that can only be to the benefit of the game going forward.




Assuming, up front, good faith (and resulting reasonable courtesy) on both parts, then yes.

I think the only part where I really disagree with anything you've said in this topic is that I get the impression that you think we ought to so assume, *even when* the other person is firing off all kinds of signals that indicate that good faith is probably not present.


----------



## Rel (Jan 27, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Assuming, up front, good faith (and resulting reasonable courtesy) on both parts, then yes.
> 
> I think the only part where I really disagree with anything you've said in this topic is that I get the impression that you think we ought to so assume, *even when* the other person is firing off all kinds of signals that indicate that good faith is probably not present.




I'll admit that I'm a big believer in giving the benefit of the doubt.

If I were kicking off a campaign and a player approached me about something I excluded, with a clear tone that was angry and demanding, I'd probably still give them an answer beyond "I don't like it."  But I would also say that my "Bad Player Threshold" would probably be a lot closer to 2 questions than to 20.

I'm speaking mostly from a hypothetical basis because I tend to be very good at selecting players who are not jerks.  And I'm also pretty good at dealing with jerks when they crop up unexpectedly.  I find that quickly making them understand that their behavior is not acceptable and they are on a short path to being excluded from the game tends to make them shape up.


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 27, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Tone and attitude make a big difference on either side.
> 
> It's one thing if the tone and attitude of the player comes across as polite and curious, and another if it comes across as rude and demanding.  No one has a right to know what is happening in another person's head.  Obviously, there are often good reasons to share, but the decision always resides with the person sharing.
> 
> ...





Yes precisely RC. Well said as usual. 


C.I.D.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 27, 2011)

Rel said:


> I'll admit that I'm a big believer in giving the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> If I were kicking off a campaign and a player approached me about something I excluded, with a clear tone that was angry and demanding, I'd probably still give them an answer beyond "I don't like it." But I would also say that my "Bad Player Threshold" would probably be a lot closer to 2 questions than to 20.
> 
> I'm speaking mostly from a hypothetical basis because I tend to be very good at selecting players who are not jerks. And I'm also pretty good at dealing with jerks when they crop up unexpectedly. I find that quickly making them understand that their behavior is not acceptable and they are on a short path to being excluded from the game tends to make them shape up.




Gotcha. That's where we are different.  I'm also good at selecting players who are not jerks.  I'm not at all good at dealing with jerks.  Well, I come out ok, in that I know that with my personality, I'm merely going to make them madder if I try to deal with them.  So I don't, and then I move on without worrying about it.  But they don't get anything particularly useful out of the exchange.  I deal with jerks by ... refusing to deal with them.


----------



## Rel (Jan 27, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Gotcha. That's where we are different.  I'm also good at selecting players who are not jerks.  I'm not at all good at dealing with jerks.  Well, I come out ok, in that I know that with my personality, I'm merely going to make them madder if I try to deal with them.  So I don't, and then I move on without worrying about it.  But they don't get anything particularly useful out of the exchange.  I deal with jerks by ... refusing to deal with them.




I should probably be more clear that I have only ever dealt with jerks at one-shot games at Cons or the game store and even then only very rarely.  I of course would exclude any jerks from an ongoing game.

One thing I've found is that some jerks can be dealt with by harnessing their jerk powers for the forces of Good.

There was this one guy who used to come to the NC Game Days and always wanted to play in my games (hey, who can blame him?  I run fun games!).  His problem was that he was into gaming for the big explosions.  The bigger the explosion and the more of them there were, the happier he was.  He would frequently attempt to hijack the scene and try to guide it toward a big explosion.

My way of dealing with him was to quickly shut him down if he tried to hijack a non-explosion-focused scene for the purposes of exploding it.  But then I'd let him run wild in an explosion frenzy when such scenes were appropriate.  Meanwhile, everybody else at the table could basically try and come up with ways to let this guy get himself killed.  They got the visceral joy of maneuvering the explosion guy into getting himself killed and he certainly brought some energy to the scenes where there was the blowing up of stuff.

I will note that other groups were less generous with this guy.  I heard one story of a game where they were about to enter a room with a Vampire and the plan was for everybody to hold their action until the Cleric got a chance to do some anti-Vampire thing (turn undead or throw holy water or something like that).  The Explosion Guy won initiative and charged into the room.  On the Cleric's turn he shut the door behind Explosion Guy's character and the entire rest of the party calmly waited outside while Explosion Guy's character was very quickly killed by the Vampire.  Then, after the screams had died out, the party entered the room, executed their original plan, and defeated the Vampire.

Explosion Guy kept asking, "Can I come back as an undead?"

GM said, "Nope."


I'm a little fuzzy as to whether the Explosion Guy asked, "Why not?"  GM would probably have said, "I don't like you."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 27, 2011)

My view is also probably coloured by the fact that, in over 30 years of gaming, I have never seen a good result come from pushing a GM after he had firmly said No, but I have seen good as a result of the GM deciding that the conversation was over.

YMMV, and certainly will, if your experiences are different.


RC


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jan 27, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Yeah, tone and attitude make the difference. A candid but polite "I don't like it. I'd let you play it, but I know I'd subconsciously favor the other characters over yours" is acceptable, while an emotional "X is _stupid_, so I don't like it' is a big fat red flag.




My version would be "sure I could let you have stuff made out of adamantium, but I know in my gut I'd feel the same way about your character as I do about people who's favorite X-man is Wolverine, which is not a favorable opinion."


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 28, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> My version would be "sure I could let you have stuff made out of adamantium, but I know in my gut I'd feel the same way about your character as I do about people who's favorite X-man is Wolverine, which is not a favorable opinion."




Perhaps Wolverine was not the inspiration:


----------



## shadzar (Jan 28, 2011)

Rel said:


> It would be reasonable for the Player and GM to have some conversation about what monsters are likely to be common in the game world.




Why? Players don't design the game world.

------------------------------------
I think many people may be overlooking something here with regards to this "communication" trek they are on.

"Why" in response to "i don't like it" isn't the first question, but at least the second.

Let's look at a whole conversation:

DM: I don't like it
Player: Why?

But how did we get here? There had to be at least one question before. The one to which "I don't like it" was the answer to. So I see it progressing more like this which actually puts this "why" looking for more information to be a 3rd question in a line of question:

Player: Can I have X?
DM: No.
Player: Why?
DM: I don't like it.
Player: Why?

Doesn't look very much like communication to me, already looking very close to badgering the DM at this point.

I also don't think it possible if the conversation went something like this:

DM: In this world there will be dragonborn and goblins, but no kobolds, <interrupted>
Player: Why?

That already shows signs the player would be disruptive for not waiting until the end of the description where they might have found out more had they kept there questions to the end.

"I don't like it", was already an attempt to qualify the reason the player wasn't allowed to use X.

I don't play 20 questions, I play D&D. Those that want to play 20 questions may do so, but trying to quantify that for all, is not within their rights.

There is way too much stuff to get done to allow too many questions form players if you intend to play a game. "Can I have/use...", is always allowed, and asking for a reason why not after that is sometimes allowed, but once you have ben given a reason by the DM, anything after that is badgering. To me that means this player will be problematic and disruptive during the game.

Different people have different levels on how far they can be "pushed". A fair and honest answer given is more than enough.

Take into account this player is trying all sorts of things some the reason being "I don't like it", some being things that will be found out later, some being this "communication". Let us say this player has tried to ask if they can have 10 different things. All are little things, but things not allowed. Now not only has that player wasted an hour of the DMs time ,but the DM too has wasted an hour of everyone else's game time for this one player.

So all this "communication" stuff is way off track of the topic.



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




Simply put, it is good enough. But some will not accept it at all.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Why? Players don't design the game world.



In the first place, the players' characters have presumably lived there for some time and if they (say) have never even heard of kobolds, then the ranger PC should not be picking kobolds as a favored enemy.

More importantly, the statement is simplistic and ignores the many ways in which players can directly or indirectly influence the game world to create a better play experience for both the players and the DM. It can be something as simple as the player of a character with an uncommon race inventing unique customs and traditions for it, or as subtle as the DM changing aspects of the game world's history to take into account elements of the characters' backgrounds. 

The DM who thinks that his game world cannot be improved with player input is either very, very good, or very, very deluded.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2011)

On the whole I'm on the "communication is good, and things will probably be better if people give reasons" side of the discussion.

That said, outside of conventions, which I haven't been to for many years now, I don't play with people I don't enjoy spending time with in any event.

When my current 4e game started a couple of years ago, each of the players was (and still is) a friend whom, at that time, I had known for around 15 years or more. I'd also RPGed with all of them, some recently, some not so recently. Before the first session, I emailed around a primer document which said, basically: (i) the game will be set in the default 4e world; (ii) you can use FR 4e stuff as well, but convert any god or other cultural references to default 4e; and (iii) in your PC background, give yourself a reason to be adventuring and a reason to really dislike goblins.

None of the players queried any of this. We'd agreed to play a 4e game, after all, and I think they trusted me (as GM) to provide a reasonable gaming experience that would at least start with some goblin bashing. They knew that I had ideas for using an old Basic D&D module, Night's Dark Terror, for the game, and at least one of them knew that the opening scene in that module is defending a homestead from goblin raiders.

If one of the players had said, "I really don't want to play a goblin bash, can it be kobolds instead?" I think I could have accommodated that without much trouble - though I personally think it would be an odd request.

If one of the players had said, "I really want to play a PC who pretends to hate goblins, but in fact is going to betray the other PCs at some point" I think I could have accommodated that as well, although with a bit more effort - I don't mind a bit of intra-party rivalry, but it has to be handled carefully, especially in 4e which is a very party-focused game.

If one of the players had said, "I want to play a goblin" I think I would have had to say "I really don't have an idea of how to make that work in a 4e game, especially as the only low-level module I have that seems like it will be good for 4e is a goblin-bash".

To some extent the players have to take me as they find me, if only because my time, resources and imagination are limited. And if they press me, I'm not ashamed to explain that these are the constraints I'm working under. I've never had an experience where a player insist that s/he is owed _more_ time, resources or creativity.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 28, 2011)

Many people have no choice but, pemerton, to play in a group with non-friends, due to real life constraints.

I think many people forget that.

If you are playing wiht people that don't know much or any about the game, then answering the same questions over and over get tiresome FAST. Likewise all those questions for a beginner game aren't needed.

The "why this", or "why not that"" only impedes gameplay.

You cannot waste time to build trust or friendship when your task is to run the game for everyone with one person constantly asking questions that are moot.



FireLance said:


> In the first place, the players' characters have presumably lived there for some time and if they (say) have never even heard of kobolds, then the ranger PC should not be picking kobolds as a favored enemy.




But that has nothing to do with a conversation around both designing the game world, just the ranger player accepting kobolds don't exist, so don't waste the mechanic writing them down. 

The players input doesn't change a thing, because the DM already decided kobolds don't exist.

Even Rel said the monsters are not objectionable for the DM to just decide if present, as their inclusion or not is the province of the GM.

So the later thing contradicts that.

If we assume the DM decides what monsters would be present and says no kobolds up front, then that didn't change in the scenario. So what discussion is there? The ranger just needs a race to write down. If kobolds aren't in, then pick something that was NOT listed as not present. Best probably to pick another common monster type rather than an obscure one that might never be seen, like maybe pick gnomes. RAWR!

Influence =/= design. Unless the PCs are spawning kobolds or something, it doesnt affect the design, just as you said, influences the world. What it started as is unchanged, only what happens after.



> a character with an uncommon race inventing unique customs and traditions for it




This could quite easily fall into ridiculous backstory territory. A player deciding for an entire race what the customs are, yet another player doesn't get to be rich form the start because they were born of nobility and jsut adventuring to learn about the world.

Maybe customs for their little village they grew up in, but does that village still exist, and will it be a part of the game? This is all better for another thread related to backstories.



> The DM who thinks that his game world cannot be improved with player input is either very, very good, or very, very deluded.



OR

Has players with very poor ideas.

The design of the game isn't for the players, unless they ask someone to run Module #1957 for them. When they found the DM that will, there is no need for further communication about anything because you already picked the train you wish to ride, so no sense in complaining about the rails then.

Player info about game design often leads to the end of the game that DM is running, because basically people will start thinking of a new game, and lose interest they had in the current one. Or the DM just becomes the player slave to include and change things on their whim.

When you pick a DM to run a game, if you didn't say anything else, it is your fault for not specifying what game you wanted to play be it 3.5, 4th, sword and sorcery, high fantasy, hoards of kobolds, Pathfinder, etc.

Which leads both of these together as indicated the same about lasting group of friends, that the trust issue is the main thing. When that is lost the game soon fails. If you didn't trust the DM to run a fun game, then why pick, or join in his game?

Lets say a game existed with friends and you had been playing a while and someone wanted to invite a new friend. They really like kobolds as an enemy of their ranger but everyone had already agreed tot he DMs no kobold world. Should this player just accept the DMs choice of no kobolds that everyone else agreed to or ret-con the world to add kobolds for him?

MAybe that initial "conversation" goes something like this:

DM: Welcome...intros game...no kobolds exist....continues intro of game
New Player: I always pick kobolds for my rangers enemy.
DM: Well they aren't in this world, you will have to pick something else.
NP: Why?
DM: Because I don't like them.
NP: Why not?

If I were this DM I would be ready to show them the door. Another player invited them and should have explained things about the game to them so my time wasn't wasted. Now after I had to explain things and will ahve to add thi player to the group at a good time and trying to figure out how to do this best and quickest I am being questioned about the design of the game?

Lets say the DM responded:

DM: Because I have never liked them.

Here the DM has shown a social cue. They repeated a previous response to a similar question asked a different way. This shows this person is NOT willing or interested in discussing it. Should the player pres further, then they are no longer being polite, or just very socially inept.

So is this all really a control and trust issue? DM is given control when you chose them or sat at their table. You charged them with the task of making things work. If you don't trust them, you can just walk away and do without a game, rather than remove the game from the equation and turn it into something more personal.

Remove the religious connotations from it if you want, but I would think the "Serenity Prayer" applies here.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference between them.​


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Why? Players don't design the game world.




Why?! As Raven Crowking mentioned earlier, its so that players can pick languages for their characters. That's one reason enough. The DM doesn't need to tell the players more than the common monster races, I'll give that, but its still part of the game world. Players need to place their characters as interacting entities within your creation. 


C.I.D.


----------



## Rel (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> You cannot waste time to build trust or friendship when your task is to run the game for everyone with one person constantly asking questions that are moot...
> 
> ...The design of the game isn't for the players, unless they ask someone to run Module #1957 for them. When they found the DM that will, there is no need for further communication about anything because you already picked the train you wish to ride, so no sense in complaining about the rails then.




You've painted a much clearer picture of your view of the GM's role with this post.  Thanks.


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 28, 2011)

Rel said:


> You've painted a much clearer picture of your view of the GM's role with this post.  Thanks.




Yes it is always important to push art for arts sake before pleasure in hobbies. Shadzar continues this patriotic and ultimately self-segregating goal. This is what made America the hub of innovation in the past century. I ultimately mean this as a great compliment. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Many people have no choice but, pemerton, to play in a group with non-friends, due to real life constraints.
> 
> I think many people forget that.
> 
> ...





Ever so my friends. Shadzar, you eloquence and your brevity do justice to your arguments. 

I wonder if perhaps unfortunately you might be overlooking the possibility of Raven Crowking's earlier posts. Let me be specific, the post about player characters' "freewill". 

C.I.D.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 28, 2011)

If that is what you call it with your cut-and-paste attempt to twist words Rel, then so be it.

Best to read things that are said in context than remove them to make things up, unless you are going into broadcast journalism to be the next Bill O'Rielly.

*Okay, clearly we need to have a little talk. Suspending you from the thread until we do. ~ Piratecat*

When you view those two parts of the larger post you quoted and hacked up for your own meaning as the independent things they were discussing, THEN and ONLY THEN, might you have any kind of picture of my views.



Cyronax said:


> Why?! As Raven Crowking mentioned earlier, its so that players can pick languages for their characters. That's one reason enough. The DM doesn't need to tell the players more than the common monster races, I'll give that, but its still part of the game world. Players need to place their characters as interacting entities within your creation.
> 
> 
> C.I.D.




Someone writing kobold down for a language on their sheet isn't designing the game world, they are just wasting a slot of their languages when they know kobolds don't exist.

I think this has gone far off track of the original concept. We are now not talking about a DM not allowing something because they "don't like it", but campaign design itself, and I think it is throwing people off the main topic a bit.

So how does it work that a DM saying "no kobolds because I don't like them", allows the players to in some way design the game by writing kobold down for a language spoken or preferred enemy on a character sheet?

Does it make kobolds now a part of the game? Can a player them write down 5 million gold on the sheet to help the DM design the game too?

The things written on a character sheet aren't there to design the game, but define the character. The game was already designed. Adding kobolds where they never existed will not be something easy to do, and tkaing them away should a new player come along, could mes up if people already have that as a language of preferred enemy choice.

The characters shape the existing world, but the DM designed the world. If the players wanted some things specifically in it and there was no objection from the DM, then odds are they will eventually show up. If the DM said things doesn't exist, then odds are they wont exist in the future either.

Now to go try to find the post on languages that I must have missed at some point to see what was said in it.


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> If that is what you call it with your cut-and-paste attempt to twist words Rel, then so be it.
> 
> Best to read things that are said in context than remove them to make things up, unless you are going into broadcast journalism to be the next Bill O'Rielly.
> 
> ...




Yes Shadzar. I agree.

I don't know what to make of Bill O' Reilly. He's normally too focused on his own world. He lacks the empathy required to interact with other individuals. 


What I want to know is why languages like 'kobold' aren't turned over to Thieves' Guilds around the game world. Clearly kobolds are one of the under-races correct, Shadzar? 


C.I.D.

*For reference, folks, polluting a thread with sarcastic non-sequiters is something we don't want to see. If you think you can't get along with someone and don't care to actually discuss it, please just put them on ignore. - Piratecat*


----------



## shadzar (Jan 28, 2011)

Cyronax said:


> What I want to know is why languages like 'kobold' aren't turned over to Thieves' Guilds around the game world. Clearly kobolds are one of the under-races correct, Shadzar?
> 
> 
> C.I.D.




Are you asking if kobolds speak undercommon?


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 28, 2011)

Rel said:


> Again, even if this conversation doesn't lead to the inclusion of Kobolds in the campaign (*which I think is entirely up to the GM*), you've shown the player some consideration AND you've each gained a greater understanding of the other's thought process.  I believe that can only be to the benefit of the game going forward.



We can talk about communications and cooperation and courtesy all we want, but in the end this thread, and all the others like it I've read over the years, comes down to one thing: *WHO DECIDES?*

Is it the referee who creates the setting? Is it the rules of the game? Is it the players? Is it consensus? Ultimately someone, or something, is the final authority, and in my opinion these threads go 'round and 'round trying to decide who or what that is.

Different games, and different traditions among gamers, offer a variety of answers to that question, and ultimately I believe it's simply a matter of personal preference.

My own preference is that the referee is the final authority, with the understanding that if the referee wants to find and keep a group of happy players, then the players and rules must be a factor in decision about the game. I can readily understand why others might disagree with that take, and why other options developed over time, but it works for me, which tells me I must be doing something right.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2011)

The Shaman, I don't think that there necessarily _has to be_ a final authority - certainly not a single final authority for all these calls.

When we're talking about small group decision-making that typifies RPGing, consensus is sometimes possible. Or final authority can be distributed informally from decision-event to decision-event, just as it might be when eg choosing which cafe to go to - if it's clear that today friend X is really going to be put out if s/he doesn't get to go to his/her favourite place, then we defer - but it doesn't mean that s/he'll get to decide every time.

In more formal contexts where trust is weaker and/or time more important (eg con games, game store games) maybe this won't work. But a lot of RPGs aren't played under those conditions.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2011)

Shadzar, one time I joined a startup 2nd ed game where a couple of the players were friends, the GM an acquaintance and some other players strangers.

I picked the Cavalier kit for my Skills and Powers cleric. I needed a backstory for my cavalier, so got a list of countries and gods from the GM and then wrote something up about being the next in line to a county where my brother was the count, but was distressingly subordinated to the drow overlords. I also made up an order of religious knights which I had run away to join and be trained by, and whose arms I now bore on my surcoat and shield.

I ran it past the GM, and he OKed it. If he wanted it changed I guess I would have, but I would also have been a bit surprised - from my point of view my backstory wasn't hurting his game, but giving him stuff to work with in hooking my PC (and me) into his game.

Is this the sort of player participation in world building that you object to?


----------



## FireLance (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> But that has nothing to do with a conversation around both designing the game world, just the ranger player accepting kobolds don't exist, so don't waste the mechanic writing them down.



Since Rel's orginal point, which you responded to with that statement, was about a conversation regarding what monsters are common in the game world arising from the ranger player needing to choose a favored enemy, it is about as relevant to your statement as your statement was to Rel's post.



> Influence =/= design. Unless the PCs are spawning kobolds or something, it doesnt affect the design, just as you said, influences the world. What it started as is unchanged, only what happens after.



The thesis of your post appeared to be, "Players do not design the game world, so it is pointless for the player to have a conversation with the DM about what monsters there are in the game world." 

My response to that was to suggest that firstly, depending on the relationship between the players and the DM, the first part of your thesis may not actually be true - some players may actually have direct control over certain aspects of the game world. Secondly, even if the DM retains direct control over the design of the game world, conversations between the player and the DM are not pointless because they are opportunities for the players to learn more information about the game world (that their characters should reasonably know as inhabitants of the world), and because they may influence DM decisions in ways that would make the game more enjoyable for everyone involved.



> This could quite easily fall into ridiculous backstory territory. A player deciding for an entire race what the customs are, yet another player doesn't get to be rich form the start because they were born of nobility and jsut adventuring to learn about the world.



Yes, it could, but obviously the DM would only entrust such power to a player who is responsible enough and has the ability to distinguish between _interesting flavor_ and _game-disrupting effects_ with the DM as a secondary check to ensure that the inputs are of the former instead of the latter variety. 



> OR
> 
> Has players with very poor ideas.



Oh, ideas are actually a bonus. What a DM should (IMO) be trying to elicit from his players are _preferences_ which might lead him to make changes to his game world, or at the very least, to emphasize different elements during the game. 

That said, most of the time, I do game with fairly intelligent and creative people (it's funny how gaming tends to attract people like that) and so, good ideas are not out of the question, either.



