Another thread degenerating into style-of-play bickering! Awesome!
I think the OP's questions were answered on page 1. At least I hope so, because I wouldn't want to wade through all these posts to find useful information if I were him/her.
I hereby invoke the OT army! Activate the smurf signal! If this page is destined to be filled with meaningless blather, it might as well be the amusing variety.
WRONG. Nobody has said that. We are saying if X is denied we only want to know why.Nothing's wrong with wanting to know why. What we're talking about is that you've created a rule whereby the GM is obligated to answer your question 'why'. If the GM doesn't want to play by that rule, he's entitled to not play by it.
He does not have to give me the details as to why. As a reasonable human being I do need to know your reasons are not arbitrary. You dont have to tell me I can't have feat X, Spell Y, and so on for because (spoiler). :I have my reasons", is enough. It at least lets me know there is a reason, and all reasonable beings have reasons, at least in my experience anyway.
Is that unreasonable?
What are you guys even arguing about? Really?
It makes no sense. Neither of you is a GM or Player in the other's game. It matters NOT AT ALL what the other guy said. There will never be any closure on the issue.
(unless you actually are gaming together, which would go a long way to explain why you two specifically fight so much)
What are you guys even arguing about? Really?
It makes no sense.
We are arguing about whether or not "because I said so" is an acceptable way to speak to adults in a social setting.
We are arguing about whether or not "because I said so" is an acceptable way to speak to adults in a social setting.
That doesn't strike you as impossible to resolve?
He does not have to give me the details as to why. As a reasonable human being I do need to know your reasons are not arbitrary. You dont have to tell me I can't have feat X, Spell Y, and so on for because (spoiler). :I have my reasons", is enough. It at least lets me know there is a reason, and all reasonable beings have reasons, at least in my experience anyway.
Is that unreasonable?Wait.
"Because I said so" is unreasonable, but "I have my reasons" is? Both are equivelant in the information they provide. Neither is syntactically different from the other, the only difference being a percieved semantic difference.
Why the big distinction? If I ban ninjas because I hate Naruto, but I explain it as "You will see, in time...", my explanation is now acceptable?
No WONDER politics is the realm of charlatins.
What I mean is that if the DM says "I have my reasons" I will at least trust that is for campaign reasons, and he does not want to give any spoilers. "Because I said" sounds like the DM is telling me it does not matter what I think. Telling me no for campaign reasons, and telling me no without an explanation are hardly in the same ball park.
We are arguing about whether or not "because I said so" is an acceptable way to speak to adults in a social setting.That doesn't strike you as impossible to resolve?
Maybe you're right. I may as well be beating my head against a brick wall for all the progress I am making.
No, we were discussing whether a player is -entitled- to anything more than "because I said so". What -should- be done is a different question.We are arguing about whether or not "because I said so" is an acceptable way to speak to adults in a social setting.What are you guys even arguing about? Really?
It makes no sense.
That works also.
That works also.No, we were discussing whether a player is -entitled- to anything more than "because I said so". What -should- be done is a different question.We are arguing about whether or not "because I said so" is an acceptable way to speak to adults in a social setting.What are you guys even arguing about? Really?
It makes no sense.
But they are not the same or even synonymous.
The one is an assignment of rights, the other is an expectation of some ambiguous, dubious social norm.
I honestly will never be convinced "because I said so" is acceptable except in a very small number of situations, and none of them are social. Even when it may be accepted, it is not the first option, but the last. I also beleive it does not do a lot of good to enter a debate with a closed mind on an issue. With that said, we will have to agree to disagree on the subject.
Edit: By social I was referring to adult to adult.
No, we were discussing whether a player is -entitled- to anything more than "because I said so". What -should- be done is a different question.That works also.If a vague non-answer would suffice, like "I have my reasons", then the argument IS really "is "because I said so" is an acceptable way to speak to adults in a social setting". Because, you see, the player is obviously NOT entitled to more information than that which is given, which is to say "nothing". If ther player were entitled to more, then "I have my reasons" would not suffice.
I do believe that we can all agree that it is not su much what you say, but how you say it. Saying the same thing, providing the same information, but in a respectful and calming manner, is the essence of the argument.
Unless, that is, there is no actual disagreement, in which case everybody wins.