> The design of the game isn't for the players, unless they ask someone to run Module #1957 for them. When they found the DM that will, there is no need for further communication about anything because you already picked the train you wish to ride, so no sense in complaining about the rails then.



I'm not sure why you are bringing up game design. I thought we were discussing game _world_ design?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 28, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The Shaman, I don't think that there necessarily _has to be_ a final authority - certainly not a single final authority for all these calls.



For The Shaman there does, as well for others. For some, it seems there doesn't.


pemerton said:


> Shadzar, one time I joined a startup 2nd ed game where a couple of the players were friends, the GM an acquaintance and some other players strangers.
> 
> I picked the Cavalier kit for my Skills and Powers cleric. I needed a backstory for my cavalier, so got a list of countries and gods from the GM and then wrote something up about being the next in line to a county where my brother was the count, but was distressingly subordinated to the drow overlords. I also made up an order of religious knights which I had run away to join and be trained by, and whose arms I now bore on my surcoat and shield.
> 
> ...



It really all depends on what you did with that backstory in the game, or how much you expect to be incorporated into the game.

If you left it a just some background for the DM's reading pleasure then it really doesn't design a thing for the game world itself, as it never becomes a part of the game.

If you used stuff from this such as angst against the drow, then it isnt designing the world either, just giving the DM some information about why your character acts in certain ways based on this information.

If your character is always going around talking about being the next in line to so-and-so and trying to direct the game back there to check on it, or to use that background as resources either monetarily or other that would force creation of NPCs where they may not otherwise have a place or be needed, then that would be the ridiculous backstories.

I like the way it was explained in 2nd edition of which here is a little section:

A character's background is a role-playing tool. It provides the player with more information about his character, more beginning personality on which to build. It should complement your campaign and spur it forward. Background details should stay there--in the background. What your characters are doing now and will do in the future is more important than what they were and what they did.​


FireLance said:


> I'm not sure why you are bringing up game design. I thought we were discussing game _world_ design?




I consider each group to be designing their own game as no two groups play the "same game" the same way.

Inclusion or banning of certain parts of the published material for a game system causes games to be different.



			
				Shadzcabulary said:
			
		

> *Game System:* Ex: D&D, Pathfinder, FATAL, RIFTS, etc
> *Game:* Group of people with a chosen game system they are using
> *Game Design:* Creation of the world/settings/playing field in which the game system will be used to play the game.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> It really all depends on what you did with that backstory in the game, or how much you expect to be incorporated into the game.
> 
> If you left it a just some background for the DM's reading pleasure then it really doesn't design a thing for the game world itself, as it never becomes a part of the game.
> 
> ...



Well, I guess I disagree pretty strongly with that section from the 2nd ed AD&D rules.

Both when I play and when I GM, I _want_ the PC backstories to come into play. I want backstories that lead me, as GM, to introduce situations and NPCs into the game that otherwise I wouldn't have. When you say "wouldn't otherwise have a place or be needed", I want to ask "needed for what?" If they are crucial to the game that the players are trying to play with their PCs, then it seems to me that of course they are needed!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 28, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> We can talk about communications and cooperation and courtesy all we want, but in the end this thread, and all the others like it I've read over the years, comes down to one thing: *WHO DECIDES?*




I agree with this.

My answer, though, would be:  Everyone gets to decide for him- or herself.

The GM gets to decide what he is willing to run.

Each player gets to decide what to play and how.

Sometimes, those decisions preclude certain groups of GMs and players, such as when one player only wants to play something that the GM is unwilling to run a game for, or when one player wants to run a character in such a way as to creep another player out.

At some point, people might experience conflicting desires.  

DM Bob wants to run a campaign world without amazons, but he knows that Linda Carter wants to play an amazon.  At this point, DM Bob has to decide what he wants more:  To run the world as envisioned, or to accomodate Linda Carter.  And only DM Bob knows which is more important to himself.

At the same time, if DM Bob announces that his new campaign world will have no amazons, Linda Carter has to decide what she wants more:  To play something other than an amazon, or to give DM Bob's game a pass, perhaps to seek another where she can play the character of her heart's desire.  And only Linda Carter knows which is more important to herself.

And either or both of them might be able to come up with reasons why it is so, but for either or both of them those reasons might be personal, or they might be hard to articulate.  And perhaps one or both of them doesn't really know why he or she wants what he or she wants.  Regardless, none of these circumstances invalidates either of their right to choose.

The point is, it is arse-backwards to assume that Linda Carter has a right to find DM Bob's campaign a comfy fit, just as it is arse-backwards to assume that DM Bob has a right to expect Linda Carter to play regardless of how he sets up/runs his game.

Compromise is about dealing with conflicting desires.  Knowing the reasons why someone else's desires exist might make you feel better about not getting everything you want, but no one has a right to know why someone else's desires exist, nor does anyone have an obligation to explain themselves.

Communication is good.  That's true.  But that truth doesn't create either a right or an obligation.

Ultimately, for each individual involved, compromise is about understanding _*your own*_ desires, deciding which are most important to you, and deciding which you can set aside in order to fulfill those important ones.  

It is nice if you are both compromising, and everyone gets something that fulfills his or her strongest desires.  But the only person you have a right to demand compromise from is yourself.  And no one else has a right to demand compromise of you.

In most cases, people sort out what they want to do naturally, and compromises occur naturally because a group of people want to play together, and making that happen usually requires some degree of compromise on everyone's part.  That's a pretty natural phenomenon, and one that I feel confident most of us experience on a daily or near-daily basis.

Ultimately, though, that means the buck stops with each of us.  The DM didn't force you to play a game you didn't like.  The player didn't force you to include Broken Build 101 from Splat Book 13.  These were choices that were made because, ultimately, _*that DM or that player was more important than the game*_.

And, if you think about it, that's sort of cool, isn't it?



RC


----------



## Rel (Jan 28, 2011)

I just had a bit of an epiphany about my perspective on this thread.  I'm sure you're all dying to know about it so here it is:

As recently mentioned, I have long had great success at making sure I'm not gaming with jerks.  In fact thinking back on it I can't think of any that I've gamed with in the last ten years for an ongoing campaign.  And certainly less than a handful at one-shot games.

What I have seen some during that same time period is Casual or even outright Passive players.  Not a lot of them, but considerably more common than jerks.  You know, the players who show up on game nights and roll the dice when they are supposed to but otherwise don't seem to really engage with the campaign very much.  For them I think it's a lot like watching a television show or movie with only the mildest participation in the mechanical aspects and little attempt to push any agenda in the game world.  Like I said, I've not had many of these players (none in my current group) but I've found them more common than the pushy jerks by an order of magnitude.

So, to me, when a player is asking questions about aspects of the campaign world design, it shows me that they are interested in those things.  Maybe for roleplaying/story reasons.  Maybe for powergaming/mechanical reasons.  But at least they are interested and seeking to know more.

I think most GMs tend to enjoy talking about our campaigns to interested parties.  But my favorite part of those conversations is when they ask questions I don't know the answers to.  It prompts me to think of the campaign as a painting in progress and the player has just pointed to a blank spot on the canvas and asked, "What's going there?"  Often my favorite answer for them is, "Well what do you think would be cool?"  

Not only are such players frequently in possession of good ideas but, as Firelance says, it tells you their preference.  The merging of player preference with a GM's creative excitement is the alchemy that makes for great campaigns.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 28, 2011)

Rel said:


> I just had a bit of an epiphany about my perspective on this thread.  I'm sure you're all dying to know about it so here it is:




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


----------



## Umbran (Jan 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Communication is good.  That's true.  But that truth doesn't create either a right or an obligation.




Hm, correct me if I am wrong - you use the terms "right" and "obligation" as being pretty strong stuff, yes?  

I think much of the conflict of this thread might dissolve if we all understood that there's Rights and rights, Obligations and obligations.  

If I let people into my home for a party, I am not under an Obligation to try to make sure they have a good time, but I do have an obligation - I have allowed an expectation to be set, and if I don't fulfill that expectation, people would not be wrong to think poorly of me for it.

Basically, it seems to me that all rights (or Rights) come with commensurate responsibilities.   The bigger or more powerful the right, the bigger the responsibility or obligation it carries with it.  This applies in all social situations, and games are social situations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 28, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Hm, correct me if I am wrong - you use the terms "right" and "obligation" as being pretty strong stuff, yes?




No, you can use big letters or small letters.  Doesn't matter.

What matters is whether or not you are looking in the mirror, and trying to decide what you are willing to accept (and trying to enjoy what you have accepted once that decision has been made), or just looking across the table and trying to figure out how to get others to accept what you want.

IMHO, compromise is all about looking inward, and figuring out what it is you really want, and what it is you can do without.  Looking outward allows you to understand other people for the purpose of _*helping them get what they want*_, not for the purpose of helping yourself.....Ideally, anyway.

YMMV.

IMHO, if I let people into my home for a party, I do believe that I have an obligation to provide a venue wherein they can have a good time.  And I have an obligation to fix it if it is not so.

BUT, if I let people into my home to watch old Hammer Horror films, and I am upfront about what I am inviting them to do, I don't have an obligation to ensure that they want to watch old Hammer Horror films.  My extending the invitation offers them the chance to choose what they want.

Similarly, if Bruce Wayne comes to my party, but doesn't really want to go to a party -- say, he really wants to go pursue the Joker -- then he is free to do so.  But that doesn't mean that I have to end the party for everyone else.  My obligation was to provide a party (what I offered), not a chance to thrash the Joker (which is not what I offered).

Nor does it mean, if Clark Kent doesn't care for Hammer Horror films, that I can't have a get-together with Bruce and Diana instead.



> Basically, it seems to me that all rights (or Rights) come with commensurate responsibilities.   The bigger or more powerful the right, the bigger the responsibility or obligation it carries with it.




I agree absolutely with this; and I agree also with the obvious reverse:

All obligations come with the commensurate rights necessary to see that obligation through.   The bigger or more powerful the obligation, the bigger the rights it carries with it.​
As the GM carries the preponderance of obligations for a fun games, he certainly carries the commensurate rights needed to fulfill those obligations.  

There are some elements which, added to the game, mean I lack the skill to make the game as fun as it could be.  To meet my obligation as GM, I don't include those elements....and I have the right to do so.  

Indeed, I have an obligation to do so.  Which is why I am always going on about how a GM should play to his strengths and try to shore up his weaknesses.


RC


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Many people have no choice but, pemerton, to play in a group with non-friends, due to real life constraints.
> 
> I think many people forget that.



Shadzar, maybe this sheds a little light on your opinions about the subject.

I have played one-shots at Cons and more often at the FLGS.  And there have been many times that I haven't ever played with those same players again, either because the FLGS games were "Living" games and the tables weren't often the same mix, or it was a Sponsored Game Day and the encounters were meant to be one-shots.

[EDIT:  Note, though, that most of my gaming has been with a home game, with the same group of players that I have had for 3-4 years, give or take a couple that have moved or started interning somewhere, but we still all talk often.]

Like Rel mentioned, in most of these cases, there is generally a larger group of quieter, more reserved players, than outright jerks.  Though I have seen some before, it doesn't take long to figure out you don't want to play at the same table with them, and it's only a one-shot, so no biggie.

I am curious, shadzar, if you have had many long term campaigns?  Not long term like 3-4 months, but 2+ years or so?  And in this case, have you had games where there were never any friendships formed, either close or casual or even acquaintance?  I don't mean that they are all long-term friendships with weddings and stuff, but even healthy respectful relationships developed over those gaming years.  

When I moved to NC, I didn't know any gamers.  I wanted to get a table together and do some gaming, but I wanted a campaign, not a series of one-shots.

So I did what I thought everyone did.  I checked Meetup.com, forums like EnWorld, and asked around the FLGS.  When someone showed some interest, we exchanged emails, met at coffee or something neutral and talked gaming, interest, etc.  It's like a coffee date, I guess.  I was trying to find out if this was someone I *wanted* to game with.

After a couple more of these coffee meetings (bringing along the new players to the next one, so they can be a part of forming the group), and having a player I liked bring a friend, I got a group together. 

After our sessions, during cleanup and such, or over food breaks, we'd chat about interests and life and stuff.  Over time, one or two would drop out due to moving or having a baby or other RL, and once a player left because it wasn't their bag.  Cool.  No biggie.

But we all developed adult, healthy, respectful relationships and some of us do things "offline" together and some don't.  But I still consider all of them friends to some extent because of the way we treat one another.

Even at one-shots at the FLGS, we'd have 5-10 mins of surface conversation during clean-up or something, so it's possible to get to know people more.

So, shadzar, when you are gaming, do you prefer to stick to the game and not develop relationships with your regular gamers?  I am genuinely interested because it sounds like you don't really make friends while gaming and I wonder if your stance on DMing and communication may be one of the reasons.  

Do you get high turnover, or do you have an established set of players you generally game with?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 28, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> We can talk about communications and cooperation and courtesy all we want, but in the end this thread, and all the others like it I've read over the years, comes down to one thing: *WHO DECIDES?*
> 
> Is it the referee who creates the setting? Is it the rules of the game? Is it the players? Is it consensus? Ultimately someone, or something, is the final authority, and in my opinion these threads go 'round and 'round trying to decide who or what that is.




I agree with that, but my personal concerns are rather orthogonal to that take. 

From the "human relations" angle, I'm just rather sick of the "all problems are communication problems."  I hear that too much in ill-thought business presentations. The last place I want to deal with it is in my hobby. Because, frequently the people saying it know full well that it isn't true, but they have a subset of problems and assumptions for where it is true (or close enough). However, inevitably one or two of their listeners will buy it at face value, and *this will cause trouble for months*.

At its most comical (putting a good face on it), you get some manager or customer with a big problem and a small budget that thinks you can solve it--if we just get enough people in the room and talk long enough. I've seen something like that work exactly once--when the customer and I excluded everyone else from the discussion and hammered out in frank terms just how far his budget could take him--and believe me, I was far more "creative" in our technical approach than I've ever been in a game. But I digress ... 

On the gaming front, it isn't for me about GM integrity of the game world (though I do care about that to varying degrees in different campaigns). It isn't about who gets to say. My take, is that as the DM, I am the "player" tasked with providing the "glue" that holds everything together. This is a descriptive, rather than prescriptive statement (i.e. this is statement of how things are for me, in fact.) Sometimes other players help, which I appreciate, but still the bulk of the effort is mine. With the acceptance of this responsibility comes the obligation to look out for *everyone's* interest (mainly "fun"), mine included. 

A lot of my "exclusions" are not for me, but for the players. And often they are even expressed in those terms: "X is out unless a majority of the players say they want it in." What I am asserting here is often something I have no preference for one way or the other. I just am the guy paying attention enough to know that 3/4 of the players don't like X being in the game.

If you sat and watched our game when these kind of issues arose, I'm fairly certain that there would be a roughly even split amongst these categories:

1. Where I took authority because X mattered to me, and I wasn't going to run a game without it (e.g. no horror games, period).

2. Where I took authority because no one else would (e.g. campaign background direction).

3. Where I took authority on behalf of some of the meeker players, to protect their wants (e.g. limited domination magic).

4. Where I made the players take authority, to fill a similar gap as in #2 (e.g. naming every minor NPC).

5. Where a player asserted authority, and others backed them (e.g. party goals--which I tend to stay out of).

6. Where the players took collective authority against me (e.g. few rule changes during a campaign). 

7. Where no one really cares as long as the thing is done reasonably well, so someone just pipes up and makes a decision (e.g. marching order).

Why someone decides is often more important than what they decide. Can you play Race X in one of my games? If it's a mind-flayer, see #1. If it's a dryad, see #3. If it's mid-campaign and rules bending, see #6.

*Most* stuff falls in #7, which means we can seem fairly easy going from the outside perspective for a long time. Bump up against one of those harder limits, though, and see us in a different light. 

Edit: Jeff, probably "pronoun trouble." You'd think I'd know better, being a fan of Daffy.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Many people have no choice but, pemerton, to play in a group with non-friends, due to real life constraints.
> 
> I think many people forget that.




I don't forget that many folks can only game with folks they don't know well.  But, let us remember that they *always* have the choice not to game.  

It is not a perfect world - you can't always have it the way you want it.  If you do choose to game with folks you don't know, that choice comes with some baggage that you can't really discard just because it is inconvenient.

You walk into the game, there are some things you owe the others at the table.  Which is not to say that you can't jettison someone who is really obnoxious, but you do have to have higher tolerances for some things that you'd not have to take from friends.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 28, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The Shaman, I don't think that there necessarily _has to be_ a final authority - certainly not a single final authority for all these calls.
> 
> When we're talking about small group decision-making that typifies RPGing, consensus is sometimes possible. Or final authority can be distributed informally from decision-event to decision-event . . .



Group consensus, even one which shifts from event to event, still answers the question of *WHO DECIDES?*, which is why I included consensus as one of the possibilities.

It can be distributed and informal or it can be vested in one person, by social contract or by the rules of the game, but however that authority is constituted, at some point that authority is called upon to render a decision: yes or no, in or out.

And that's what this thread, and others like it, are asking: *WHO DECIDES?*

Communication and cooperation and courtesy are, or should be, part of the _process_, but the process isn't the authority; it's how one exercises that authority. In my experience, fetishizing process may obscure what's really important, and I see a little bit of that in this thread.

Should everyone treat everyone else at the gaming table with courtesy and respect? Well, yeah, of course. That's a "No , Sherlock" answer.

But in my opinion there's an undercurrent of, "Courtesy and communication mean saying 'Yes' to your players," for some gamers, which is why I think we need to be clear that the process is not the authority.







Raven Crowking said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> My answer, though, would be:  Everyone gets to decide for him- or herself.
> 
> ...



I agree with this as well - with the possible exceptions of institutional settings or clinical dysfunctions, everyone decides for themselves if they're in or out - but I think that's operating on a different level. *WHO DECIDES?* is a question of how the gaming group agrees to work, once it is constituted as such.

Taking your ball and going home is an option, but that's ending the relationship between the participants; the question of how that relationship will function is no longer relevant.







Raven Crowking said:


> Communication is good.  That's true.  But that truth doesn't create either a right or an obligation. . . . It is nice if you are both compromising, and everyone gets something that fulfills his or her strongest desires.  But the only person you have a right to demand compromise from is yourself.  And no one else has a right to demand compromise of you.



Yup.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 28, 2011)

Ever witnessed the situation where two people were so hell-bent p) on compromise and being nice that they agree to something that neither one of them wants?  And then later, they find out that they both really wanted the same thing, anyway? 

Like a goofball romantic comedy, it can be amusing for outsiders, and even funny, later, for the participants.  Also like a goofball romantic comedy, it often isn't very amusing for the participants at the time.  When it is a whole group of people doing it, this effect is magnified. 

I think this is one frequent instance of the valuing of process over results that the Shaman discussed.


----------



## Cyronax (Jan 29, 2011)

Umbran said:


> You walk into the game, there are some things you owe the others at the table.  Which is not to say that you can't jettison someone who is really obnoxious, but you do have to have higher tolerances for some things that you'd not have to take from friends.





This. 

Earlier sarcasm aside, I believe the whole idea of gaming with a DM, is designating someone who is the creative leader of the group. Why snipe at him/her for wanting to set up the exposition? The DM might give you a big say in it (oh yay I can play a shardmind, even though the DM hates them) or he might say 'humans only'.  Whatever the case, questioning the DM during the session, when the DM in 'on stage'/running the game is not necessarily the best time. 

If they say 'no' and move on. Let them. There is always time for sniping during the after game drinks/other out-of-session social situations. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 29, 2011)

shadzar said:


> But how did we get here? There had to be at least one question before. The one to which "I don't like it" was the answer to. So I see it progressing more like this which actually puts this "why" looking for more information to be a 3rd question in a line of question:
> 
> Player: Can I have X?
> DM: No.
> ...



I can honestly say, unless it's joking around, I've never seen a conversation go like this except with children.  This is a caricature of a conversation.

I'm running a Dark Sun game right now.  So, I'm not allowing Divine classes, and I'm keeping a fairly restrictive list of races.  I didn't have any players question the restrictions in the first place because they trust me as a DM, and understand I'm trying to work with the world.  (I also gave bennies for picking a role they hadn't played before, and picking humans and Dark Sun-specific stuff, but that's another story.)

If one of them had wanted a Cleric, the conversation probably would have gone like this...

"Can I be a cleric?"
"Nope.  Check shamans out, though - or the new druid."
"Why not?"
"Well, there's currently no divine spellcasters; everyone believes the gods are dead, and if they're not, they certainly don't care.  You can roleplay someone who believes in gods, and if you want to go that route, Primal characters like shamans - or any character with the Elemental Priest theme - will work out great.  But right now, there are no divine classes.  If you want to make bringing the gods back to Athas an eventual campaign goal, we can work that in; this is going to be something of a sandbox game."



> I also don't think it possible if the conversation went something like this:
> 
> DM: In this world there will be dragonborn and goblins, but no kobolds, <interrupted>
> Player: Why?
> ...



Again, that just means you're either playing with jerks or with children.  If you're playing with children, ease up a bit!  If you're playing with jerks, well, that's your decision to do so, but don't pretend it's a universal condition that everyone operates under.  Lots of us are friendly, social people who game with rational adults.



> There is way too much stuff to get done to allow too many questions form players if you intend to play a game. "Can I have/use...", is always allowed, and asking for a reason why not after that is sometimes allowed, but once you have ben given a reason by the DM, anything after that is badgering. To me that means this player will be problematic and disruptive during the game.



Oh, come on.  How long does an answer take?  20-30 seconds at most?  If I'm running the game, these are questions that I should have already asked myself.  And again, if your players are just asking for stuff non-stop, examine the population of people you're gaming with and recognize that your experiences are nowhere near the norm.

-O


----------



## pemerton (Jan 29, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> *Most* stuff falls in #7, which means we can seem fairly easy going from the outside perspective for a long time. Bump up against one of those harder limits, though, and see us in a different light.



Good post, can't posrep you at this time.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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!
> 
> ...




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 (Jan 30, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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.



Hussar said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2011)

Mort said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2011)

Mort said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2011)

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 (Jan 30, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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.  



Hussar said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2011)

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).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2011)

shadzar said:


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



I would regard these rules as true of a con game, or something similar like a game with strangers at a club/store.

But in a long-running campaign I think the GM can be expected to listen to and respond to the players. I routinely take advice from my players before making a difficult ruling, for example.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 31, 2011)

the Jester said:


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






the Jester said:


> 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.



I've broached stuff like this with a couple of referees over the years, and in my experience taking a minute to chat during a break or a phone call (_not_ email) between game-nights works best.

I think referees _should_ be amenable to discussing stuff and should make a point of creating opportunities to do so, but it may be a short conversation. As *RC* pointed out, a rationalization need not be _rational_. My dislike of kobolds is wholly irrational, and I recognize it as such, but the fact that it's irrational doesn't make it something I should be expected to discard; you can't convince me to like kobolds any more than you can convince me to like Hostess Snowballs.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 31, 2011)

I suppose, like most things, there are no hard and fast rules here.  For example, I'd probably, based on the description, not be a player very long in Shadzar's campaigns.  That style of Dming does not appeal to me anymore and I have no interest in that style of game anymore.  But, hey, to each his own.

OTOH, 



			
				The Jester said:
			
		

> 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.




This gets sticky.  I make rules mistakes all the time, but, I'm perfectly ammenable to being corrected.  I actually encourage my players to know the rules so I can ask them questions.  Fortunately, this works in my group.  But, I've seen this go south really, really fast.  Some DM's get really bent out of shape when you hold up a rule book and say, "No, that thing you just said is in the rules?  It's not there."

I've never quite understood that approach myself.  If I'm not using the rules right and you can show me where I went wrong, I appreciate it because it makes me a better DM for actually understanding the rules.  But, I do realize that some DM's really don't roll that way.


----------



## Rel (Jan 31, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I think referees _should_ be amenable to discussing stuff and should make a point of creating opportunities to do so, but it may be a short conversation. As *RC* pointed out, a rationalization need not be _rational_. My dislike of kobolds is wholly irrational, and I recognize it as such, but the fact that it's irrational doesn't make it something I should be expected to discard; you can't convince me to like kobolds any more than you can convince me to like Hostess Snowballs.




Bad analogy.  Hostess Snowballs are objectively nasty and are proof of the fact that "The Hostess" is in fact Cthulhu.

(kidding)

I don't think that a player has a right to talk you out of your preferences or even attempt to do so.  What I think is just smart GMing is to have a conversation where you try and explain as best you can why you are excluding them (which may simply be "I have an irrational dislike of Kobolds and nothing will change that.") AND try to understand what the player likes about the thing you're excluding.  That last part is key because you may have a perfectly good substitute for whatever they are interested in.  On rare occasions you might decide to make an exception for something because it'll add something cool to the game that you hadn't otherwise envisioned.

When I was cranking up my 4e campaign a couple years ago, I said to the players, "The 'Old Gods' listed in the Players Handbook used to exist but they vanished as part of the huge cataclysm that nearly destroyed the world and they've been replaced by more local, small scale deities."  My wife was playing a cleric and she'd been considering worshiping Melora, the goddess of Nature.  She asked me if I'd make an exception for that or if she had to pick another deity to worship.

After a bit of thought I said to myself, "Actually this might be an opportunity to add something cool to the campaign."  I agreed to let her worship Melora and it ended up being one of the cornerstone issues that made the whole campaign the best I'd ever run.  The populace of the campaign thought she was insane to worship one of "the dead gods".  She fought an uphill battle to gain followers.  Hers was a journey of pure faith because, at the beginning, she was literally the only person in the world who believed in her goddess.  Allowing that exception paid huge dividends and I'm really glad that I changed my mind and let it happen.

By the same token, imagine that you had a player who wanted to play a Kobold as a PC.  Your initial reaction might be, "I don't like Kobolds and I don't include them in my campaigns."  Now perhaps after some discussion it turns out that the player wants to play a small, traditionally evil race but as a good guy and you both agree that a Goblin would serve just as well for that purpose.

But what if you did let them play a Kobold?  It seems like it would pose all sorts of interesting questions that could be central to the campaign as it unfolds.  If he's the only known Kobold in the world then he's going to be regarded as a stranger and maybe enemy by most he encounters.  How did he get here?  Was he a creation of the gods?  Did he cross over from another plane?  Is he the start of an invasion?  Does he remember growing up among Kobolds or does he have amnesia about his origins?  Just seems like it could make for some interesting elements to a campaign.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2011)

Rel,

I guess that depends upon whether you think it is okay to allow Bob to play X, but not Sue.  Or, I guess, in your case, whether you allow your wife to play a cleric of a dead god, but no one else.  Because, if everyone wanted to do it, it would cease to be special.

It can also be a case where, because X is unusual/unique in the campaign world, a lot of attention gets paid to X.  Which might, in the hands of many a GM, cause problems among the players themselves.

You can walk along the top of that slope -- you may even make it shine -- but it is a slippery slope nonetheless, and I would hesitate to advise people to walk along it in general.

YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## Rel (Jan 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Rel,
> 
> I guess that depends upon whether you think it is okay to allow Bob to play X, but not Sue.  Or, I guess, in your case, whether you allow your wife to play a cleric of a dead god, but no one else.  Because, if everyone wanted to do it, it would cease to be special.




You are correct and I agree that the slope gets slippery.  Just to be clear, this wasn't any favoritism being shown to my wife.  She thinks I'm as big a rat bastard as anybody who's ever played in our group.

If everybody wanted to do it then it would stop being special.  But luckily all the other players found cool and unique ways to be special that didn't involve that kind of exception.

Again, I'm not saying you have to allow it.  I'm saying that it's worth considering.  And it's especially worth the goodwill engendered in your players if they know that you considered it rather than discarding the idea out of hand.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Rel,
> 
> I guess that depends upon whether you think it is okay to allow Bob to play X, but not Sue.  Or, I guess, in your case, whether you allow your wife to play a cleric of a dead god, but no one else.  Because, if everyone wanted to do it, it would cease to be special.
> 
> ...




I would adivse the opposite and offer a different assessment. You're never on a slippery slope for seriously *considering* a player's ideas for a campaign even if they run against your initial preconceptions and preferences as DM. Nor does accommodating some of them putting you on a slippery slope as long as you're honestly communicating with the players why their specific ideas may or may not be accepted into the game.

Sifting through player input is part of the DM's job, as I see it. As long as the DM is treating ideas fairly based on their individual merits and running a fair game in which each player get his chances to take the spotlight and has a good time, there should be no problem, no slippery slope.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 31, 2011)

"IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.  NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THAT THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS.  WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE *ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES*, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER.  BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NET, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING *ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE.  MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN DOING SO AS THE REST OF US DO!" - _E. Gary Gygax_

-when in doubt, I usually go with that.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 31, 2011)

Rel said:


> But what if you did let them play a Kobold?  It seems like it would pose all sorts of interesting questions that could be central to the campaign as it unfolds.  If he's the only known Kobold in the world then he's going to be regarded as a stranger and maybe enemy by most he encounters.  How did he get here?  Was he a creation of the gods?  Did he cross over from another plane?  Is he the start of an invasion?  Does he remember growing up among Kobolds or does he have amnesia about his origins?  Just seems like it could make for some interesting elements to a campaign.



Or it becomes a constant distraction as the game turns into one encounter after another of, "What the  is that _thing_?!"

One man's interesting questions are another man's nails on a chalkboard.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 31, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I would regard these rules as true of a con game, or something similar like a game with strangers at a club/store.
> 
> But in a long-running campaign I think the GM can be expected to listen to and respond to the players. I routinely take advice from my players before making a difficult ruling, for example.




Apparently, I must spread some XP around before giving it to you again.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2011)

billd91 said:


> You're never on a slippery slope for seriously *considering* a player's ideas for a campaign even if they run against your initial preconceptions and preferences as DM.






Considering some ideas might push you right over that slippery slope and into the bowels of madness.

Or have I finally found the GM willing to run games for my half-dragon teletubby jedi/paladin whose special mount is a motorcycle transformer?




RC


----------



## Mort (Jan 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Considering some ideas might push you right over that slippery slope and into the bowels of madness.
> 
> Or have I finally found the GM willing to run games for my half-dragon teletubby jedi/paladin whose special mount is a motorcycle transformer?
> 
> ...




You never know, maybe the DM secretly dreams of running for such a character and is just waiting for someone bold enough to ask him.

Then again, maybe not.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Or have I finally found the GM willing to run games for my half-dragon teletubby jedi/paladin whose special mount is a motorcycle transformer?



He would _almost_ fit in my group's Port on the Aster Sea/On the Shores of an Infinite Ocean campaign!

From the description he's not quite... transgressive enough. Oh, and we do shy away from using explicit brand names like "Teletubby".


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 31, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Or it becomes a constant distraction as the game turns into one encounter after another of, "What the  is that _thing_?!"
> 
> One man's interesting questions are another man's nails on a chalkboard.




You made me wish I hadn't XP'd you the last time, whatever that was, because I really wanted to XP that.  I must spread some around ...

You guys remember the DJ character on Northern Exposure?  I think the character's name was Chris, and was played by John Corbett, but that could be completely off.  Anyway, they had that character written to try to sound profound in everything he said.  I think some people thought he was profound, in kind of a "shallow zen" manner.  (That is, not that zen is shallow, but that he was playing at zen.)  I was never quite sure if the writers were writing him seriously or as satire.  Because I found it profoundly shallow. 

A lot of ideas that come across as nails on the chalkboard remind me of that character.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Considering some ideas might push you right over that slippery slope and into the bowels of madness.
> 
> Or have I finally found the GM willing to run games for my half-dragon teletubby jedi/paladin whose special mount is a motorcycle transformer?




I would *consider* your suggestion and then tell you that playing a fat half dragon child with a spike on top of his head and speech impediments is fine, having some weird repetitive and uncontrolled clairvoyant tendencies would be OK as long as we're clear they're under DM control (as the teletubbies' abilities are out of their own control), but television monitors and internal combustion engines are not part of the campaign world. Shapechanging robotic mounts are also not appropriate because they'd be pretty far out of balance.

As far as playing a jedi, the psionics handbook has some elements that come reasonably close to Jedi abilities and I would consider including that, though as a paladin, he'd have to multiclass which may hamper his development in either of the two main class's powers.

Frankly, that's not that hard.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2011)

I think Bill91 has the right of it though.  He's taken an obviously extreme example and shown exactly how a DM can build that into the campaign world.

As far as slippery slope goes, I have zero problem with saying no to some players and saying yes to others for exactly the same request.  Some players are asking for stuff in order to "win" the game.  We've probably all played with that guy at one point or another.  Heck, I'm pretty sure I've BEEN that guy at one point or another.  

OTOH, I have some fantastic players right now, so, the default answer for any request is generally "yes" unless I have some very specific reason for saying no.  Even requests that I personally don't like and probably would never play have resulted in fantastic characters and a real improvement in my game.   So, based on that, when the players ask me for something that isn't quite what I had in mind for the game, my answer is going to be entirely based on what's gone on before.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 1, 2011)

thedungeondelver said:


> "IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.  NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO *BE CERTAIN THAT THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS.*  WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, *YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER*.  BY *ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NET, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER*, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE.  MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN DOING SO AS THE REST OF US DO!" - _E. Gary Gygax_
> 
> -when in doubt, I usually go with that.




I go with it when not in doubt. Borrowing your work typing it I highlight some thing some people may not be seeing, amy have forgotten, or may not understand that many/some of us may adhere to for the sake of the game. Since many DMs do it for the game first, not the people. (serious vs social or whatever you call it)

The DM is told, and rightfully so to be the master of the game, the one running it, the one in charge, because there is their main role. To make the game work. Like many governments are given power to make decisions for a vastly large number of people, so is the DM tasked to make decisions that would keep its games people in the proper state of affairs. IE: Having a fun game to play.

The next bolded part from the DMG continues that. The DM should be offering the world to the players and making sure it works. Some it seems want to hand some of the game mastering to the players in the middle of play, while other DMs just don't work like that, as the DM choose to in his arbitration. Other DMs prefer to hand part of the creation to players before the game has begun such as what parts will or won't come into play, and then those DMs handle full arbitration after the game has started.

Which brings to a confusing last part:


game as a whole
the game you have designed to run as a campaign
your players

#1 encompasses the other two, but ensures that both get taken care of. But it also prevents ANY player from becoming the "problem player" for any reason on purpose or accidental so that the game for all works. The prime job of the DM is to make the game work for all, or when it arises, for the majority as you can't always please everyone.

You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.​
Trekkie version:*
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.​
#2 The game must function, so it comes second. If the game doesn't function then there is nothing for the players to play. The DM can only make things function that they can make work. Alignment languages don't work, the do not use them. Even if a player wants them so badly because they sound cool, or all players want them; the DM must be able to make the thing work so the game works.

#3 After the game is made to where it will work for the DM task to run the machine, then consider what the actual and individual players will want, so long as it doesn't interfere with part 1.*

*Note: This note connects to both marked places, as it deals with the DM as a player and being only one player. While it isn't the DMs needs that are coming into play being his job to make the game work means that his ability to make something function cannot impede the first part, as he will never be impeding himself. Likewise individual player wants may conflict with each other, but the DM has to be able to prevent them from impeding the game as a whole. So When the DM acts in a manner towards part 1, the needs for THAT one, are for the sake of the many. To make sure the game works for all.​
Part 2 is unlikely to interfere with part 1, and when it does, you may need to see if the correct DM is had for you, because of playstyle conflicts or other innocuous reasons, as not always does everyone fit with every game or gamer.

Otherwise it might just be a "bad DM" such as one that hasn't grown yet into the role and is still learning. Everyone starts out as a "bad DM", but some get better while others do not.

So all in all, what this is saying is about how the DM is tasked with doing things that may not always be clear, but is for the sake of everyone playing, no matter who they are from spouse, SO, best friend, total stranger, and even someone they may not really like that much outside of the game.

A DM DMs for the love of the game and making sure others can enjoy the game that DM is running. When that happens, the DM can enjoy the game just as much as the players.

This is what I have taken from that passage, adding to it years of DMing.

(Hope I got all the thoughts in and made clear while eating at the same time as making this post.)


Hussar said:


> I think Bill91 has the right of it though.  He's taken an obviously extreme example and shown exactly how a DM can build that into the campaign world.




Only so long as the DM is willing and interested in running said creation and adding it to the world. If they are not, then it will show in the treatment of that creation. But again could lead to the "non special", where everyone then wants to try some special creation that could run the DM into the ground and lose interest. Then someone else will have to run it and you lose a player either way in the long run.

If you have but one able to DM, which is the greater loss: the player with his special character, or the game itself with no one to run it?

I think maybe looking at a new thread for a broader view that just a singular player might be helpful, but would there be any discussion about a DM willing and interested in playing one type of game, while ALL the players are looking for something else. I doubt so, as the simplest answer is that DM wouldn't be running the game for that group of players.

What would be interesting is to find out how those players work in the game that many are speaking of communication and consideration about. Do the players in these games always work as a team and appoint a player to tell the DM what the group is doing in whole or parts (party leader/delegate), or do those players not communicate and consider the other players when in game and just act and do things on their own?


----------



## Coldwyn (Feb 1, 2011)

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]

To me, you always sound like you´re creating your stuff in a total vacuum without any feedback or imput, then the game starts and those stupid players ruin it with their insolent questions and preferences.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 1, 2011)

thedungeondelver said:


> "IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THAT THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE *ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES*, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NET, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING *ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN DOING SO AS THE REST OF US DO!" - _E. Gary Gygax_
> 
> -when in doubt, I usually go with that.




While I think AD&D is a fine game, I do not agree 100% with what was quoted above. 

D&D is a TTRPG played with people. Therefore to me, the people are the most important aspect of the game seeing as there is no game without them.

Anyone I sit down to play a game with is worthy of being considered more important than the system or the campaign being run. If I do not deem this to be the case then the people are not worth playing with in the first place. 

The order of game, campaign, people seems more appropriate to a game such as WOW. 

This doesn't mean that every game must be an anything goes as long as the player is happy type thing. 

IME the type of players who never want to play anything that isn't wildly outside the scope of a proposed campaign and never seem to be happy with any available options are ones that are more concerned with pooping on someone elses good time than having fun themselves. This type also never seems to want to run a game either. 

It might seem harsh but such players are better off excluded from the game.


----------



## nerfherder (Feb 1, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> D&D is a TTRPG played with people. Therefore to me, the people are the most important aspect of the game seeing as there is no game without them.
> 
> Anyone I sit down to play a game with is worthy of being considered more important than the system or the campaign being run. If I do not deem this to be the case then the people are not worth playing with in the first place.



Same here.  Monday night is game night.  If the current DM can't make it, then we'll still get together and play a boardgame, or watch a movie instead.  Spending Monday night with my gamer friends > the game.

P.S. and now I've just lost The Game.  And so have you.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 1, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> [MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]
> 
> To me, you always sound like you´re creating your stuff in a total vacuum without any feedback or imput




Seeing as the crowd of people like that include: Gary Gygax, Tracy Hickman, Ed Greenwood, Erik Mona, Ari Marmell, etc; I will take that as a very high compliment.

As when designing an adventure you do NOT know the final players you will be playing for an DO design in a vacuum of sorts, and those are just some of the good adventure designers amongst many.

They do very well with many an adventure without having the end-users input.

Other than that you comment is very laughable since you have not played with me....

I would guess then that you are always creating things in the chaos of players and have no sense of continuity, no sense of direction, and no sense of actually trying to make the game work as you are changing everything on a players whim whether it helps the game or not but just to keep them happy, with how little I know about your games the same as you know about mine, as it seems you would then be the opposite of the design spectrum from me.


----------



## Coldwyn (Feb 1, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Seeing as the crowd of people like that include: Gary Gygax, Tracy Hickman, Ed Greenwood, Erik Mona, Ari Marmell, etc; I will take that as a very high compliment.
> 
> As when designing an adventure you do NOT know the final players you will be playing for an DO design in a vacuum of sorts, and those are just some of the good adventure designers amongst many.
> 
> ...




Is there a saying for when two people talk but they don´t talk with each other? I think this is happening here.

Okay, taking a step back, I understood you thus: You create a world/setting/campaign whole cloth, working on internal consistence, the feel of it, internal logic and a certain flavour. You go to great lengths to make everything fitting and everything has a place in this.
At the actual table, you have every player hand in their characters and then aprove or disaprove based on whether that character fits into your preconceived scenario.

I, on the other hand, ask my players what they like to see in the next world/setting/campaign and work from there on out. If no one has any interest in dwarves, I leave them out. If no one like playing a human, I leave them out. If everyone agrees on grim and gritty, I make it so. Fantasy Samurai Japan? Why not. And so on.

So yes, we are on different sides of the spectrum but I strongly disagree with you saying this is "whim", "keep them happy" "no consistency". I just may be an indication why I more or less never run into the situation where I have to say no just to keep my campaign running.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 1, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> Is there a saying for when two people talk but they don´t talk with each other? I think this is happening here.
> 
> Okay, taking a step back, I understood you thus: You create a world/setting/campaign whole cloth, working on internal consistence, the feel of it, internal logic and a certain flavour. You go to great lengths to make everything fitting and everything has a place in this.
> At the actual table, you have every player hand in their characters and then aprove or disaprove based on whether that character fits into your preconceived scenario.
> ...




You understood wrong, because I don't repeat it in every post, but as the DM is chosen and accepted, then the world is designed based off of things that were accepted.

That means up front the DM knows what type of game FROM the players.

If the players offer nothing but "run a game for us", then they take what they get.

I don't go changing things in the middle after all the work just to try to fit in dwarves, if the game has been without them.

I don't worry about the next game until this one is concluded. The only reason for change in the world and what it contains is if during play something isnt working right. The players however don't get to pick something to include for the next session of an ongoing campaign.

I do anything up front that sets up the game world and develop a living world. The only thing that changes the world is through play after that. Things don't really sit around empty and wait for players to want to explore them. The clock is always ticking while the player are active.

Some around here seem to want to discuss things in the middle of play to an extent I would get up and leave as a DM. If the game isn't working to that extent, then I am not the one wanted to run it, and packing up my work and let the enxt one run it. The why's and why not's of things of the world of that game will be learned during game if needed, and those things not included aren't important for that game being played.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 1, 2011)

Isn't it odd that Gygax has been seen as a gaming tyrannt, ruling his table with an iron fist after you see what he actually said?

Published settings: someone already made the world for me. World Tree: metal exists, it's just hard to come by because every bit of it has to be created by magic, using the Noun that has very few low complexity spells. Diomin: Most of the player races are basically human, and they're all human sized.

In general, I don't have a problem when someone can explain how to fit their concept in. When they have "no good reason" for it is when I use my banhammer. Good reason, will of course vary depending on who's running the game.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 1, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The DM is told, and rightfully so to be the master of the game, the one running it, the one in charge, because there is their main role. To make the game work. Like many governments are given power to make decisions for a vastly large number of people, so is the DM tasked to make decisions that would keep its games people in the proper state of affairs.



My game is more of an anarcho-syndicalist commune.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 1, 2011)

Mallus said:


> My game is more of an anarcho-syndicalist commune.




I think they make shots for that now, but it isn't life threatening in most cases, so you should be fine with it.



Zhaleskra said:


> Good reason, will of course vary depending on who's running the game.




and of course who is playing it and what they will accept, which brings us to this thread in the first place. the more willing you are to trust the DM, the more you are able to accept his decisions to make a good game for you to play in.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 1, 2011)

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION] --

I had asked upthread a clarifying question....

How long do your typical campaigns run?  And do you usually run for strangers or for a relatively steady group of players?

Do you run mostly short games at stores or cons, or do you have a regular gaming group and campaign that you have been running long term (meaning a year or more).


----------



## Coldwyn (Feb 1, 2011)

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]

I really could find any instance where you said that there is talk before you start designing and so I had the wrong impression


----------



## shadzar (Feb 1, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> shadzar--
> 
> I had asked upthread a clarifying question....



I did not see that.


> How long do your typical campaigns run?



Currently not long


> And do you usually run for strangers or for a relatively steady group of players?



Strangers due to time limitations and system switching et all of old group that still live nearby



> Do you run mostly short games at stores or cons, or do you have a regular gaming group and campaign that you have been running long term (meaning a year or more).




Currently short term as needed. Often one shots that must fit in a few hours per session in a store or other place to get the idea of what the game is about in general pretty much equivalent to the game days type setups.

Long term campaign died as people moved and schedule conflicts occurred.

[MENTION=10041]Coldwyn[/MENTION]: I didn't feel the need to repeat it over and over in each, but mentioned it at first when the "communication" angle came up about how that should have been done BEFORE the game starts. This thread has grown fast, so it is likely lost on a page from a week or so ago.