How you say it is a big part of it. One way also implies you have some method to what you are doing. The other does not. I don't think its a good idea to follow a blind man, and "because I said so" makes me feel like that is what I am doing.
2) You're framing the DM as the undisputed expert on pretty much everything.
If it is a game world he devised, and adventure he has written, then I'm afraid he pretty much IS the expert, period. Even when this is not the case, part of his job is as referee - and the ref is right, even when he's wrong.
This is not to say that players cannot contribute - to the game world, the adventure, or the rules interpretations. However, the extent to which they do is dependent on the extent to which the DM is willing to bend his plans. Some will bend a lot, some will prefer to run 'out of the box, one size fits all'.
Now myself I like to have player input, that's cool. But if I have spent three months designing a game world and a campaign arc in my spare time for a party of good or neutral aligned heroes involved in a clash of nations on the side of the good guys, I'm not going to take kindly to players trying to tell me I should be running an evil PvP game of dungeon crawls. Not happening! Now if a player wants to play a borderline evil character to have an assassin who is on the side of the good guys for personal reasons, that's a different matter. Ultimately, though, if I've designed the world, the campaign, the adventure and put a lot of my time and effort into it, then I'm getting the last word on what is and is not appropriate, even if I'm open to discussion.
Is this actually a problem for any of you in your real games? Tell us that story.
I think most people are reacting to a degree of infantilization on the part of the DM.
House rules, variants, extended content are all things that impact the shared storytelling experience. Many people feel that rather than the DM making an authoritarian decision about these things those decisions should be made in consultation with the players. The DM should probably still make the final decision but they should be willing to explain their reasoning.
Failure to do so is basically saying that either player involvement in world design/operation is unwanted or that the players are idiots/not to be trusted with such things.
Seriously if you have a great group people aren't going to take obviously broken stuff and if they attempt to the rest of the party will probably shout them down in a chorus.
However it's pretty obvious that the camps represented in this argument are simply not going to agree and we are all spinning our wheels.
However it's pretty obvious that the camps represented in this argument are simply not going to agree and we are all spinning our wheels.
+1.
I like to make the distinction very clear with my group when I am a Designer vs. when I am a Game Master. As a game master, I will brook exactly one argument against my ruling before dropping the issue in the name of expedience. If I heard your single case, and I still don't agree, we do it my way for the time being and take it up outside of the game.
I feel that Gamemasters do not explicitly need to justify their rulings to the player, but that does not endorse being a jerk either.
During "design time", meaning we are not playing and can argue about rules ad nauseum, Rule 0 does not exist. Rule 0 is not game design, it is GMing. The two are very different pursuits, and I think that many internet forum discussions could benefit from the distinction.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out that there are life experiences I've had which you haven't (or that you have which I haven't). Doing so only sounds condescending to people who think they know everything....
If I tell you "whatever you do, don't think about Michelle Obama", you're going to start thinking about Michelle Obama. If I tell you, "I'm building the plot to this campaign around a plot involving puppies", you're going to start looking for plots involving puppies.
This isn't about a lack of trust, it's about principles of psychology that even a 10 year old understands.
It's condescending because you don't know what experiences anyone else has had, but you imply that you are looking down on those who disagree with you from a position of greater maturity.
And actually, no. Some of us have what is evidently a great deal more control over our thoughts than others. Must be all those years I spent chasing zen.
And not to pick nits, but there's a word to describe your last sentence... Can't remember, starts with a "c" and ends in "ing"... Ahhhh, it'll come to me.
I used the word "you". Mea culpa. I have a habit of using the word "you" to refer to the generalized you (as in "when you go to New York" being the same as "when one goes to New York"). I'm not sure if it is vernacular usage. Anyways, I often overlook the fact that some people read "you" and think it is being used accusatively. This causes misunderstandings and the occasional hurt feelings. No such usage was intended.
I didn't think you were referring to me specifically with any of your statements, but I felt that I was part of (or bearing witness to) a larger group with a finger being shaken at them.
In any case, if we're being conciliatory I really liked your pastafarian defense of religious criticism. Unfortunately, my build leads me to believe that I don't get much in the way of attention from his noodly appendages. :(
I'm glad you've learned to live in a constant state of satori. Most people haven't. So, oh wise Buddha, please take your eyes off heaven for just a moment and realize that most of the rest of us are still walking the path.