But in any event, not everything should be up to the players, and the DM stills needs to be in a "comfort zone" to be able to run the game, and things he doesn't like are simply thing he shouldnt use because it will affect his performance, and we are back to square one. A DM willing to run those things is needed, or the player in question really needing that thing needs to pick something else or look for a game that suits his tastes more.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Isn't it odd that Gygax has been seen as a gaming tyrannt, ruling his table with an iron fist after you see what he actually said?
> 
> Published settings: someone already made the world for me. World Tree: metal exists, it's just hard to come by because every bit of it has to be created by magic, using the Noun that has very few low complexity spells. Diomin: Most of the player races are basically human, and they're all human sized.
> 
> In general, I don't have a problem when someone can explain how to fit their concept in. When they have "no good reason" for it is when I use my banhammer. Good reason, will of course vary depending on who's running the game.




Not really that odd when you look at it.  Gygax is saying Game first, Campaign second and Players third.  That's the order of importance.  So, any player wants or needs come dead last in the heirarchy.  Would tend to sound a lot like Big Daddy Chair DMing.  

Whether he actually played like this or not, I have no idea.  But base solely on that particular quote, I'd say that's absolutely horrible Dming advice.  I'd order it, Players, Campaign and then Game dead last.  Keep the players happy, keep the campaign running smoothly and the Game can take care of itself.



			
				Shadzar said:
			
		

> Only so long as the DM is willing and interested in running said creation and adding it to the world. If they are not, then it will show in the treatment of that creation. But again could lead to the "non special", where everyone then wants to try some special creation that could run the DM into the ground and lose interest. Then someone else will have to run it and you lose a player either way in the long run.




If you come forward with the "Human only, Low Fantasy" campaign and all your players come back with non-human high magic characters, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong here.  At that point a DM really should be stepping back and considering running this particular campaign for this group because it's pretty obviously not a good idea. 

If no one at the table actually wants to play what you're proposing, it's time to go back to the drawing board, or find a new group.

Of course, this gets trickier when it's not the entire group.  If three of the five come back with high magic, non-human characters, what do you do?  Two of the five?  One of the five, you can probably work around it - either incorporate it using the tried and true "one off" method, or just say no.

This all comes back to the social contract at the table.  This sort of thing has to get hashed out before play starts.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 2, 2011)

The thing that is seriously wrong is that those players showed up to a "Humans only, low fantasy" game when that is clearly not the kind of game they want to play in. It seems you are saying the GM is wrong for offering that.

Honestly, I do get rather angry with what seems like hate towards GMs for providing a game. It's much more satisfying to not get players in the first place, than to get players who just want to mess with you.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> The thing that is seriously wrong is that those players showed up to a "Humans only, low fantasy" game when that is clearly not the kind of game they want to play in. It seems you are saying the GM is wrong for offering that.
> 
> Honestly, I do get rather angry with what seems like hate towards GMs for providing a game. It's much more satisfying to not get players in the first place, than to get players who just want to mess with you.




I'm saying that the GM is wrong for offering that game to that group.  That's obviously the wrong game for that group.  It's no different than me offering to run a SF campaign and the players saying, "No, thanks.  Fantasy only.", which actually has happened to me.

At that point, as a GM, what can I really do?  I can't force them to play.  So, I either find a new group to play my SF campaign or I go to Plan B and run that.  Or, I let someone else GM.  That works too.

This whole conversation, in my mind, revolves around trust.  I polled En World some time ago about their experiences with GM's and about 1/3 had mostly negative experiences with various GM's.  So, in a group of 5, presuming that they've all just met, and presuming they're all experienced gamers, probably at least one has had primarily negative experiences with GM's.

So, the GM states, "No X" in my game.  The player questions the GM on this.  Let's look at this from both sides for a moment.

From the player's side, it's entirely possible that he's had more than a few bad experiences with GM's in the past.  And, one trait a lot of bad GM's share is abuse of authority.  "Do what I tell you Peasant Player!" is a bad GM.  Railroading is a perfect example of abusing GM power.  And generally a pretty good sign of a bad GM.

So, the player is now on guard because his experience tells him that this is a warning sign of a bad GM.  Not that the GM is a bad GM.  It might be perfectly innocent.  But, the player's experiences are telling him to be worried.

From the GM's side, it's also entirely possible he's had bad players.  And bad players often ask for the moon in order to "win" the game.  If you give them and inch, they'll take a mile.  So, the GM bans stuff in order to get the game that he thinks will be fun.

And we wind up with this Gordian Knot where neither side, from their own perspectives, is wrong, but neither is actually right either.  And it can be a difficult problem.

I've been in Shadzar's position in the past - new groups, new players, all strangers, etc. etc.  And it's hard.  You try to run a good game, but, there's all these different pressures on the GM because of an inherent lack of trust, mostly because the group is entirely new.  

What I learned, and this is how I deal with this, not necessarily the only way to deal with this, is that it's easier to gain trust if you give it first.  If I let the player have what he or she wants at the outset, not in any sort of passive agressive way (Heh, you can have it now, but I'm going to SCREW you later), but honestly let that player have what he or she wants, it works best in the long run.

Because once you've stepped back and let the player know that you are willing to trust that the player will behave in such a manner as to result in a good game for everyone, that player will often return that trust.  Let the player have his monstrosity if that'll make him happy.  Down the road, he'll get better.  He'll learn that he doesn't have to "win" at the game.  

But, the only way he'll learn that is if you let him learn it.  Engage him and the rest of the group in such as way as to draw them into the campaign world so that they become invested, not just in seeing their character succeed, but in seeing the campaign succeed.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, the GM states, "No X" in my game.  The player questions the GM on this.  Let's look at this from both sides for a moment.




No let's not look at it but form the only side that matters. Where the jerkwad players should have not made characters like that and should have just said, "no thanks" to the human only game rather than waste the GMs time.

if the players don't want to play it then say so up front. It is that very time wasting that makes me most times not to want to give ANY player any reason because having to put up with crap like your example WAY too often.

if the DM sets up the game, lets say it was on a game stores bulletin board.

The DM is notified that people are wanting to come, gets the schedule and everything else worked out for this "humans only" game, and everyone shows up with somethng like that. I would hope the store owner ran those players out of the store and apologized to the DM.

The players should have never agreed to play the game if they are just stringer the DM along.

If you got to work at it to get a group, as you acknowledge yourself, and not mad at you for anything you said except this example HAS happened, then you shouldn't have to put up with people wasting your time when it is so limited.

Very annoying, but possible scenario of even having the "social contract" agreed upon up front, then the payers wanting to come last minute and change everything. Well the DM probably ha nothing for that drastic a shift int he game.

Hmmmmm yeah had that happen before just similar, and i was hot to say the least. Was definitely in no way, shape, form, or mood to "communicate" with those players.

Too many people lose in that case, people that may have been wanting to play the advertised game, the store owner, the DM, a DM willing and wanting to run characters they had written up. Even the players with the wrong characters as they will not likely be able to join other games held in that location due to their blatant wasting time.

I think we are n the same page Hussar, but its late and I am tired so if we agree, this disregard this post as anything but in agreement. If we disagree, then i will try to see what they all say tomorrow. Just that example HAS happened before to more than jsut myself that I know.


----------



## kaomera (Feb 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'm saying that the GM is wrong for offering that game to that group.  That's obviously the wrong game for that group.  It's no different than me offering to run a SF campaign and the players saying, "No, thanks.  Fantasy only.", which actually has happened to me.



I think part of the issue may be that not all players / groups are willing to actually come out and say that. Some players have the same "must game" problem that "must GM" GMs have, or else they have been brought to believe that actually telling the GM what they do or do not want is _bad_. I've had a lot of problems where the players won't give me any real clues as to what they want until I've done all the work of getting a campaign assembled, at which point I'm loathe to change what I had planned.

It would be nice if someone wrote a book or something (and idk, maybe someone already has) of a "Dummies guide to roleplaying" type, but for people who are already experienced roleplayers. Focus on the stuff that players and / or the GM may have learned, and take as a given, that might not always be true. Focus on actually establishing some real communication of exactly what each participant actually wants / expects from the game. Of course, then you have the problem of getting people to really read it, but one thing at a time, right?

I don't think that players are actually uncommunicative about their desires for any kind of nefarious reasons, or because they're "bad players" (or at least not more than I am a "bad GM"), but I think a lot have the idea (from previous experience, etc.) that it's simply not their place to be voicing such an opinion, just as it isn't (to them) the DM's place to say that their character concepts don't fit in a given campaign. And so "why" becomes an issue on both sides... "Why?" is the question I ask of players who want to bring characters into my game that really do not belong there, and they act like "Because I want to" should be a good enough answer... (And I would reply, "Why do you want to?" Is that just the _only_ kind of character they can have fun playing, or did they just not considered the campaign setting when making a character, or are they just trying to be difficult? The answer changes if and how I try to accommodate them...)


----------



## FireLance (Feb 2, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I would hope the store owner ran those players out of the store and apologized to the DM.



Why? How is some players showing up at a game with inappropriate characters in any way the fault of the store owner? A DM who expects an apology from the store owner for such an incident would seem to me to have something of an entitlement complex, not to mention an over-inflated sense of his own importance.



> No let's not look at it but form the only side that matters. Where the jerkwad players should have not made characters like that and should have just said, "no thanks" to the human only game rather than waste the GMs time.



Oh, wait. Never mind.


----------



## Coldwyn (Feb 2, 2011)

By now, I really fail to see a basis for discussion anymore.

Shadzar´s saying he gms one-shots for total strangers in a shop. Ok, fine, it´s his game then and people can always chose another gm if availlable.

Most other people are talking about regular groups and longer running campaigns where they actually have to work with their players.

I really don´t see any common ground here besides rpg´ing.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 2, 2011)

I ran a game in a game store once. Venue wasn't quite for me. Not sure if it was the store, the players, or what, but that one experience didn't work.

Ran games in a club setting. Worked better, sometimes my games didn't "sell". That's the "luck" of a club format. Club also had some *unwritten* rule combined with older edition understanding of terms that lead to me losing all my players for a game that wasn't over.

Had friends come to my dorm room to "demand" I run my completely silly Planescape game during my 3rd year of college. That was meant to be a campaign, but it was just silly randomness.

Now I prefer episodic adventures, as GM or player, which may or may not be connected to each other. Given that most of the people I am emotionally close to live in another state, I have little choice but to game with strangers at cons, or round up some strangers to form a group.


----------



## Rel (Feb 2, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Now I prefer episodic adventures, as GM or player, which may or may not be connected to each other. Given that most of the people I am emotionally close to live in another state, I have little choice but to game with strangers at cons, or round up some strangers to form a group.




Or make friends with local people and then invite them to game with you.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 2, 2011)

That too, and in this weather, it's not exactly the best time to "hang out" in my town.


----------



## Rel (Feb 2, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> That too, and in this weather, it's not exactly the best time to "hang out" in my town.




Yeah I hear you guys are getting hammered pretty hard up there.  Stay warm!


----------



## Mallus (Feb 2, 2011)

Rel said:


> Or make friends with local people and then invite them to game with you.



A few years ago the only people I gamed with were local folks I met through ENWorld. They turned into friends. It was like magic!


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 2, 2011)

I have a couple feelers out, one on a different game board, one on a furry board. No responses to either yet.

That's a little strange on the furry board because I'm offering a furry game to start with. Maybe I said too much about the system.


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 3, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I have a couple feelers out, one on a different game board, one on a furry board. No responses to either yet.
> 
> That's a little strange on the furry board because I'm offering a furry game to start with. Maybe I said too much about the system.




Where did you post these 'feelers?' Why didn't you just call them angels instead of 'Furies?' Have you tried any historical enthusiast war-gamer groups? The Furies would seem to be a popular theme for most D&D-derived games. Maybe you should call them Erinyes. That's a better known D&D association. Furies also have some connections with Valkyries of Norse myth.

Interesting idea, playing an angelic type character. Are most of the characters deva-like? Or to put it into older edition-ese, half-celestial? 

C.I.D.


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 3, 2011)

Cyronax said:


> Where did you post these 'feelers?' Have you tried any historical enthusiast war-gamer groups? The Furies would seem to be a popular theme for most D&D-derived games. Maybe you should call them Erinyes. That's a better known D&D association. Furies also have some connections with Valkyries of Norse myth.



Good suggestion. Also, of course, Yggdrasil is the "world tree" of Norse mythology. I would definitely play up the Viking aspect of the game, given that strong starting imagery - maybe something about their iron weapons, and the strong themes of fate and predestiny that go through so much of the Norse mythos? Call it something like "Yggdrasil, Iron, Furies, and Fate".


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 3, 2011)

Tewligan said:


> Good suggestion. Also, of course, Yggdrasil is the "world tree" of Norse mythology. I would definitely play up the Viking aspect of the game, given that strong starting imagery - maybe something about their iron weapons, and the strong themes of fate and predestiny that go through so much of the Norse mythos? Call it something like "Yggdrasil, Iron, Furies, and Fate".




Thanks Tewligan. That's a good idea. I forgot about Planescape and the Yggdrasil/World Tree. 

Is it a good idea to mix Greek 'Furies' with the Norse myths? It seems fitting given the place of Valkyries, but still, its a mixing of cultures, which is always controversial.

C.I.D.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 3, 2011)

Cyronax said:


> Where did you post these 'feelers?'




Iron Crown Enterprises forums and Midwest Furries forums. On admittedly short notice. Since the initial post I have revised my first available Sunday.


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 3, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Iron Crown Enterprises forums and Midwest Furries forums. On admittedly short notice. Since the initial post I have revised my first available Sunday.




Wow I haven't heard of ICE in years. Good place to find Furies. I still own some of their old sourcebooks (esp the Spanish version of Minas Tirith). I guess in a way, Gandalf is a Fury too, since he's an Istari/Angel/Wizard. Mighty powerful Fury. 


C.I.D.


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 3, 2011)

Cyronax said:


> Thanks Tewligan. That's a good idea. I forgot about Planescape and the Yggdrasil/World Tree.
> 
> Is it a good idea to mix Greek 'Furies' with the Norse myths? It seems fitting given the place of Valkyries, but still, its a mixing of cultures, which is always controversial.



Well, D&D has always been a mishmash of stuff pulled from different cultures, whether it's an ogre magi living the next room over from a rakshasa in the dungeon, or the tendency of players way back in the 1E days to make clerics of whatever god whose picture they most liked in "Deities & Demigods". I think Zhaleskra's idea for a Norse/Greek mashup game sounds fun, and IMO really harkens back to the old feel of D&D.


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 3, 2011)

Tewligan said:


> Well, D&D has always been a mishmash of stuff pulled from different cultures, whether it's an ogre magi living the next room over from a rakshasa in the dungeon, or the tendency of players way back in the 1E days to make clerics of whatever god whose picture they most liked in "Deities & Demigods". I think Zhaleskra's idea for a Norse/Greek mashup game sounds fun, and IMO really harkens back to the old feel of D&D.




Yes indeed, Tewligan. Its important to respect D&D traditions, but its also important to look forward and consider others' opinions or not. 

As for Zhaleskra's masshup, I'm impressed. The dual inclusion of Greek Furies with Norse Valkyries sounds awesome. It helps appeal to many male D&D players imaginations of beautiful warrior-angels arriving on the battle-scene. 


C.I.D.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2011)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cyronax- that Furry (as in people who pretend to be animals) not Furies (Greek myth).  Or is it that Zel has typoed.

Zel, there are a plethora of good sites for trying to find gamers.  rpgloop - Welcome! is a good site for one.  Google is definetly your friend here.  

Now, on to the goodies:

Shadzar - I honestly do feel your frustration.  I've been there.  When I first started building my online group is was a very painful experience.  Players that would sound interested in joining, soak up lots of my time getting their character ready, only to flake out at the last minute.  Or players who would try wildly innappropriate characters.  Or players who wouldn't make the slightest effort to learn anything about the setting that was being played.

Oh yeah, I totally feel your pain.  I used to be where you are now.  But, I'm going to impart my little bit of wisdom that I gained from that experience.  No amount of banning, building walls, or being hard nosed will make these people better players or people that you want to share your table with.  It just won't.  Their playstyles and yours (and mine) are just incompatable.

My solution was to advertise my games being the biggest douchebag I could possibly be.  That weeded out 90% of the flakes.  My online adds were brutal (and, I'm not exactly the most sensitive person in the world in the first place).  Lots of THOU SHALT NOT and YOU WILL BE ON TIME, and that sort of thing.

Plus, I made a very coinscious effort to be very clear what the players could expect from me.  This much time is what I'm willing to spend on the game, this is how much flexibility I will give you, this is how much prep I put into the game.  So one and so forth.

Once I did that, I had a much better time recruiting players.  If the player was willing to bull through all the assinine social roadblocks I put up, he or she was likely to be a pretty good player.  At that point, I relaxed an awful lot and became much more likely to be flexible with people's concepts.

It worked for me.  I've managed to put together a fantastic group with incredibly creative people who continually surprise me and make my game something I look forward to every single week.

But, man, it took a LOT of hair pulling to get to that point.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 3, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> I, on the other hand, ask my players what they like to see in the next world/setting/campaign and work from there on out.



I tend to make suggestions rather than ask for suggestions from my players - but I'm certainly a lot closer to what you describe than I am to Shadzar.



shadzar said:


> when designing an adventure you do NOT know the final players you will be playing for an DO design in a vacuum of sorts



Well, this has not been true of any adventure I've GMed since 1990. In every case I've known who my players will be (maybe not all show up on the night, but that happens . . .) and who their PCs will be.

If something changes between designing an adventure and running it - eg I placed something in the setup intended to hook the player of the paladin, and now he's an apology for the session - then I will change that element of the adventure.

I also do a lot of adventure design - and especially the development of a scenario that builds on an initial statrting situation - on the fly. And this is always done with particular players and PCs in mind - namely, those present at the table/in the situation.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This whole conversation, in my mind, revolves around trust.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it's easier to gain trust if you give it first.



Hussar, I should have XPed you for this instead. Terrific post!



kaomera said:


> It would be nice if someone wrote a book or something (and idk, maybe someone already has) of a "Dummies guide to roleplaying" type, but for people who are already experienced roleplayers. Focus on the stuff that players and / or the GM may have learned, and take as a given, that might not always be true.



Well I think the essays and threads at The Forge do a pretty good job at this, but a lot of posters on ENworld seem not to like them.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I think part of the issue may be that not all players / groups are willing to actually come out and say that. Some players have the same "must game" problem that "must GM" GMs have, or else they have been brought to believe that actually telling the GM what they do or do not want is _bad_. I've had a lot of problems where the players won't give me any real clues as to what they want until I've done all the work of getting a campaign assembled, at which point I'm loathe to change what I had planned.
> /snip for all sorts of goodness




Oh, hey totally.  Getting feedback from players can be like pulling teeth sometimes.  Anything other than "Hey, it was good" anyway.  For the past little while, we've been doing round robin DMing in our group and I've made a point of trying to email a constructive criticism to the DM after each adventure.  So far I have managed not to piss anyone off.  

I'd LOVE it if someone did this for me.  Even if I totally disagreed with what they said, I still want to hear it.  So, in the interests of leading by example, that's why I now email an honest critique to the DM in question.  Keep it polite and whatnot, but, be honest.

As I said, I don't think I've pissed anyone off yet.    Here's hoping.

Fear the Boot, if you listen to podcasts, has a couple of episodes devoted to getting player feedback.  Really worth the listen.


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cyronax- that Furry (as in people who pretend to be animals) not Furies (Greek myth).




Oh ....... that changes everything. I have no advice for furries.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Shadzar - I honestly do feel your frustration.  I've been there.  When I first started building my online group is was a very painful experience.  Players that would sound interested in joining, soak up lots of my time getting their character ready, only to flake out at the last minute.  Or players who would try wildly innappropriate characters.  Or players who wouldn't make the slightest effort to learn anything about the setting that was being played.
> 
> Oh yeah, I totally feel your pain.  I used to be where you are now.  But, I'm going to impart my little bit of wisdom that I gained from that experience.  No amount of banning, building walls, or being hard nosed will make these people better players or people that you want to share your table with.  It just won't.  Their playstyles and yours (and mine) are just incompatable.
> 
> ...




From the response of most people in regards to my approach to DMing and trying to find players it seems I am already on that path, and thanks for the hopeful words, it just seems that I am in a location that differs greatly in playstyles. Heavy min-maxers/ckarOps-ers hack-n-slashers. (Why i was looking for that good lobby feature out of a VTT)

and THANK YOU for NOT using that mention tag. That thing annoys when it is in a thread I am already in and reading. 

I am putting myself out there as willing to run a game and make it work. Sadly only one person liked the idea to continue, and I am not really running solo games, nor are they in playing them, so looking for new players again once tax-season is over, and just winging it until then.

Some people can easily accept that a DM is that final arbiter without needing ANY justification, while others simply cannot.

It is those that can accept it, I find make the better players because you end up not having to communicate about things and finite elements, they seems to already be on the same page, or, like myself, like to find out in the game why something doesn't exist in it because there is some good plot going on there. 


Hussar said:


> I'd LOVE it if someone did this for me.  Even if I totally disagreed with what they said, I still want to hear it.  So, in the interests of leading by example, that's why I now email an honest critique to the DM in question.  Keep it polite and whatnot, but, be honest.




Just stick both replies to you together for ease....

Comment cards are a lost art. I can't tell you how many places they have gone from, but I surely would love to get them and actually use stuff like that in ongoing campaigns for XP awards. But not just for the DM, but all players. Players can sort of assign an MVP award of XP to one player per session. You most times find the group is split on liking part of a game, but it is to be expected too.

Ahh the days of a constant group and devoting an hour after the game to discuss the session.

No, that doesn't mean such discussion magically makes why the DM doesn't like something come to light, or make it become included in the future either.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 3, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Well, this has not been true of any adventure I've GMed since 1990. In *every case I've known who my players will be* (maybe not all show up on the night, but that happens . . .) and who their PCs will be.




There is the key to what I mentioned earlier about some people's narrow field of vision.

Take even a con, you offer Game X adventure Y, with pre-gens. Someone joining know what they will get and the DM isn't thrown any curves.

Remove the pregens and allow what they may, and you may not be able to make as a cohesive game out of when you had.

Go back a bit more and not pre-gens, but not catch-all either, and defined races and classes allowed, then you dont need to discus or know in advance what the players bring to the party.

"Door A can only be opened with a dwarf present in the party" should only be used when you know there will be a dwarf in the party. Hey fine some dont like those, but I still do those kind of things. But you have to use them responsibly.

So I bypass the catch-all, and either offer pre-gens for those not wanting to make a character at any game, or a game of all pregens for new players so they can get started playing the game where the game really is. OR for some games players pick the allowed options form a list, and they can converse with each other to make a party, or make individual characters that "meet-up to form a group" in the game.

Everyone picks an Elf Ranger it might be a very interesting game indeed for all.

So I may know the characters if offering an all pre-gen game, but not the players. In either of the other two games I will know neither.

Do you always run published adventures as-is with no changes, when you run them?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 3, 2011)

shadzar said:


> There is the key to what I mentioned earlier about some people's narrow field of vision.



Well, hang on, you're the one who said "when designing an adventure you do NOT know the final players you will be playing for an DO design in a vacuum of sorts". I denied that this is true of me. I didn't dispute that it might be true for some. If anything, you seem to be the one engaging in unwarranted generalisation here.



shadzar said:


> Do you always run published adventures as-is with no changes, when you run them?



I don't remeber ever having run a published adventure as-is. When I ran Rolemaster I had to convert adventures from D&D (various editions), other systems, or other versions of Rolemaster. Now that I run 4e I have to convert adventures from D&D (non-4e editions), from other systems, or - if I'm using a 4e adventure - I have to scale up or down.

And that's just the mechanical elements. I also have to make all the changes I want to locales, storyline, treasure, etc etc.

And when I make all these changes - that is, when I design my adventure - I do it knowing who my players are and who their PCs are. And the same is true when I design my own adventures from scratch rather than using published material as a starting point (which used to be more than half the time but now is probably in the neighbourhood of one-third of the time).


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> My solution was to advertise my games being the biggest douchebag I could possibly be.  That weeded out 90% of the flakes.  My online adds were brutal (and, I'm not exactly the most sensitive person in the world in the first place).  Lots of THOU SHALT NOT and YOU WILL BE ON TIME, and that sort of thing.




I've also found that it's easier to write a "game available" ad using the direct approach. Might you accidentally alienate players who do fit because they're offended by the ad? Sure, but then you wouldn't want that person at your game anyway.

Saying the same things while being careful not to offend people takes more time. Mostly because the ad becomes more wordy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 3, 2011)

Hussar,

Just wanted to "kuddo" you for your last few posts.  That was exactly what I was talking about -- you take responsibility for your end.  That means that the DM should try to see the player's POV, and the players should try to see the DM's POV.  Demanding that the other side see your POV is a waste of time.  If you find yourself needing to do so, perhaps you should seek other people to game with.


RC


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 3, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hussar,
> 
> Just wanted to "kuddo" you for your last few posts. That was exactly what I was talking about -- you take responsibility for your end. That means that the DM should try to see the player's POV, and the players should try to see the DM's POV. Demanding that the other side see your POV is a waste of time. If you find yourself needing to do so, perhaps you should seek other people to game with.
> 
> ...




Yes.  Double-dog yes.  Not least because if I'm going to get feedback (whether volunteered or dragooned), then I want it to ultimately be useful feedback.  I'd rather drag useful feedback out of someone shy who happens to be compatible with my gaming style, than sift through loads of "feedback" that includes a lot of agenda setting or other social games.

Also, contra Rel, I'm really not that into listening to a new players social games in order to teach him or her that such stuff doesn't fly.  I *love* to teach new people how to game, or gamers a new style (if they are interested).  Teaching them social skills?  Not so much.  I find that this preference transcends gaming, and applies to everything I do.  (I've done a lot of teaching careers and hobbies.)


----------



## nerfherder (Feb 3, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I've also found that it's easier to write a "game available" ad using the direct approach. Might you accidentally alienate players who do fit because they're offended by the ad? Sure, but then you wouldn't want that person at your game anyway.



This is an excellent idea that works both ways.  There are clearly DMs & players that have different preferences, and it's probably best for the game if they don't mix.  Write your ad "being the biggest douchebag I could possibly be", as Hussar put it, then you'll get the type of players you prefer, and the other players will respond to the ads that don't read like they were written by "the biggest douchebag".  Win - win!


----------



## Rel (Feb 3, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Also, contra Rel, I'm really not that into listening to a new players social games in order to teach him or her that such stuff doesn't fly.  I *love* to teach new people how to game, or gamers a new style (if they are interested).  Teaching them social skills?  Not so much.  I find that this preference transcends gaming, and applies to everything I do.  (I've done a lot of teaching careers and hobbies.)




Did I say that?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2011)

nerfherder said:


> This is an excellent idea that works both ways.  There are clearly DMs & players that have different preferences, and it's probably best for the game if they don't mix.  Write your ad "being the biggest douchebag I could possibly be", as Hussar put it, then you'll get the type of players you prefer, and the other players will respond to the ads that don't read like they were written by "the biggest douchebag".  Win - win!




Pretty much, yeah.  I'm not sure if I'm actually writing a really nasty ad or not to be honest.  It certainly feels like I am.  But, I just got so tired of flakey players that it was the only way I could weed out the chaff.  Anyone who was willing to put up with the crap I was spewing at the outset obviously had enough intestinal fortitude to actually commit to an ongoing game.

When screening potential players from strangers, I find that you really can't be very sentimental about it.  All business at the outset and then try to be the nice guy later on down the line.  

Shadzar-



> I am putting myself out there as willing to run a game and make it work. Sadly only one person liked the idea to continue, and I am not really running solo games, nor are they in playing them, so looking for new players again once tax-season is over, and just winging it until then.




I don't know you and I only know the small snippet you are presenting here, but, if you put it to the group that you want to keep going and everyone gets up and leaves, save one player, it might be time for a bit of self-examination.  Why didn't they want to continue?  Is this the first time this has happened?  Why did your groups end previously?

Look, I'm not trying to fling poo here.  But, it sounds like you just had a player revolt.  That generally doesn't happen for no reason.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 3, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> You create a world/setting/campaign whole cloth, working on internal consistence, the feel of it, internal logic and a certain flavour. You go to great lengths to make everything fitting and everything has a place in this.



Pretty much, yeah.







Coldwyn said:


> At the actual table, you have every player hand in their characters and then aprove or disaprove based on whether that character fits into your preconceived scenario.



Yup. I even have a set of rubber stamps which read APPROVED, REJECTED, and RESUBMIT WITH EDITS, and a bright red Sharpie.

I also insist that my chair is at least three inches higher than everyone else's.



Actually, it begins with the system. I chose _Flashing Blades_ from among other swashbuckling rpgs because it does a great job producing cape-and-sword genre archetype characters. I recruited players interested in the system or the genre. We conducted chargen together at the table, during which we discussed ways to sync their developing character concepts and the setting and to the other characters.

I choose settings which allow for a range of different character concepts, and I enjoy characters which bend but don't break genre conventions. The roommate of one of my players watched us playing and liked the game, but he didn't really have an interest in playing a swordsman, so we kicked around the concept of a pacifist friar-alchemist for his character, if he can arrange his schedule to join us. If he wanted to play a steampunk clockwork automaton fencing machine, I would've politely said no - that's genre-breaking, not genre-bending.







Coldwyn said:


> I, on the other hand, ask my players what they like to see in the next world/setting/campaign and work from there on out. If no one has any interest in dwarves, I leave them out. If no one like playing a human, I leave them out. If everyone agrees on grim and gritty, I make it so. Fantasy Samurai Japan? Why not. And so on.



I'm not part of a 'gaming group' which bounces around from rpg to rpg, campaign to campaign - "We're finishing up Clyde's _Call of Cthulhu_ campaign, then we're going to alternate weeks between Maria's _Dogs in the Vinyeard_ game and some gm-less _Capes_," holds no appeal for me.

My tastes in rpgs are quite narrow. I rarely play rpgs simply to play rpgs, but rather because a particular concept interests me. The closest I get to the former is my annual _D&D_ game with some of the local guys from Dragonsfoot; I have no interest in joiing a group of _D&D_ players just to play an rpg, however, and the only foreseeable circumstance in which I'd run _D&D_ again is for my kids (and I'd rather introduce them to _Traveller_, but my daughter likes _The Black Cauldron_ and my son wants Castle LEGO for his birthday . . . ).

So I run what I want to run, and I find players who are interested in playing that game rather than creating a game expressly to suit a group of players.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 3, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> So I run what I want to run, and I find players who are interested in playing that game rather than creating a game expressly to suit a group of players.



I'm sort of in the middle.  When my Pathfinder game ended, I was willing to run PFRPG, M&M, Shadowrun, Serenity (using d6 rules), or Warriors & Warlocks (M&M).  We all voted and M&M won.

Once the system is picked, though, as GM the specifics are up to me.  The parameters I chose were "modern day, parallel universe, Bay Area, heroic non-loner non-psychopath PCs, tone closer to Silver Age than to Iron or Bronze Age."

If the players had cared enough to ask before the vote, I'd have been glad to share as much of that as I'd decided on, but after the vote, it's my call.  If a player really, _really_ wants to play a clone of Deadpool, I say go for it.  In somebody else's game.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 3, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Well, hang on, you're the one who said "when designing an adventure you do NOT know the final players you will be playing for an DO design in a vacuum of sorts". I denied that this is true of me. I didn't dispute that it might be true for some.




It seemed you were denying if memory serves  a while ago..if not..then c'est la vie..


----------



## shadzar (Feb 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Shadzar-
> 
> I don't know you and I only know the small snippet you are presenting here, but, if you put it to the group that you want to keep going and everyone gets up and leaves, save one player, it might be time for a bit of self-examination.  Why didn't they want to continue?  Is this the first time this has happened?  Why did your groups end previously?
> 
> Look, I'm not trying to fling poo here.  But, it sounds like you just had a player revolt.  That generally doesn't happen for no reason.




*AFTER* games, only one person has shown interest in continuing as a group/joining the group of what I am willing to run/play in. 

Others will return for one shots of varying types of games had or different ideas, but only one interested thus far for making a group to have a continuous game.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 3, 2011)

Rel said:


> Did I say that?




I'm too lazy to go back and look up the exact statements, but there were a series of posts where you indicated what appeared to me to be far more willingness than I possess to tolerate agenda setting and other such behavior--under the guise of asking "Why?"--in order to teach the player that such things wouldn't fly. 

I'm not interested in teaching them that it won't fly (barring them being very young or otherwise having a good excuse for not having already learned it). I'm not interested in them being in the room with me. 

A couple of months ago in another venue, I learned more about where my line was. I help teach beginner fencing at a local fencing school, typically to kids. I've put up with all kinds of nonsense, and it really hasn't bothered me one bit. I like helping kids develop some social skills. Then I had a couple of kids that would ... not... shup ... up. I mean, talking constantly. About 45 minutes in, I threw them out of the class. Told them they could come back when they weren't disrupting everyone else's learning. I think they quit. Good thing the owner backed me up.  

If had been just them in the class, I probably wouldn't have thrown them out. But the other people in the class were getting robbed by these kids--literally, as fencing instruction is expensive. When an otherwise "adult" person wants to act that way in a game, my tolerance is on a hair trigger. It's not just my time he is wasting.

I sensed from your posts that your tolerance was not infinite, but something more than hair trigger. More power to you, as someone's got to do it.


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 3, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I've also found that it's easier to write a "game available" ad using the direct approach. Might you accidentally alienate players who do fit because they're offended by the ad? Sure, but then you wouldn't want that person at your game anyway.
> 
> Saying the same things while being careful not to offend people takes more time. Mostly because the ad becomes more wordy.




So I'm confused. What are furries? I looked on wikipedia and it sounds like LARPing. So do you dress up as Thunrdercats or something? I noticed that there's some controversy over some CSI episode, but I didn't read the article too closely. 

C.I.D.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 3, 2011)

Cyronax said:


> So I'm confused. What are furries? I looked on wikipedia and it sounds like LARPing. So do you dress up as Thunrdercats or something? I noticed that there's some controversy over some CSI episode, but I didn't read the article too closely.
> 
> C.I.D.




Anthropomorphic animals are furries, including but not limited too:
Cowardly Lion form Wizard of Oz
Na'vi form Avatar
Wolfman in the corner of the Cantina in Star Wars

Animals that walk erect on two legs like a person, but have most of the features of the animal. However they can keep all features such as a female cat furry may have two nipples like a human, or six like a cat.

As demihumans are races similar to human in form and physique (elves longer ears and skinnier, dwarves shorted and stockier), furries are just animals that take the form more related to that of a human.

Image a werewolf, but not one that would transform into human or wolf form, but is always the wolf human hybrid.

In D&D they would be like Tabaxi and other animals that are more human like.

X-MEN Sabertooth, Beast, etc also qualify as furries in a sense if you ignore there mutant genes.


----------



## Rel (Feb 3, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'm too lazy to go back and look up the exact statements, but there were a series of posts where you indicated what appeared to me to be far more willingness than I possess to tolerate agenda setting and other such behavior--under the guise of asking "Why?"--in order to teach the player that such things wouldn't fly.
> 
> I'm not interested in teaching them that it won't fly (barring them being very young or otherwise having a good excuse for not having already learned it). I'm not interested in them being in the room with me.




If that's the impression I gave then I'm afraid that I've been doing a very poor job of communicating (especially for somebody who keeps ringing the communication bell in this thread).

My assumption throughout this thread and in life is that, when somebody asks me, "Why?" they are communicating in good faith.  They are asking the question because they desire to learn the answer for greater mutual understanding.  Because I try to game with people whom I like, I literally cannot recall a person having asked me that question in bad faith, as a means to try and somehow browbeat me into changing my position.

If that were the approach they took then I believe I'd identify it very quickly and would have very little patience with them at that point.  Nonetheless (and sort of bringing this thread full circle) I would take the time at least once to explain whatever reasons I had for banning something and listen to their reasons for desiring it.  By so doing I've done myself the favor of getting rid of any niggling doubts I might have later that I dealt with them too abruptly.

In other words, being friendly and considerate, even when those benefits are not returned, I have sort of taken the moral high ground and can feel fine about saying, "No" or maybe "Please leave" or something more...direct.  It doesn't mean I'm a doormat.

I'll also say that I steal ideas from the players all the time in play.  Sometimes while brainstorming amongst themselves they will toss out some theory and I'll say to myself, "Holy crap!  That's WAY cooler than what I thought of!  I'm stealing that..."  I'd feel silly not doing the same thing during the world design phase of the process so if I player has an idea that I hadn't considered then you can bet I'll listen.  It'll probably only take a couple minutes and it may generate TONS of ideas that I can use.

I'm lazy like that.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2011)

shadzar said:


> *AFTER* games, only one person has shown interest in continuing as a group/joining the group of what I am willing to run/play in.
> 
> Others will return for one shots of varying types of games had or different ideas, but only one interested thus far for making a group to have a continuous game.




Again, not flinging poop here, but, if after a series of games, only one player is willing to play with you on an ongoing basis, perhaps a change of venue is in order.  It could just be that you had a string of bad luck with players, that's entirely possible.  Or, it could be that there might be other issues.  Willingness to spend a bit of time on self-examination is generally what makes someone a better DM.

Now, as far as building the campaign first, as The Shaman suggests, and then finding players, that's certainly one approach.  It depends on how large of a pool of players you can draw on.  When I was in high school, this would not have been an option, since our group was the only group in town.  (Grew up in rural Canada)

If you have a large base of gamers to draw from - either you live in a larger center or you run online games - then that works fine.  However, I think most people play with the same people most of the time.  Look at the current "How Old is you Group" thread and the majority there have groups that are over 5 years old.  ((I'm wondering if there is some serious selection bias going on, but that's another issue))  That means that there are a lot of people out there who game with the same (or at least similar) bunch of people for lengthy periods of time.

Which, in turn, means that creating the campaign first and then finding players might not be feasible for some people.  I think, and this is just my personal opinion, that it generally goes the other way - build the campaign for the group of players you have right now, rather than go hunt new players every campaign.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 4, 2011)

Its the large number of games that exist to be played. Mostly board game players wanting to play something different each week. They have a few games run that aren't baord games per month. That way they don't get tired on any one game.

Different areas have different hobby focuses. RPGs aren't, and never were, the only "game" in town.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 5, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Anthropomorphic animals are furries, including but not limited too:
> Cowardly Lion form Wizard of Oz
> Na'vi form Avatar
> Wolfman in the corner of the Cantina in Star Wars
> ...




While the literal definition of "anthropomorphic" is "human shaped", a furry's character is considered anthropomorphic if it has "human like intelligence" and can speak. I'd say more but this isn't really the place. Cryonax, send me a message if you'd like to know more.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 6, 2011)

You are aware that you are just feeding a troll, I trust?


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 6, 2011)

Taking a risk, yes.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2011)

Y'know Shadzar, I was cogitating your situation and here's my 2 cp, for what it's worth.

From the situation you outline, you have a group of people that you can draw upon for gaming.  Great.  However, they seem to be less than enthusiastic about the idea of long term gaming.  They're board gamers, by and large, and not hard core RPG gamers.  So, again, look at what you're saying from their perspective:

You're asking them to commit to a fair bit of time, months, perhaps longer, to a single game and, above that, you're drawing hard limits around what they can and cannot play.  From their perspective, you've just said, "Let's play Axis and Allies for the next six months, but no one can be Germany."  After all, they open the books and the books say they can play X.  When they ask you why they can't play X, your answer is, "I don't like X".

Now, I know that's not what you're really saying.  That's a gross misrepresentation of what you are doing and I get that.  I know that and you know that.  But they don't know that.  They have no way of knowing that because they don't have the experience to tell them that what you are doing is pretty normal for most DM's.  All they know is that you want them to commit to a long term game of poker where you've removed all the Jacks, because you just don't like the way Jacks look.

Totally not what's going on here, but, that's what it looks like from their perspective.

My advice, on building a group from this bunch of people is that it's going to take a fair bit of effort.  Here's what I would do:

1.  Run a couple of very short adventures - 2-3 session length adventures.  Nothing too complicated.  Fairly linear, fairly light on setting, high action, lots of fun.  No restrictions.  That last part is important.  Let them flex out the system.  Go wahoo.  This should net you a fairly solid core of players who are at least willing to commit to a particular time.  Maybe not long term, but, this weeds out the flakes - the guy who comes one week and not the next two doesn't get invited to the next scenario.

2.  Next, run a little more complicated scenario.  Something with a bit more meat to it.  A bit longer - five, maybe six sessions.  Again, no restrictions.  Maybe feel out what the players think of a particular setting concept you have.  Most people will stick around, even if the setting idea isn't something they're terribly interested in.  Here's your chance to really sell your next campaign idea.  If you want to run human only faux Medieval Europe, then use that as the setting.  Let them be whatever, but, showcase the campaign in the best light possible.

3.  Now that you've probably weeded out the jerks and those who are not interested in your play style, you suggest a limited scenario.  They're board gamers.  They'll grok that pretty easily.  Again, short and sweet.  4-6 sessions.  Limited character generation options and hammer home the fact that this is a specific situation, not a general thing.  It's no different than playing Cataan using one of the scenarios.

4.  Hopefully, after all that, you've built a decent group.  The ones that aren't interested in your ideas and the ones that don't share your playstyle have self-selected out by now.  You should be left with a group that will be interested in a longer term game.  Use that last scenario that you did in 3 and ask if they'd like to play out another scenario using the same characters.  What's the next adventure?  If you want to know what happens to Korbach, you'll have to keep playing him in the next scenario.  

((Reading this it almost sounds like you're hooking someone onto street drugs - hey man, first play's free...  ))

Really, this is what I stumbled my way through when building my current group.  It took a long time, mostly because at the time I was building the group, I didn't step back and take a more directed approach.  I just tried everything until I found what worked.  Learn from my mistakes.


----------



## Buttercup (Feb 7, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I apologize for for being unclear. Let me rephrase: Why do some players think a GM forbidding something with the reason "I just don't like it" is not good enough?




I'm late to this thread, but I think it *is* a good enough reason.  

For instance, I hate elves, so they are never a playable race in any campaign I run.   If a person only plays elves, then they should find another table.


----------



## Rel (Feb 7, 2011)

Buttercup said:


> I'm late to this thread, but I think it *is* a good enough reason.
> 
> For instance, I hate elves, so they are never a playable race in any campaign I run.




Why?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You are aware that you are just feeding a troll, I trust?




Please don't call people trolls.  Thanks.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 7, 2011)

And once again, I cannot give Rel XP.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 7, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Please don't call people trolls.  Thanks.



For the record, I hereby grant blanket permission to call me a troll.


Jeff

P.S.  But not a _cave_ troll.  That's racist.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 7, 2011)

Rel said:


> If that's the impression I gave then I'm afraid that I've been doing a very poor job of communicating (especially for somebody who keeps ringing the communication bell in this thread).




Heh, ditto, except I guess since I've been saying that communication isn't all that, this reinforces my point of view. But yeah, as described, I now think there is not a dime's worth of difference in how we actually approach this issue, with people we will actually spend time gaming with.  Of course, being able to say that probably supports your side of the communication issue ...


----------



## Atomicaxe (Feb 7, 2011)

I'm a little late to the discussion, but I have to admit, I'm pretty open to just about anything my players want to do within reason.  I've created games based on all sorts of criteria they wanted (hamster based pirate adventures set in the spelljammer campaign base set, a horror super hero rpg based on mutants and masterminds where one player gained power by gutting babies and the other (male) players favorite form of killing someone with his female villian was speed effing someone to death, etc) ... but the thing I say "i won't allow x or y" is generally things that destroy game play. ... basically power twinking things or general player assery to other players.  those things i "don't like"


----------



## ourchair (Feb 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> OK, I totally parsed it wrong. So the GM is saying they don't like something, therefore not including it in their setting?
> 
> Again, depends what it is. The metals issue is so trivial as to be inconsequential. If the GM is changing the game so much that it's not the game the group wants to play, then he can't force them to play his game. That said, if the players want to_ define_ the actual setting, why have a GM?
> 
> ...



I think the disagreement on the player's side has more to do with being unable to accept to what extent the GM should even be obliged to rationalize the dislike.

I'm going to side with the GM here, if only because if he says he doesnt like 'unobtainium', 'adamantium' or 'residuum', and says 'I just don't like it,' it doesnt mean he doesn't have a good reason.

The problem is that even if there was a good reason beyond 'I just don't like it,' the players can choose to nitpick that reason or turn his reasoning against him in order to reverse his decisions. And up to a certain point, that kind of debate can break even the most strong-willed GM.

In other words, the GM has to be allowed to not have to enter that debate, with the assumption that the players can cut him some slack on his preferences and that this preference still allows the game to remain on the same intersection of 'what kind of game we want to play' and 'what kind of game he/she wants to run'

Simply put, 'I just don't like it' has to be good enough because for some GMs it's a way of avoiding the pressure of having to debate with 3-6 people over something that might be trivial. And I say that as someone who took up GMing only recently, when the GMing zeitgeist is one of Say Yes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Please don't call people trolls.  Thanks.




I assume, from previous discussions, that you are not using "mod voice" as you are not using mod colours.  I always thought that "troll" described the post, not the individual.  But maybe I am mistaken?

There was actually a thread about creative trolling here on EN World not so long ago.  Here is a post from it:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/5436256-post5.html in case anyone is interested.  Please note the XP comment.

Please note other posts in this thread, where people's statements are exactly reversed.  If these are not obvious attempts at trolling, then I have no idea what trolling is.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?



RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 8, 2011)

Buttercup said:


> I'm late to this thread, but I think it *is* a good enough reason.
> 
> For instance, I hate elves, so they are never a playable race in any campaign I run. If a person only plays elves, then they should find another table.






Rel said:


> Why?




Yeah! Why?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I assume, from previous discussions, that you are not using "mod voice" as you are not using mod colours.




Correct.  It is just a request.

As for the rest, I think it is far enough off-topic that we should take it to PM, if you wish to discuss it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Correct.  It is just a request.
> 
> As for the rest, I think it is far enough off-topic that we should take it to PM, if you wish to discuss it.




Not necessary; just making sure I understood.

On topic, AFAICT, the consensus is near-universal that, sometimes "Because I don't like it" should be good enough, but that it is not generally the best way to go about it.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Feb 9, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not necessary; just making sure I understood.
> 
> On topic, AFAICT, the consensus is near-universal that, sometimes "Because I don't like it" should be good enough, but that it is not generally the best way to go about it.
> 
> ...




I think that's about right.


----------



## noretoc (Feb 9, 2011)

Maybe sometimes getting an answer of "Because I don't like them" and sticking with that until you leave the game, is exactly the outcome the DM is looking for.  If I tell a my players no elves and that I don't want to discuss the reason, and one keep going back to me on it, it just means I have identified a person I don't want to play.  If I keep shutting him down until he walks, mission accomplished!  My players know I have reason for things, and wouldn't needle me on it.  They trust me.  If someone doesn't then there are other games for them.

When I am a player, and get shut down, I give the benefit of the doubt that there is a reason.  Even if there isn't that is fine, there are other concepts to play.  An unlimited amount, I will choose another.  Why should I try to piss off the person who is taking time to make the adventure and run it, by giving him a hard time?  How does that make a fun time for me or anyone?

Have some consideration for your DM and fellow gamers, and let it drop.  Have fun a different way.  Don't be a D**K


----------



## kaomera (Feb 9, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> On topic, AFAICT, the consensus is near-universal that, sometimes "Because I don't like it" should be good enough, but that it is not generally the best way to go about it.



Well, what about "Because I like it", then? Throw in "because it's cool" and that's the common response I get as to why someone wants to do something I don't particularly want in my game. And that's cool and all - I want the players to be excited about their characters, but I'd like to be excited about them as well.

In fact I feel like it's part of my responsibility to be able to get excited about the PCs and come up with cool stuff for them. I certainly don't want to be the guy that the DM overlooks when developing subplots because he just can't come up with anything for my character, and I don't really want to be playing opposite that guy either. And I think that the possibility that "I don't like it" is a truthful and significant description of the issue should not be ignored. And if that is the issue, deal with that issue. You may not be able to argue someone out of their opinions, but you can compromise on the issue in a way that makes things better for all parties involved.

I think part of the issue is that it is going to be a real compromise, and a lot of players (& DMs) are stuck in "game mode". They want to have a discussion so that they can "win" by proving that their point is correct. But if the issue is just one of preferences, then discussions about balance or flavor or whatever can only fail to be helpful.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 9, 2011)

noretoc said:


> Maybe sometimes getting an answer of "Because I don't like them" and sticking with that until you leave the game, is exactly the outcome the DM is looking for.  If I tell a my players no elves and that I don't want to discuss the reason, and one keep going back to me on it, it just means I have identified a person I don't want to play.  If I keep shutting him down until he walks, mission accomplished!  My players know I have reason for things, and wouldn't needle me on it.  They trust me.  If someone doesn't then there are other games for them.
> 
> When I am a player, and get shut down, I give the benefit of the doubt that there is a reason.  Even if there isn't that is fine, there are other concepts to play.  An unlimited amount, I will choose another.  Why should I try to piss off the person who is taking time to make the adventure and run it, by giving him a hard time?  How does that make a fun time for me or anyone?
> 
> Have some consideration for your DM and fellow gamers, and let it drop.  Have fun a different way.  Don't be a D**K




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.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I think part of the issue is that it is going to be a real compromise, and a lot of players (& DMs) are stuck in "game mode". They want to have a discussion so that they can "win" by proving that their point is correct.



If this is a serious prospect, I can see that would affect the way you approach the issue.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  And you got posrepped for this?




Largely for the 2nd paragraph, yes.

But, don't worry.....I've seen a lot of posts get XP here that boggle my mind!   



pemerton said:


> If this is a serious prospect, I can see that would affect the way you approach the issue.




Yes, it would.  Sorry I can't XP you yet.  Gotta spread some more around.


RC


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 9, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I think part of the issue is that it is going to be a real compromise, and a lot of players (& DMs) are stuck in "game mode". They want to have a discussion so that they can "win" by proving that their point is correct. But if the issue is just one of preferences, then discussions about balance or flavor or whatever can only fail to be helpful.




Add to that*, a lot of people don't know what they want.  Note, I didn't say, "have trouble expressing it."  They really don't know.  I'm not sure I buy the statistics on the number of people who have been seriously abused in some way, but even if the numbers are much smaller, the percentage is still significant.  Personal experience with people suffering from such and subsequent education on the matters leads me to believe that not knowing what they want will be a common issue.  When dealing with that situation, *no* amount of communication between you and them is going to solve the real issue on the table.  You might navigate the rapids successfully and get on with the game, but you won't "solve" anything.  

Nor is that the only reason why people don't know what they want.  Given the fraility of the human condition, I'm sometimes startled that communication works as well as it does. 

* I am in no shape, form, or fashion even implying that "trying to win" correlates in any way with someone having been abused.  Merely pointing out another way in which the intent of the discussion can be radically misconstrued.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 9, 2011)

noretoc said:


> Maybe sometimes getting an answer of "Because I don't like them" and sticking with that until you leave the game, is exactly the outcome the DM is looking for.  If I tell a my players no elves and that I don't want to discuss the reason, and one keep going back to me on it, it just means I have identified a person I don't want to play.  If I keep shutting him down until he walks, mission accomplished!




Isn't this just a little passive-aggressive?  Wouldn't it be better to just, I dunno, communicate a little better here?


----------



## Rel (Feb 9, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Isn't this just a little passive-aggressive?  Wouldn't it be better to just, I dunno, communicate a little better here?




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.


----------



## airwalkrr (Feb 9, 2011)

This is my first foray into this thread, but here is my opinion on the matter.

"I don't like it" is a perfectly good enough reason. As a player, I may be disappointed if a DM won't allow my pet favorite character concept or tool, but I will find something else that is interesting to play. I have DM'd enough to realize that DMs have a vision for a campaign and enjoy it most when they are allowed to bring that vision to life. On the same token, I appreciate that a DM who is not enjoying the game is not going to run an enjoyable game. With that in mind "I don't like it," is a better reason than any other I can think of.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 9, 2011)

I suspect that some of my visceral reaction to this topic is a different assumption about how important order of the questions matter.

For example, I don't consider, "I asked you first," to be very telling, at least not by itself. I've got a game already past the group planning stage, and the conversation starts like this:

Player: I'd like to be play a tiefling warlock.
GM: Well, initially they were banned.
Player: Why?
GM: Because I don't like them, and no one else really cared. Why do you want to play one?
Player: Because I think they are cool.

Well, that raises an interesting question, doesn't it? Do I really need to go through all the reasons I don't like them before you give me something more than "cool"? (Especially since I find "cool" to be an anti-reason, given that I've found anything done specifically to be "cool" never is. You do something for another reason, and it will be cool or it won't. But a new player might not know me well enough to know that.)

People act as if "asking first" moves the burden of providing a reason, but I don't see that it does. At the most, it establishes perhaps a trade. Tell me more about why you think it's a good idea, and I'll tell you more about why I think it isn't. That's communication. But don't expect me to *justify* my preferences to you, if you aren't prepared to, you know--have a conversation about the subject matter.

And for the record, I would totally invert that burden of providing a reason in another context--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?

If I'm the one introducing the problem, it's on me to start the exploration for a solution. When you attempt to bring an otherwise unacceptable character into a game with already established parameters, then the same burden rests on you. Here's how it should go, and the reason "Why" is the start of the derail:

Player: I'd like to be play a tiefling warlock.
GM: Well, initially they were banned.
Player: I know, but I think they are cool, and I have this idea that I'd like to work in if we can...


----------



## steeldragons (Feb 9, 2011)

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 (Feb 9, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2011)

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 (Feb 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 9, 2011)

Rel said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

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 (Feb 10, 2011)

noretoc said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> 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.


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 10, 2011)

When I ask why, it doesn't mean I'm "asking a DM again" or "trying to change a DM's mind", it means that I'm interested in the thought process behind the DM's decision. :shrug:


----------



## Hussar (Feb 10, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I suspect that some of my visceral reaction to this topic is a different assumption about how important order of the questions matter.
> 
> For example, I don't consider, "I asked you first," to be very telling, at least not by itself. I've got a game already past the group planning stage, and the conversation starts like this:
> 
> ...




Oh, totally agree with this.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.  If you ban X and I want to play X, I better come up for a pretty darn good reason why you should change your mind.

"Because I like them" is no better answer than "Cos I don't like them."

When both the DM and the player come from the position that the other person is actively trying to create the best game possible, great things happen.

OTOH



noretoc said:


> 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.




As was mentioned upthread, you've basically taken the Big Daddy Chair approach to DMing.  The fact that you've managed to brow beat eight other people into accepting your authority without question doesn't make you a great DM.

So, let's turn the question around.  Why do you not trust that the player knows his job of making a fun game?

Why is the sole source of fun at the table the DM?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 10, 2011)

FickleGM said:


> When I ask why, it doesn't mean I'm "asking a DM again" or "trying to change a DM's mind", it means that I'm interested in the thought process behind the DM's decision. :shrug:




If a question comes across that way, I don't think many people complain about it.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 10, 2011)

Not that it matters, but I guess a certain user got topic banned?

Anyway, I'm all for "you don't like that I don't allow X because I don't like whatever X , perhaps you should seek a different GM".

Now, people obviously have strong opinions. People who see "control freak/Big Daddy" will most likely do so no matter how permissive a GM who might not like a couple of things in his game actually is, as far as I can tell from this thread so far. I'm just not seeing the things that set people off on that as really being that controlling. So my opinion is, obviously, "you're seeing something that isn't there."

Of course, I do appreciate the "have a conversation" and "set your expectations up from the beginning" style answers.


----------



## noretoc (Feb 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> As was mentioned upthread, you've basically taken the Big Daddy Chair approach to DMing. The fact that you've managed to brow beat eight other people into accepting your authority without question doesn't make you a great DM.
> 
> So, let's turn the question around. Why do you not trust that the player knows his job of making a fun game?
> 
> Why is the sole source of fun at the table the DM?




First you have made an assumption about me that is wrong and condesending. My players don't accept "my authority". You don't know them or me. My players trust that I can provide a fun time, and that is why they don't argue. There is a big difference there, and I'm sorry if you have never run into that type of relationship before.

Second, the player who is arguing back and forth has already taken away from the fun. Why would I have any reason to feel it will be different int he future. His options are contimue with the game, and choose something else, or make it an issue. He chooses the latter, and is already showing himself a person who can't be trusted to put aside disagreements for the better of the game.

Let me ask you a question, if a player said "I'll play monday as long as I don't have to play the wizard" If I ask why, and he says "I don't like wizards" do I have the right to argue with him about it? Should I just let him play something else?


----------



## noretoc (Feb 10, 2011)

Mircoles said:


> 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 f*^k 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.
> 
> ...




Try reading the second line of the post you quoted.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 10, 2011)

Mircoles said:


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



The GM does more work.  The GM bears more responsibility.

The GM gets more say.

It's really as simple -- and as completely fair -- as that.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 10, 2011)

noretoc, please fix the attribution of that quote.  I did not say the quoted passage.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 10, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Anyway, I'm all for "you don't like that I don't allow X because I don't like whatever X , perhaps you should seek a different GM".
> 
> Now, people obviously have strong opinions. People who see "control freak/Big Daddy" will most likely do so no matter how permissive a GM who might not like a couple of things in his game actually is, as far as I can tell from this thread so far. I'm just not seeing the things that set people off on that as really being that controlling. So my opinion is, obviously, "you're seeing something that isn't there."
> 
> Of course, I do appreciate the "have a conversation" and "set your expectations up from the beginning" style answers.




Yep, for every truly controlling DM I've ever met, I can show you at least 4 players that can't take "No" as an answer.  The only reason they wanted X was because it was banned.  I'll leave it to the armchair psychologists to determine if the controllers or the anti-No people came first, because it really doesn't matter now.  Both groups set off a clearly emotional response in the other.

At least the topic matter isn't that serious.


----------



## Rel (Feb 10, 2011)

I have this compulsion to keep coming back to this thread in order to restate my position, which I believe (perhaps I'm biased) lies in the center of some of the extreme examples being put forth.  I think that this:



Jeff Wilder said:


> The GM does more work.  The GM bears more responsibility.
> 
> The GM gets more say.
> 
> It's really as simple -- and as completely fair -- as that.




...is completely accurate.  I do think that the GM is the one doing more of the work, taking more of the responsibility and who is in charge of the overall "plan" of the campaign.  I have never said otherwise and I think the GM can ultimately veto whatever he wants from the campaign.

I still take issue with the position championed by shadzar and noretoc (and maybe others) that a player asking "why" something is banned is already "over the line" and being disruptive.  By giving an answer that explains your reasoning, you are offering an opportunity for the player to work _with _you to establish the sort of characters you believe fit in a particular campaign setting.  Without that explanation then the player is simply left in the position of playing "Mother May I?" with regards to anything else that might be banned.

I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that the players and GM working in concert to achieve great games is at least equal and probably superior to the players simply abiding by the GM's restrictions while never understanding why.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 10, 2011)

For me, as a DM, it boils down essentially two things, though these aren't hard lines:

1. Asking "Why?" is not arguing.

2. Repeatedly asking "Why?" or not accepting a reasonable explanation is where the problem occurs.  

Personally, I don't believe that "Because I said so" is a reasonable explanation for the first "why?".   It just seems to me that it isn't conducive to working with the players to help develop their PCs.  And it doesn't help explain to the players - from a worldbuilding standpoint - why you said no.

"Because I said so" is a reasonable explanation for that persistant player that won't let it go.  And now you have some more information about your player.

It's not like a short explanation takes any more than a few seconds.  To deny a player a 5 minute conversation about your game world and your reasoning doesn't make sense* in light of the fact that you might be gaming with them for the next new months or even years.

*At a Con, 5 minutes might be too much time, but at a Con, I imagine most players are pretty accepting of a one-shot games' parameters. (Well, at least I have never seen it be a problem.  Personal experience, and all that...)


----------



## noretoc (Feb 10, 2011)

Rel said:


> I still take issue with the position championed by shadzar and noretoc (and maybe others) that a player asking "why" something is banned is already "over the line" and being disruptive. By giving an answer that explains your reasoning, you are offering an opportunity for the player to work _with _you to establish the sort of characters you believe fit in a particular campaign setting. Without that explanation then the player is simply left in the position of playing "Mother May I?" with regards to anything else that might be banned.




I want to make clear this is NOT my position.  Asking why is fine.  Telling me that "I don't like them" is not good enough and demanding more is not fine.  They are two different things.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 10, 2011)

Rel said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that the players and GM working in concert to achieve great games is at least equal and probably superior to the players simply abiding by the GM's restrictions while never understanding why.




Yarp. Blind obedience without understanding produces drones. Drones become passive, sit on their tushies and expect to be entertained. I favor having enthusiastic, engaged players in my games that have a desire to contribute to the good time rather than merely being a consumer of it.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 10, 2011)

Mircoles said:


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



The referee is a player like everyone else, but the referee's toolset and role is different from that of the other players. In most traditional roleplaying games, this includes being the final arbiter, of the rules and the setting.

There's a simple logic to this: if a player takes his ball and goes home, then the game can still continue, but of the referee walks, then it's game over until or unless someone else steps up.

None of this diminishes the benefits of compromise and collaboration in running a roleplaying game, or in any other social activity, for that matter. It simply settles the question of *WHO DECIDES?* when the limits of compromise and collaboration are reached.

There are alternatives to the referee as final arbiter: referee-less games like _Capes_, rigidly structured rules systems which place tight constraints on the referee like _Burning Wheel_, distributed referee responsibility like _Boot Hill_, and so on. Players unhappy with the traditional referee role have choices which may be more to their liking.

The existence of alternatives doesn't mean that the traditional role of the referee is broken, however; the referee as final arbiter is still around for the simple reason that it works. There's a post somewhere in this thread that cites an ENWorld poll claiming a third of the gamers who voted had mostly negative experiences with referees. The flip side of that is two-thirds, a majority of the respondents, have not had mostly negative experiences with referees.

So no, the referee is not god, but the referee as final arbiter works well enough for most gamers to settle the question of *WHO DECIDES?*


----------



## shadzar (Feb 10, 2011)

Rel said:


> I still take issue with the position championed by shadzar and noretoc (and maybe others) that a player asking "why" something is banned is already "over the line" and being disruptive.  By giving an answer that explains your reasoning, you are *offering an opportunity for the player to work with you to establish the sort of characters you believe fit in a particular campaign setting*.  Without that explanation then the player is simply left in the position of playing "Mother May I?" with regards to anything else that might be banned.






By telling them "No tieflings" they also have that same opportunity.

You somehow mistake that something is removed other than the tieflings in that case.

There is no "Mother May I" with ANYTHING banned. The fact it is banned, forbidden, disallowed, is the problem you have and issue you are having.

The automatic answer is NO, that is what banning is.

Lets call this "why" question as similar to threadcrapping. There is a line drawn that something isn't allowed in both cases. The rule was set, and if you come to that then you accept the rule.

You don't go to a 9-ball tournament to play 8-ball. You try playing 9-ball in an 8-ball tournament, and you are soon going ot be screwing up.

Here is a why for you: Why would someone be going to play for the sole purpose of confrontation? If you don't accept a game with "no tieflings" then why even go there?

The players requested and being sought were ones agreeing to "no tieflings". When a player then shows up wanting to dispute that, they have already violated a part of that "social contract" and shown they have no interest in communication, because they started out by not paying attention and not following the rules set forth by the DM.

This behavior 99.998% of the time carries over to being a disruptive player.

Seriously, why would someone go to a game set up with the rule of "no tieflings" be there with an attempt to play a tiefling, or even care?

The DMs job is to make the game work. Not to let just every Tom, Dick, and Harry off the street try to tell everyone else how to play. If there are other people that agree with this rule of "no teiflings" except this one, then you already see this one person asking doesn't have views aligned with the group.

If you already knew what to expect and then went counter to that, you are only there to BE disruptive to the others.

The school example was given, someone going to heckle a comedian, etc.... These are all the same type of disruptive people. There is no reason a DM or other player should have to put up with that.

You don't have to agre with it, and the fact that you take issue with it would make me ask you this:

Would you come to mine or his games saying "no tiefligns" and them try question that?
If so, then why did you come in the first place? Just to question why tieflings aren't allowed?

The person raising the question when the ground rules were set, should never have come if they didnt agree with those rules.


----------



## Rel (Feb 10, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Would you come to mine or his games saying "no tiefligns" and them try question that?
> If so, then why did you come in the first place? Just to question why tieflings aren't allowed?
> 
> The person raising the question when the ground rules were set, should never have come if they didnt agree with those rules.




I'll try this one more time.  It has nothing to do with not agreeing to any rules.  It has to do with understanding for better long term mutual enjoyment.

I'll put myself in the exact situation posed here:

I'm a guy looking for a game at the local game store.  I see their ad.  It says, "DM looking for players for D&D campaign.  No Tieflings."  Not a problem I say to myself.

I show up for the game with my non-Tiefling character and ask, "Before we get started, would you please tell me why no Tieflings?"  I might wonder if the GM just has no place for them in his campaign setting.  I might wonder if they are in the campaign setting but not as a playable PC race.  I might wonder if the GM just "doesn't like" Tieflings and never will, which is kind of important because I then know that not only are there no Tieflings allowed in this campaign but there never will be in any campaign he runs.  I might wonder if the GM has a world without any Demons in it and therefore no "demon-touched" races like the Tieflings.  Maybe that means there are no angels either.  It could have a big impact on the cosmology.  And it could be, just maybe, that I'm asking because I want to pick apart his reasoning and force my super-secret backup Tiefling character into his campaign setting.

If I ask my simple question, "So would you please tell me why no Tieflings in your campaign?" then it's possible that I'm planning to be a dick.  If his response is, "No, I won't tell you." then I'm pretty confident that HE is a dick.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 10, 2011)

Rel said:


> I'll try this one more time.  It has nothing to do with not agreeing to any rules.  It has to do with understanding for better long term mutual enjoyment.




So which word do you not understand:
No?
Tieflings?



You are letting your wants to know "why" outweigh your needs, and others needs/wants to play a game with "no tieflings".

Your special needs is not something I have time for in life. There are plenty of places for that, but not in my D&D games.

If you go to a game to play, there are rules such as "no tieflings" before you go. You have zero excuse to start rocking the boat. Only go there if you accept those things. Apparently you aren't there to play D&D with "no tieflings". That means you are in the wrong place.

Even "I don't like it' is required, but given the polite chance to give you the option to get back into the game contract you signed when you showed up, which stated "no tieflings". If you are already breaking that contract, then you can leave, you don't have to stay to disrupt the game for a single minute for the other people who worked to adjusted their schedules and drove to meet in a location that DO want the thing offered as-is.

Facebook and MySpace are to the right for your need to socialize with random strangers, D&D is to the left. Feel free to take some D&D with you, but you can't tale it all. When you are done with your Facebook and MySpace, feel free to come back over to play some D&D when that is your focus and interest.

That was not a joke either. I have seen that very thing in stores offering games. People get randomly assigned to tables, and one is all about just jack-jawing, and a person wanted to play instead, asked to be placed at a table interested in playing and they had to shift some people around to make it happen, or just the person wanting to play was SOL. No trouble, just try to squeeze that player into a game actually playing and move the entire socializing group to another side of the store where they don't disrupt the actual games being had. And this was with pre-genned character that were being disputed!

Everyone had fun, but the group that lost a player was upset that they had lost a player. The reason being, they came for different things, like the person questioning the rule they came knowing advance about.

There are just games you go to play at you need to leave ALL of your baggage at the door.

It would REALLY tick me off, someone coming to the game taking a space form someone else potentially, wasting mine or anothers time, when they didn't agree with the game to begin with.

If you cannot have "mutual enjoyment" in a game with "no tieflings" then don't show up to it, or you might not find yourself welcome for the "long term" or even to continue the "short term".


----------



## Mallus (Feb 10, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Your special needs is not something I have time for in life. There are plenty of places for that, but not in my D&D games.
> 
> If you go to a game to play, there are rules such as "no tieflings" before you go. You have zero excuse to start rocking the boat. Only go there if you accept those things. Apparently you aren't there to play D&D with "no tieflings". That means you are in the wrong place.



You sound stressed. Have you tried Hare Krishna?

~ edit: note that Mallus has thus indicated he wants to have no more part in this discussion - Plane Sailing, ENworld Admin ~


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 10, 2011)

The whole problem in the "no tielfling at the store game" is that the players don't know you.  It could just as easily be "no pizza at the table while we play".  Does that mean that you are allergic to pizza?  Does it mean you hate the smell?  Does it mean that you've had bad experiences with pizza-eating players, and no more will you risk it?  They have no clue.

That's is what makes "why" sit right on the fuzzy edge.  Because the real question at the point very well could be, "I want to really understand why this is happening because it might help me appreciate the game more."  Or it might be, "No pizza, that's bizarre.  I want to know why ... so that I can expand my understanding of you."  Or it could be, "I want to dick with this guy for some reason, and asking the question this way gives me a way to maybe do that without getting pegged as a dick."

Note that with those last two options, we aren't talking about the *game* anymore.  A certain amount of that is inevitable.  If it doesn't happen with the banned stuff, it will happen with something else--an NPC name, a characterization, monster choices, plot choices, etc.  It's natural, but it works both ways.  

That's why I said I'll have a conversation about the issue, but I won't justify myself to the player.  If the other guy wants to have a conversation about the game, or maybe some of the "getting to know you" stuff that informs the game, it will be evident, and the conversation will be fruitful.  Otherwise, his attempt to be a dick with plausible deniability will be frustrated. 

Now, I think that preceding paragraph is pretty universal.  Where it becomes more personal is that my tolerance goes down in a hurry once I start detecting "entitlement issues" or other such behavior that I find exceedingly immature but depressingly common in supposed adults.  If I'm feeling frisky, I might set the guy up to make a fool of himself.  Or I might be tired and otherwise occupied and cut him off.  "No, you aren't going to get this thing, and you aren't going to get more of a reason."  Then I'll turn right around to the guy sitting next to him with a similar but more honest question, and answer it fully.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 10, 2011)

"I don't like it" isn't good enough for me -- when I DM. 

It's boring. 

It's a creative challenge to work fictional elements I don't like, or at least didn't author, into the settings and campaigns I create. On the other hand, there's no challenge in simply mandating my own tastes, and in that way, 'just saying no' would rob me of an entertaining part of the game. The part where I work with another person to turn their idea of interesting into something congruent with my own. 

At least this is how I see things nowadays. I had pretty much the opposite opinion during my years as a 2e DM.


----------



## Rel (Feb 10, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So which word do you not understand:
> No?
> Tieflings?




I've made ample attempts to communicate my point to you shadzar and you're obviously not getting it, which I suppose should not surprise me at this point.  Another attempt will not be made.

I have faith that we will both ultimately end up with the sorts of gaming groups we deserve.  Good day.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 10, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> It could just as easily be "no pizza at the table while we play".  Does that mean that you are allergic to pizza?  Does it mean you hate the smell?  Does it mean that you've had bad experiences with pizza-eating players, and no more will you risk it?  They have no clue.




Nor do they have to have a clue. People just need to learn to accept things that are not in their control, rather than try to control everything they cannot accept.

If I say no eating or drinking in my car, and you question it, you will be looking for another ride.

I have offered a thing and only that. You seek something else, find it elsewhere.

Again someone trying to order a McRib at Burger King. Either you are confused about where you are, or you are trying to purposefully cause a conflict.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 10, 2011)

Mallus said:


> It's a creative challenge to work fictional elements I don't like, or at least didn't author, into the settings and campaigns I create. On the other hand, there's no challenge in simply mandating my own tastes, and in that way, 'just saying no' would rob me of an entertaining part of the game. The part where I work with another person to turn their idea of interesting into something congruent with my own.



As a player I feel it's a creative challenge to work up a character which fits a setting which I didn't create, and a referee who says 'yes' to everything isn't providing me with the boundaries to test my creativity, to turn her idea of interesting into something congruent with my own.

And around and around we go.

Somewhere upthread at least one poster, and maybe a couple of others, alluded to the idea that they like to create characters and then find games in which to run them. My personal feeling is that that's the source of at least some, and maybe quite a bit, of the friction over characters in games - a player buys a sourcebook or sees a 'build' online and decides, "I gotta run this!" then expects the next dungeon master to let that character in, without even considering the campaign, the setting, the dungeon master, or the other players.

I think there's a great deal of benefit which comes from making characters together for the game.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Nor do they have to have a clue. People just need to learn to accept things that are not in their control, rather than try to control everything they cannot accept.



Asking "why" is not an attempt to control.



shadzar said:


> Again someone trying to order a McRib at Burger King. Either you are confused about where you are, or you are trying to purposefully cause a conflict.



Apples and Oranges.

If I ask about why there aren't Tiefling PCs, maybe it is so that I may understand if there are "demon-kin" monsters, NPCs or other similar creatures in the milieu (and by proxy, angel-kin, angelic NPCs, etc).

D&D is played (and DMed) a multitude of different ways, with different rulesets and editions, and with different houserules. Therefore asking questions is akin to getting your bearings.

If you go into a Burger King wanting a McDonalds product, well... its like asking why we aren't playing with d6 dice pools in D&D.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> By telling them "No tieflings" they also have that same opportunity.
> 
> You somehow mistake that something is removed other than the tieflings in that case.
> 
> ...




WOW. 

And now, a random quote from shadzar's profile page:

"shadzar has not made any friends yet" 

Don't think too hard about why, it might hurt.

*Mod Edit:* Ladies and gentlemen, you may be tempted to be personally insulting to people.  We suggest you resist that temptation.  EW here won't be joining the rest of this conversation because he didn't.  ~Umbran


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I think there's a great deal of benefit which comes from making characters together for the game.



I couldn't imagine starting a serious game any other way. (Of course the "together" could be via email, phone calls, conversations between individual players, and between individual players and the GM etc. An activity can be cooperative without requiring everyone to be all in the same room at the same time.)

Con games and one shots and the like are of course completely different. But I don't think these are the sorts of game most people on the "communication is better" side (to the extent that there are sides here) have in mind.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So which word do you not understand:
> No?
> Tieflings?
> 
> ...





shadzar said:


> Nor do they have to have a clue. People just need to learn to accept things that are not in their control, rather than try to control everything they cannot accept.



Rel's point, and Crazy Jerome's, as I read them, is that asking "why" isn't necessarily about rocking the boat or trying to take control.

I teach law students. One thing I teach them is to ask, of the laws that I teach them, "why"? Not because I think the laws need to be changed, but because it can help with understanding the function of the rule, and the sort of social structures it supports, to know why the rule has been adopted.

Likewise with a GM. Knowing _why_ the GM has banned tieflings can help understand the GM's game. For example, if it's just because the GM doesn't like them, then I'm probably safe in guessing that there won't be that many opportunities to play a half-vampire or lycanthrope (or perhaps even drow) PC either. Or, as Rel said, the explanation might help me understand the game's cosmology. Or . . .



shadzar said:


> I have seen that very thing in stores offering games.



And I think it's pretty obvious that Rel, Crazy Jerome and others aren't talking about one-shot pick-up games. They're talking about games where the GM's vision for the gameworld actually makes a difference.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 11, 2011)

noretoc said:


> First you have made an assumption about me that is wrong and condesending. My players don't accept "my authority". You don't know them or me. My players trust that I can provide a fun time, and that is why they don't argue. There is a big difference there, and I'm sorry if you have never run into that type of relationship before.




Ahh, you had the high road and then jumped into the ditch with me at the end.  Shame.  I'm basing my response on the fact that you specifically stated that you would go out of your way to passive aggressively force a player from your table, rather than have an up front conversation with him.



> Second, the player who is arguing back and forth has already taken away from the fun. Why would I have any reason to feel it will be different int he future. His options are contimue with the game, and choose something else, or make it an issue. He chooses the latter, and is already showing himself a person who can't be trusted to put aside disagreements for the better of the game.




But, how are you different?  It takes two to have an argument.  Why are you presupposing that this guy is doing it deliberately to ruin your game?   



> Let me ask you a question, if a player said "I'll play monday as long as I don't have to play the wizard" If I ask why, and he says "I don't like wizards" do I have the right to argue with him about it? Should I just let him play something else?




I would have zero problem with asking him why he doesn't want to play wizards.  And, if he simply says, I don't like wizards, he's being every bit as poor of a player as the DM who does it.  I believe I stated this upthread a bit in my response to Crazy Jerome.

If a player absolutely refused to play a particular character, yeah, I'd ask.  To the point where he made his resusal to play that character an issue?  Oh yeah, we'd have a conversation.

But, guess what, I'd let him play something else.  Forcing players to play something they don't want to play never works.

But, that's what I'd do at my table.  I'm not saying that's what everyone should do.

See, the thing is, every single poor DM I've ever played with gave me this exact same line - "No X because I don't like it".  Every one.  Without fail.  So, yeah, when the DM plays the hard line like this and refuses to expand on it, that's going to be my first clue that this DM is headed for a player revolt in short order.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 11, 2011)

Not all things that happen between our hypothetical DM and player having (or not having) this conversation are about the two of them.

If I'm in a pickup game, whether as a DM or player, I'll tolerate people that I'm sure are idiots ("sure" as in the weight of evidence from what they say, their attitude, body language, and a whole host of factors) for somewhat longer than I would in my own group. Part of it is that one is never truly "sure." And part of it is that if I set my mind to it, I can shrug off that stuff for awhile and truly not let it bother me. 

But mainly, I'll tolerate the idiots because Rel or Hussar might be one of the other people sitting there. Or maybe there is a lady there who has had nothing but dick DMs for 10 years, and this game is the very last time she is going to give it a chance. I don't want to do _anything_ to drive her away. Eventually, however, that idiot is leaving. If I get to know Rel and Hussar and our tentative lady gamer well enough, quickly enough, the idiot is leaving soon. In my own group, this isn't an issue, because I already know everyone there well, and they know me.

This is important: I'm 43 years old. Since age 9 or so, I've been known by most of my personal peers as someone that better natural "idiot radar" than most. This means that I know the guy is an idiot before most people, and I surely know it before our tentative lady gamer. She isn't even focused on the idiot, anyway. She's zeroed in on the DM to see if he is like the rest.

Despite this, I've been in the situation over and over (not only gaming by any means) where I had some kind of responsibility for policing, gave the idiot every chance possible, but finally had to act in some overt way. Every single time this has occurred, several other people in the group have asked afterwards, essentially, "What took you so long?" The last time someone said to me, "You know, you were kind of hard on him. Maybe give him another chance," I was 17 and screwed up in my head over a girl.  So I think my track record for cutting people some slack, in practice, is reasonable.

Which I guess is a long-winded way of saying that don't mistake what I say here for what I'm thinking at a given moment to necessarily be directly linked to decisive action at that moment. I've also learned that anyone that really is the idiot will give you plenty of opportunities to call them on it. So it's really just what you are willing to take and how much of his nonsense you are willing to let the other people in your group take.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Not all things that happen between our hypothetical DM and player having (or not having) this conversation are about the two of them.




I think most of the discussion may be happening in some people's mind in that vacuum where only the one player and DM exists.

The DM is responsible for the game for all. If one player is taking the time form the others after having joiend the "no tieflings" game, then they are in the wrong place.

Idiot or not, they are just in the wrong place. When the "no tiefling" parameter was set, the DM must assume all people there already want a "no tieflings" game.

If the other 4 players are there for "no tieflings", then even the one other asking about them, have violated what they are there for. The DM allowing for said discussion, is taking away from those other 4 who wanted the "no tieflings" game by discussing the tieflings in any manner with the one.

That one asking about tieflings has already become a disruption to the game that was wanted by everyone else. The game without teiflings present.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 11, 2011)

I hear ya, shadzar, but I still think you are making an argument based on how you want the world to be, rather than how it is.  You want people to automatically assume that "no means no".  But they don't.  If you want to draw a bright line on that issue, that is your prerogative.  But even from a position largely in sympathy with your own, that strikes me as rather tilting at windmills.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 11, 2011)

I am very late to this but still willing to throw in my two cents.

I think players are against the "no cause I said so" for the same reason most players do not tolerate the "I am DM I am the LAW" attitude that some DMs take.

Both set the tone that the DM is most important than the player and with all the egoes most people deal with at work no one is in the mood to deal with a DM with a boss complex.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I hear ya, shadzar, but I still think you are making an argument based on how you want the world to be, rather than how it is.  You want people to automatically assume that "no means no".  But they don't.  If you want to draw a bright line on that issue, that is your prerogative.  But even from a position largely in sympathy with your own, that strikes me as rather tilting at windmills.




The the human race is doomed. The term no means one and only one thing. People trying to expand and obfuscate that meaning are only doing a diservice to everyone else.

It would be like someone seeing a "No parking" sign and thinking "its only illegal if you get caught".

The level of respect of others is being deprived in the case someone doesn't accept "no means no". Also anyone not observing that "no means no" I would think is a threat to others and probably society itself.

Why have language and use it, if not for the intended manner?

No, does mean no.

Some things are just that black and white. If you don't intend for it to be so, then use the proper language.

"No tieflings" =/= "no tieflings unless you talk me into it".

"No tieflings" = "no tieflings".


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The the human race is doomed. The term no means one and only one thing. People trying to expand and obfuscate that meaning are only doing a diservice to everyone else.
> 
> It would be like someone seeing a "No parking" sign and thinking "its only illegal if you get caught".
> 
> ...




Of course no means no.

I think the better question is who does the DM, any DM, think he is to think "no because I said so" is a good enough reason when playing a game and everyone is trying to have fun.


----------



## Rel (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar, you seem very intent on disproving a point that nobody is making.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The level of respect of others is being deprived in the case someone doesn't accept "no means no". Also anyone not observing that "no means no" I would think is a threat to others and probably society itself.




Okay, dude, stop for a second.  Your statement seems to lack appropriate perspective.  It seems to me that you're telling me that having a calm discussion at a gaming table (a discussion which, as several have already pointed out, is not necessarily about wheedling around a, "No") is equivalent to a threat to all of society.

No, it isn't.   And here, no means no.

let us not be hyperbolic.  You're a GM, not a cop at a crisis scene.  Asking you a simple question is not going to cost human life or something.  It may leave some folks cooling their heels for a moment or two while the question gets answered, or the GM tells the player to take a hike. And that is about it.  

Real people have this thing called judgment, which allows (most of) them to differentiate between different social contexts.  Just because they ask a question at your table does not imply that they never take no for an answer.


----------



## noretoc (Feb 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Ahh, you had the high road and then jumped into the ditch with me at the end. Shame. I'm basing my response on the fact that you specifically stated that you would go out of your way to passive aggressively force a player from your table, rather than have an up front conversation with him.




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.





Hussar said:


> But, how are you different? It takes two to have an argument. Why are you presupposing that this guy is doing it deliberately to ruin your game?




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



Hussar said:


> I would have zero problem with asking him why he doesn't want to play wizards. And, if he simply says, I don't like wizards, he's being every bit as poor of a player as the DM who does it. I believe I stated this upthread a bit in my response to Crazy Jerome.
> 
> If a player absolutely refused to play a particular character, yeah, I'd ask. To the point where he made his resusal to play that character an issue? Oh yeah, we'd have a conversation.




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




Hussar said:


> But, guess what, I'd let him play something else. Forcing players to play something they don't want to play never works.




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



Hussar said:


> But, that's what I'd do at my table. I'm not saying that's what everyone should do.
> 
> See, the thing is, every single poor DM I've ever played with gave me this exact same line - "No X because I don't like it". Every one. Without fail. So, yeah, when the DM plays the hard line like this and refuses to expand on it, that's going to be my first clue that this DM is headed for a player revolt in short order.




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.

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.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> Of course no means no.
> 
> I think the better question is who does the DM, any DM, think he is to think "no because I said so" is a good enough reason when playing a game and everyone is trying to have fun.




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?

The DM is the one providing you the ability to play the game. You don't have to join that game, likewise the DM doesn't have to put up with someone's BS when coming to a game with ill intent.

All you are doing here is trying to continue the DM v player fight.... 

Proof in point, the one questioning the DMs decision of what game to run when coming to the game as advertised means the player has already set themselves up as disruptive, because they didn't come to play the game adverting but to complain about it. No one forced the person to come to it.

Any player can leave and the game continue, the DM leaves...the rest is screwed...AKA don't p-off the DM unless someone else is willing to DM.

Those are the very jerks that *need* to be ran out of gaming, the ones coming to a "no tieflings" game for the sole purpose of trying to inject tieflings into it. They have no intention to play the game, just to cause problems for everyone else.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Okay, dude, stop for a second.  Your statement seems to lack appropriate perspective.  It seems to me that you're telling me that having a calm discussion at a gaming table (a discussion which, as several have already pointed out, is not necessarily about wheedling around a, "No") is equivalent to a threat to all of society.
> 
> No, it isn't.   And here, no means no.
> 
> ...




If you think for one moment that signs found in gaming are not related to other parts of life, then YOU are the one needing to gain perspective.

Someone showing signs of a threat to the game itself, is not someone going to be welcome to games I run.

You are sadly still working inside the vacuum, think that the DM and player are only in existence in the case of the DM and player in so much as the player left everything of there life out of it, and humans don't work that way.

You may want to learn a bit about psychology and things called behavioral patterns. One exhibiting such a pattern from the onset of gaming, is not likely to change, ESPECIALLY if they exhibit those in the rest of their life. I don't have interest in finding out or risking my players in in manner, not limited to the fun of the game, for such people exhibiting those patterns.

I could illustrate this very well using your position on the forums, where you already DO, if that is your tasked position, do that pattern recognition and prevent "harm" to the enjoyment of others. Unless I misunderstand the position of the green names here.

The job is the same as a DM. It only takes ONE time for a person on these forums to get threadbanned for threadcrapping even if that is there first post, correct?

Well that is what I am doing as a DM, when I remove the element that comes to the "no tieflings" game with the intent of bringing tieflings into it.

Some may say, not openly as it violates the forums rules, that certain instances of your actions in your duty were unwarranted, and likewise mine as a DM. I will not change my DMing to placate those who do not agree with it, and likewise I don't assume you in your forums position would change just on the whim of another either.

The tasks are very similar. Based on your personal perspective, you do what you feel is right for the protection of the larger group, and so do I.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 11, 2011)

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

"How do you feel about that, Jeff?"


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

Jeff Wilder said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> "why make your first impression a conflict?"




... The mind, it boggles.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

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 (Feb 11, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> 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 (Feb 12, 2011)

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."


----------



## shadzar (Feb 12, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> shadzar, try this. Two possible ads for the same D&D game, same DM, same players. Alternative universe if you will.
> 
> 1. "No tieflings."
> 
> ...



Correct.



> 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.




Strange. I would think the second would get more queries since I can easy get the question resulting from it be asked "Why might you allow gnomes but not tieflings?"

To which I would probably roll my eyes and answer "I don't like them".

The first is simple, direct, and to the point. there is no going around you ass to get to your elbow with it.

I just cannot see why one would be presented with something so straightforward and not just be able to accept it and move on.

I wouldn't present the second one, but did use it in part as an example.

I guess it boils down to how people were raised and taught as they were brought up.

After a certain age I stopped with the childish asking of "why" to everything and learned some things are just to be taken at face value.

I really don't have the interest in getting into other people's mindsets about every little thing. Nor interest in others that enjoy that sort of thing. There are soap operas and those silly reality TV shows for with "gossip fence curiosity".

Someone tells me "no tieflings" then I accept that and will join all other things, time, etc permitting. If I don't I won't join. If I go and there is someone their trying to add tieflings when the game was advertised "no tieflings", if I wanted the "no tieflings" game that much, I will not remain longer while another player adds them in any way. If i have no opinion and am just fine with or without tieflings I am libel to remain.

So the first case I view like this with the 3 types of people.

1-Players wanting a game with "no tieflings", myself include as that is what I advertised
2-Players who don't care either way
3-Players who want tieflings

Group 3 is in the wrong place because they will upset/disrupt the game sought form group 1.

"You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

I want to be able to please the MOST people all of the time, and don't like the people trying to displease them, and as DM have a job to remove group 3 form the equation, or if the majority is somehow in group 3, will remove myself from it.



> 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.*"




Over wordiness does NOT make things clearer...my own long winded posts should prove that.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 12, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> I think players are against the "no cause I said so"




If you had been here earlier, you may have noticed that many people in this discussion have dismissed "I don't like X = because I said so" as a straw man.

On another subject, let's say hypothetically that I am running a 4e game except no Tieflings. Why? I do not like the way 4e Tieflings read, 3e initially reset tieflings to their PS boxed set version just converted for the edition, until they started getting weird with the other bits of the tiefling not being human. Which could easily lead me into a rant about not retconning half-whatevers from core races to templates.

I like the 2e initial tiefling, the Planewalker's Handbook Tieflings, and the initial 3e Tieflings. After that I feel it gets too silly, or in 4e's case too front loaded with even more baggage than simply having some percentage of lower planar blood.

To keep this going, instead of "I don't like them", what if I said "not in this particular adventure/campaign, maybe later"?


----------



## DragonLancer (Feb 12, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> I am very late to this but still willing to throw in my two cents.
> 
> I think players are against the "no cause I said so" for the same reason most players do not tolerate the "I am DM I am the LAW" attitude that some DMs take.
> 
> Both set the tone that the DM is most important than the player and with all the egoes most people deal with at work no one is in the mood to deal with a DM with a boss complex.




The DM's word IS law. People need to accept that the game is a group effort where everyone needs to enjoy themselves, but it is the DM who says what is and isn't. If the DM says that tieflings or mithril don't exist in his game then the don't exist. No point arguing about it or trying to do the "well, I have this idea..."

Hopefully though, the group has got together before hand to agree on what campaign setting and/or houserules to be used, but ultimately I feel that the DM gets the final say. Players may want what they want, but the DM has to enjoy the game he is running and catering to the random whims of players may not be what he or she wants.

The DM is the one person at the table who has final say, but they shouldn't be an asshat about it.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 12, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> If you had been here earlier, you may have noticed that many people in this discussion have dismissed "I don't like X = because I said so" as a straw man.
> 
> On another subject, let's say hypothetically that I am running a 4e game except no Tieflings. Why? I do not like the way 4e Tieflings read, 3e initially reset tieflings to their PS boxed set version just converted for the edition, until they started getting weird with the other bits of the tiefling not being human. Which could easily lead me into a rant about not retconning half-whatevers from core races to templates.
> 
> ...




If as DM you said no because they did not fit in your campaign then that would be fine. A tie fling would for example not fit well into a gothic campaign or a campaign where the outer planes did not exist. 

If on the other hand the reason was nothing but inane personal opinion, cause you thought for example the fluff was lame, then I would laugh at you and expect a better reason or leave. If its about fluff and wha you personally feel is lame then do I have to get permission on dire flails, some of the more unusual magic items, and anything else that might not be pretty enough for your game world?


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 12, 2011)

DragonLancer said:


> The DM's word IS law. People need to accept that the game is a group effort where everyone needs to enjoy themselves, but it is the DM who says what is and isn't. If the DM says that tieflings or mithril don't exist in his game then the don't exist. No point arguing about it or trying to do the "well, I have this idea..."
> 
> Hopefully though, the group has got together before hand to agree on what campaign setting and/or houserules to be used, but ultimately I feel that the DM gets the final say. Players may want what they want, but the DM has to enjoy the game he is running and catering to the random whims of players may not be what he or she wants.
> 
> The DM is the one person at the table who has final say, but they shouldn't be an asshat about it.




No, it is not. The book is law unless the DM in advance makes changes that he announces. The DMs word is law if a rule is very unclear and the table cannot come to a consensus or find some errata for it. The DM is law on what happens in his campaign world outside the view of the players. 

The DM is not the arbitrary law of everything just because he sits down behind the screen. I have been there I quit a group because "I am DM and I am the law" meant his completely wrong interpretation on the fly while gaming was automatically set in stone.


----------



## Rel (Feb 12, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> To keep this going, instead of "I don't like them", what if I said "not in this particular adventure/campaign, maybe later"?




I think that's a perfectly fine answer.  That answer conveys additional information even though you're not saying it out loud.  For example I interpret from that answer that you don't have a blanket "I don't like it" feeling about tieflings because you didn't say, "No, never."  I might ask further if you felt that the aesthetic of tieflings clashed with your vision of the campaign so that I could try and design a character in line with that vision.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 12, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> No, it is not. The book is law unless the DM in advance makes changes that he announces. The DMs word is law if a rule is very unclear and the table cannot come to a consensus or find some errata for it. The DM is law on what happens in his campaign world outside the view of the players.




Actually, I disagree with this.  And, if I recall correctly, every edition of the game has a paragraph in the DMG or the PH that states in some form or another that the book is NOT law, and that the DM is the final arbiter.

Yes, the books have the rules, but rules =/= law.



DocMoriartty said:


> The DM is not the arbitrary law of everything just because he sits down behind the screen. I have been there I quit a group because "I am DM and I am the law" meant his completely wrong interpretation on the fly while gaming was automatically set in stone.




And this is why I believe that better communication at the table helps the game.  Just because a person asks "why?", doesn't mean they are trying to hijack the game or force their preference on anyone.  Actually, I would guess that in a large majority of cases, the "why?" is simply a clarification to understand the game world better.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2011)

shadzar said:


> If you think for one moment that signs found in gaming are not related to other parts of life, then YOU are the one needing to gain perspective.




And, as noted - the vast majority of people aren't automatons, that behave the same way in all situations.  Now, maybe they'll always be that way at the gaming table, but a threat to all of society?  That's not, in my opinion, a reasonable extrapolation.



> You are sadly still working inside the vacuum




No, I am not.  I think instead I prioritize things differently from you.  I am willing to allow the new player some leeway for a bit, where you are not.



> You may want to learn a bit...




You ought to stop assuming you know what others do or don't know about.  Disagreeing with you is not a sign of ignorance, it is a sign of disagreement.

While I'm a calm individual, others posters may have taken you to task for that kind of statement.  Other moderators might well take it as part of a pattern of behavior indicating that you're looking to be insulting.



> I could illustrate this very well using your position on the forums, where you already DO, if that is your tasked position, do that pattern recognition and prevent "harm" to the enjoyment of others. Unless I misunderstand the position of the green names here.




Well, interestingly, the moderators here usually require someone establish a significant pattern of behavior before we do much about the poster in question.  So, that illustration would argue against your point that single actions, like asking "why?", are grounds for banning from the table.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 12, 2011)

Back to my original example restrictions, beyond being in my mind the Borg of fantasy materials, I dislike super metals because unless I'm playing something like the Ratchet & Clank video games (where gratutiously unnecessary firepower is the point), I want your character to be special by his personality, skills, and such. Not his Infinity+1 swords.


----------



## Janx (Feb 12, 2011)

Umbran said:


> And, as noted - the vast majority of people aren't automatons, that behave the same way in all situations.  Now, maybe they'll always be that way at the gaming table, but a threat to all of society?  That's not, in my opinion, a reasonable extrapolation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




amen.

I just popped in here to see why this thread is still alive and long.  And what do I see?  The same dude poking at Umbran as in some other thread.  Umbran's response in both places has been pretty respectful and tactful.

If shad's saying somebody's behavior is indicative of a pattern, I suspect he's demonstrating a pattern untactfully challenging others statements.  I think that's gonna cause problems.

Though i'm a sucker for thread forkers, I much prefer they stay on the main topic, and people take their forks outside.

So, to the OP's title topic:

Parents don't expect to have to explain "Why" to children.  Pretty much true in any dictatorial regime.  Nothing wrong with a dictatorship if it's done fairly, respectfully and for the good of the populus.

As human beings, we're all used to asking "Why?" on a whole ton of things.  Some of us learn that not all reasons aren't knowable, or in the case of dealing with other people, the other person doesn't know.  They just know they have a preference, and that's how they want it.  If they're in control, then sometimes you just gotta take it and get on with life.

As a player or GM in a D&D campaign, your threshold on "taking it" can be described with a simply ecomonics supply and demand X.

You got  a graph with and X.  One line is the supply of GMs, the other line is demand of players for GMs.  where those 2 lines meet is the "Price" you gotta pay.  That price is the level of that GM's foibles and quirks that you may have to put up with.

Only 1 GM in the area, then you may have to put up with a lot of unanswered "Why?" and other crap.  Got a lot of GMs, then you can always find another GM who's not such dink.  Thus, the price of crap you have to put up with is lower.

Seriously?  30+ pages?


----------



## DragonLancer (Feb 12, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> No, it is not. The book is law unless the DM in advance makes changes that he announces. The DMs word is law if a rule is very unclear and the table cannot come to a consensus or find some errata for it. The DM is law on what happens in his campaign world outside the view of the players.
> 
> The DM is not the arbitrary law of everything just because he sits down behind the screen. I have been there I quit a group because "I am DM and I am the law" meant his completely wrong interpretation on the fly while gaming was automatically set in stone.




It sounds to me that you had a bad DM, and not because he was the law of the game.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 12, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I want your character to be special by his personality, skills, and such. Not his Infinity+1 swords.




So you don't hand out any magic items, then?


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 12, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> Actually, I disagree with this.  And, if I recall correctly, every edition of the game has a paragraph in the DMG or the PH that states in some form or another that the book is NOT law, and that the DM is the final arbiter.
> 
> Yes, the books have the rules, but rules =/= law.
> 
> ...




If I am a player then as far as I am concerned the rules are the law unless stated otherwise and in advance? Are the exceptions? Of course if Piratecat as my DM there would be enough trust for him to change rules on the fly. For most DMs not a chance in Hell. The last thing I need is to completely rework a character concept because a DM on the fly tried to use the "DM is final arbitrator" bs to change a rule and ruin something I am doing.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 12, 2011)

DragonLancer said:


> It sounds to me that you had a bad DM, and not because he was the law of the game.




In that instance I did, but that does not change my stance. The rules are the rules unless changed in advance. To change things on the fly because your the DM is stupid, arrogant, and likely to come back and bite you since your not thinking it out fully. I don't game so someone can power trip as DM.


----------



## Janx (Feb 12, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> In that instance I did, but that does not change my stance. The rules are the rules unless changed in advance. To change things on the fly because your the DM is stupid, arrogant, and likely to come back and bite you since your not thinking it out fully. I don't game so someone can power trip as DM.




I think a determining factor is also on the nature and extent of the rule change.

I have had some game mechanic I arbitrated challenged where I was certain I was in the right and the player was in the wrong.  In that scenario, I had specifically looked up the rule before the game, because I knew it was part of the encounter.  Unless I was grossly misinterpretting, the player was wasting our time (and the other players called him on it).

In another situation, I have grossly ignored the rules for things like resolving swimming.  The party wanted to cross some water.  I made it a few DC vs. swimming checks and we moved on.  Technically, we could have stopped the game to look it up and do it "right".  But it wasn't worth it.  The DC wasn't hard, the whole swimming thing was unexpected anyway, and failure wasn't going to kill anybody, just slow them down as they made more checks to resolve it.

In these scenarios, does it matter that the GM was right?  Or that the rule was executed right?

A rule change that nerfs your PC is a whole different matter than a rule change or a rule gaff that inconveiences your PC for the encounter.

I guess I see a whole lot of grey area, where I may have to trust the GM, but not necessarily the rules.  Because rules get misunderstood.  Or they get skipped for brevity.  And sometims that's OK.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 12, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> No, it is not. The book is law unless the DM in advance makes changes that he announces.






The book is nothing, which edition do you play so I can provide you the relevant book quote telling you the book is NOT law.

This player fear crap is the whole problem.

 What if the DM is wrong?

Guess what, they are, a LOT. But your DM is the only one that can makes changes to suit your group. Likewise as others have mentioned the DM isn't the property, slave, pet of the players, but a human being. They are there to have fun too. When there is something they don't like as it detracts form their fun, there is no reason for them to include it.

The object for ALL players, including the DM is not to add everything that each person enjoys, but remove things that take away form the enjoyment of players, until all things are removed and you have what is left to play with, because that is what that group  will enjoy.

Adding an element than ANY player, including the DM, doesn't enjoy, means you have already lost "The Game". (like I just did)

The books exist to be sold and therefore have an inclusionist stance to provide every possible thing that can be sold. At the table, the players start excluding things to make the game work.

One player disliking tieflings means this group must work without tieflings or that player. When that player is the DM...then what you going to do?

If a player can ONLY play tieflings, then they are REALLY in the wrong place showing up for a game where tieflings aren't allowed, and likely trying to play the wrong game.

Also as a reminder that you seem to keep missing is, newest sections of the thread are using the concept that a game IS advertised as "no tieflings" prior to play. That is the continuing example, which you sem to agree with that set in advanced should be adhered to, correct?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 12, 2011)

DMs are slaves to the system.

Players are slaves to the system.

Players though are like the Gypsies that pass through the kings' lands.

And the DM is the KING!

And don't you forget it.

It's GOOD to be THE KING.

Baby.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 12, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> DMs are slaves to the system.
> 
> Players are slaves to the system.
> 
> ...




Kings get decapitated.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 12, 2011)

Umbran said:


> No, I am not.  I think instead I prioritize things differently from you.  I am willing to allow the new player some leeway for a bit, where you are not.




Well I think people didn't exist just when they appeared at a game, and learned a bit of socially accepted behaviour before coming to it. Store says "No credit", it doesn't mean you ask for credit. When you ask for credit you have already violated that "social contract" many people are talking about. You walked into the store, and they assumed good faith that you understood and accepted the stores terms, then you show bad faith when coming to the end of your visit and do contrary to the rules set forth.



> Well, interestingly, the moderators here usually require someone establish a significant pattern of behavior before we do much about the poster in question.  So, that illustration would argue against your point that single actions, like asking "why?", are grounds for banning from the table.




I submit this to be a pattern of one to be acceptable to establish a pattern. The reason being, while reading a thread around here last night, I noticed Danny reported two new users each with a single post, BOTH were advertisements, i guess, for things I had never heard of. I now cannot find those posts nor Danny's post indicating to all others that they were reported so as not to clog the system with multiple reports for the same thing.

Therein as the moderators find this "pattern of one" acceptable practice, my point is proven.

I was going to follow along with the threadcrapping example, but this just happened to appear. I don't even know HOW to addres a case of threadcrapping to use it as an example where a single post, even as a first post from a new user, could be considered threadcrapping.

As the jobs are the same though the "pattern of one" is all that is needed here, and all that is needed for me as well for many things.

I think those things fall under the rules of advertising outside of the advertising allowed areas, but the rule stated exists. The accounts in questions I wouldn't know about as different forums treat them differently. I would block the email adreses and IP regions to prevent such and disable the accounts. Maybe you guys jsut remove the posts.

Either way the instance is being prevented to damage the sequence going on for others.

So I don't believe there is a "new player" anymore unless they are a child under a certain age that hasn't learned respect for others.

Did this "new player" never attend school? Did they not learn "No gun in school", or think it meant it as a suggestion?

It really is so funny how people take the "books as law" and RAW to state that the books are infallible and a set of rules, when the books state they are suggestions, but things that are given as "rules" and state to be such, are taken as suggestions.

Sad how people do things completely backwards.

The people not wanting to follow rules are not going to work with the group. As for your "leeway": give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Rather than trying to teach people your way, teach them the right way, and let them choose to do it your way instead if it works for them. Otherwise "No means no".

If you are confused about the language, then D&D probably isn't the best place to learn it. Buy a dictionary instead of a splatbook.

That is what history teaches everyone with EVERY war ever had. They are always over "boundaries". When you cross that boundary you have already started the conflict. So don't start the conflict unless you are ready for the war that follows.

But alas why history always repeats itself...nobody learns from it.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 12, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> Kings get decapitated.




Or you can just move to a new country...aka different DM.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 12, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> Kings get decapitated.




Players get the guillotine for pretending to be better than the king.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 12, 2011)

In the event of attempting to communicate with the "why" and *any* reason given for it, denying "no" to mean "no", already means there will be no communication had because the language barrier existing even within the same language.

I have enough to deal with in life where people are so ignorant to the fact that "no means no", I don't have time for it on here or in gaming.

Language is the tool of communication, if you cannot agree on the language, there will never be communication on ANY level.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 13, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> Kings get decapitated.




Bad kings who attempt to lay down laws that are difficult to live with get decapitated.

Bad kings, who fail to lay down laws that ensure the good of the kingdom as a whole, get decapitated.

Weak kings, who fail to enforce laws intended to ensure the good of the kingdom as a whole, get decapitated.

Figurehead kings may survive, and may even prosper if they are clever.

Good kings, who lay down good laws, intended to ensure the good of the kingdom as a whole, and who have the strength to enforce those laws when the path of least resistance would have them do otherwise, prosper.


RC


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Rather than trying to teach people your way, teach them the right way, and let them choose to do it your way instead if it works for them. Otherwise "No means no".
> 
> If you are confused about the language, then D&D probably isn't the best place to learn it. Buy a dictionary instead of a splatbook.




DM: There will be no Tiefling PCs.
Player: I am curious, why?
DM: You know what?  If you have a problem with the English language, then get a dictionary.  No means no.

Personally, I would have to resist the urge to headslap the DM before walking out.  Geez... I just asked a simple question.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 13, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> DM: There will be no Tiefling PCs.
> Player: I am curious, why?




Do you understand that we're talking about before people even get to the table? In the words of Mr. Miyagi: Answer only important if ask the right question. Say I have an ad up that includes the line "no tieflings". If a potential player call me to hassle me about why he ask wrong question.

I set limits because I don't have the time to deal with "why". Just trust that there's a reason. Besides, if I included every Why, do you have any idea how big my ad would have to be?


----------



## shadzar (Feb 13, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Besides, if I included every Why, do you have any idea how big my ad would have to be?




I think many see D&D as only a reason to get together and have "beer and pretzels", so the non-game elements are more important to them, wherein others actually want to play a game.

So they come at the question as trying to have their "beer and pretzels", not with the intent being to have a game of D&D.

This is probably coloring many of the answers. The ones wanting to play and have limited timed, vs the ones wanting to gather or have unlimited time.

Some want a game, while others want a book group or soemthing.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I think many see D&D as only a reason to get together and have "beer and pretzels", so the non-game elements are more important to them, wherein others actually want to play a game.
> 
> Some want a game, while others want a book group or soemthing.




While I harbor no ill will towards "casual gamers", it's not my thing. I'm running a game to play a game. If I just want to eat and shoot the bull, I wouldn't be setting up a game at all. Game time is game time, beer and pretzel time is beer and pretzel time. For me, never the twain shall meet. Well, okay, there I do sometimes have alcohol where I live, but that's as close as we get.

I'm not a hardcore gamer either. Burnout is not fun, and frequent gaming leads to getting burned out really quickly in my experience.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 13, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> While I harbor no ill will towards "casual gamers", it's not my thing. I'm running a game to play a game. If I just want to eat and shoot the bull, I wouldn't be setting up a game at all. Game time is game time, beer and pretzel time is beer and pretzel time. For me, never the twain shall meet.




Same, but I don't do alcohol at all, so...

Come to my house for what I offered or don't come. If I get to your house and you changed the activity, I will leave at anything.

At a public place, don't waste time if you are borrowing the area for free the place (store, library, commons) that others could use, or could be rented out to others.

Wherein lies my query of the agenda of one coming to a game. If it is to play, then go ahead, if it to to change the agenda for everyone else....I don't think so.

Game on game nights, chat on chat nights.

I wonder how many of the people posting in the interest of "communication" thus far have been the casual gamer type versus those that are interested in gaming for the game?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I wonder how many of the people posting in the interest of "communication" thus far have been the casual gamer type versus those that are interested in gaming for the game?




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".


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> Back to my original example restrictions, beyond being in my mind the Borg of fantasy materials, I dislike super metals because unless I'm playing something like the Ratchet & Clank video games (where gratutiously unnecessary firepower is the point), I want your character to be special by his personality, skills, and such. Not his Infinity+1 swords.




Now, why couldn't that be your initial answer?  "I am not interested in the mechanical aspects of this, it detracts from what I consider important in the game" is one heck of a lot better answer than, "No, because I say so."


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2011)

billd91 said:


> 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 (Feb 13, 2011)

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


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2011)

noretoc said:


> 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 (Feb 13, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> 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 (Feb 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Feb 13, 2011)

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 (Feb 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Feb 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Feb 13, 2011)

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 (Feb 13, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 13, 2011)

The PC races in Diomin are Arak, Gnolaum, Hearthom, and two human cultures: Tirasim and Zeredite. One of the human cultures is usually not allowed based on the tone of the game. As written, the Tirasim are the good humans and the Zeredites are the evil humans. Another villain race, the Gadianti, isn't even presented until near the end of the book. Even so, I have considered allowing Zeredite PCs in a heroic toned adventure, as long as the player has a really good reason why his character would be in lands where everybody hates his culture's guts. Gadianti, being cat people, where everyone else is mostly human is going to be a lot harder to explain the rare "good" gadianti.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 13, 2011)

So, basically it jsut boils down to...

"Do you trust your DM?"

If it is a DM I have played with before, I go with his or her restrictions. If not, I might be fore leery, but will give the DM the benefit of the doubt.

If the restrictions are a foreshadow to the DM being a control freak, I can always leave.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Feb 14, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> If it is a DM I have played with before, I go with his or her restrictions. If not, I might be fore leery, but will give the DM the benefit of the doubt.




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?


----------



## Greg K (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> After all, Giant Eagles are a staple of that setting, and, presuming a 3e D&D game, monster characters are also typically fair game.



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


----------



## billd91 (Feb 14, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> 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?




No you don't, but you don't know much about the DM either. Asking why about things will help you get to understand them and their vision of the game.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 14, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> 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 did say 'give the benefit of the doubt."


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 14, 2011)

Greg K said:


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



Running a game set in Middle-earth =/= everything written by The Professor is suitable for a player character.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 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.





Raven Crowking said:


> 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.



Maybe. If the question is part of an attempt by the player to grasp the GM's "aesthetic vision" for the gameworld, then a purely ingame answer may not be the best one or the best way. (Obviously it would depend on exactly what is communicated by the GM in play. And also on how smooth play is likely to be if the player is not sure about the GM's aesthetic vision.)



shadzar said:


> 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?



As I and others have pointed out, a person can ask "why the ban" without wanting to play a tiefling at all. They might want to know why tieflings are banned _as part of the process of trying to understand the game that the GM is hoping to run_.

For example:


Rel said:


> I might ask further if you felt that the aesthetic of tieflings clashed with your vision of the campaign so that I could try and design a character in line with that vision.





catsclaw227 said:


> I would guess that in a large majority of cases, the "why?" is simply a clarification to understand the game world better.





Hussar said:


> 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.





billd91 said:


> No you don't, but you don't know much about the DM either. Asking why about things will help you get to understand them and their vision of the game.




What is your objection to a player asking "why" as part of an attempt to get a better handle on the game the GM wants to run?


----------



## shadzar (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> They might want to know why tieflings are banned _as part of the process of trying to understand the game that the GM is hoping to run_.




 Does it really matter?

Herein lies the problem again...

If they are so hung up on a why about the tiefling being banned, then odds are they have other problems within the game I will not want to deal with.

What is the incessant need to know "why", when all you need is "what"?

Do you think your cashier at the grocer can tell you why the price of milk is what it is?

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?"


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

shadzar said:


> "Why do you need to know why?"



For the reason I and others said - because you are trying to understand the GM's vision for the game.



shadzar said:


> Do you think your cashier at the grocer can tell you why the price of milk is what it is?



I don't find this a very helpful comparison. The cashier is not making a decision about a shared entertainment experience. The GM is.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 14, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2011)

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 (Feb 14, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> 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?



Greg K said:


> 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.



lamia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 14, 2011)

lamia said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2011)

Some nitpicks:



Hussar said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2011)

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!


----------