Why the hostility man? Didn't you read his post? (Not intended ironically)
Ah I see this thread as become a "Your GMing wrong " thread. Really guys if ya have that big an issue to being told no or how he said it, just don't play with that GM.
Another thread degenerating into style-of-play bickering! Awesome!
Except it's not even about style of play. It's that style of play is no excuse to treat people like crap.
No, we were discussing whether a player is -entitled- to anything more than "because I said so". What -should- be done is a different question.
A DM who gives the answer, "Because I said so," and refuses to go any further is wrong to do so. Period.
I do believe that we can all agree that it is not su much what you say, but how you say it. Saying the same thing, providing the same information, but in a respectful and calming manner, is the essence of the argument.
If a player is asking why some ruling is made, then non-answers are insufficient. Otherwise, there would be no reason to ask the question in the first place. If the player's asking, they need more information.
"I have my reasons," is not an acceptable answer because it isn't an answer at all. "Please trust that I have my reasons," is an acceptable request, but the player is not obligated to comply, in which case a real answer must be proffered.
If it is a game world he devised, and adventure he has written, then I'm afraid he pretty much IS the expert, period. Even when this is not the case, part of his job is as referee - and the ref is right, even when he's wrong.
On the world? Perhaps. On the system? Absolutely not. In fact, there is a very real chance of having players who are more informed on the system than the DM and more capable of molding the rules to the DM's own vision than the DM himself is, and a DM would have to be a great fool to ignore such a resource.
But even if he is the expert on the world, it's still entirely possible that he's wrong and has opted for something completely irrational and internally inconsistent. The DM must acknowledge this possibility. It's also entirely possible that the DM has made a mechanical decision based on fundamental misunderstandings of the rules and must acknowledge that possibility when listening to players who may be more informed on the matter than they are.
Also, even if the DM made the world doesn't mean he didn't design it in a disrespectful and tyrannical way that is downright abusive. When the world gets to the point of eleven classes, eleven characters, the DM is wrong, and is refusing to allow the players to play the game. That's definitively
And any DM who declares, "I'm automatically right, even when I'm wrong," is the very definition of a tyrant DM. He is morally in the wrong to do so and is not fit to DM.
This is not to say that players cannot contribute - to the game world, the adventure, or the rules interpretations. However, the extent to which they do is dependent on the extent to which the DM is willing to bend his plans. Some will bend a lot, some will prefer to run 'out of the box, one size fits all'.
Yes, different DMs will be more or less flexible. However, all DMs must be willing to actually think about their rulings critically and listen to logical analysis, or they're just irrational tyrants on a power trip.
Now myself I like to have player input, that's cool. But if I have spent three months designing a game world and a campaign arc in my spare time for a party of good or neutral aligned heroes involved in a clash of nations on the side of the good guys, I'm not going to take kindly to players trying to tell me I should be running an evil PvP game of dungeon crawls. Not happening!
And if you were designing the campaign all this time without even asking them what they're interested in, it's not their fault when they ain't interested.
A DM who spends three months on an island designing a campaign without any outside input and tries to ram it down a player's throat without consideration is every bit as much of a problem as the player who spends three months on an island designing a character without outside input and tries to shoehorn it into the next campaign he finds. Sure, the player put a lot of work into making that character, possibly even more than went into the campaign itself, but that pile of work is not justification for treating everyone else like crap.
Ultimately, though, if I've designed the world, the campaign, the adventure and put a lot of my time and effort into it, then I'm getting the last word on what is and is not appropriate, even if I'm open to discussion.
That you have the last word does not change that you have certain responsibilities in its use. That you have a certain authority does not make it right to use it however you please, and to Hell with everyone else.
Even in a professional setting (which the gaming table is not), the boss may have the final word, but there are very definite limits to his authority and he is not always right in the use of that authority.
I used the word "you". Mea culpa. I have a habit of using the word "you" to refer to the generalized you (as in "when you go to New York" being the same as "when one goes to New York"). I'm not sure if it is vernacular usage. Anyways, I often overlook the fact that some people read "you" and think it is being used accusatively. This causes misunderstandings and the occasional hurt feelings. No such usage was intended.
It's not the fact that you use the word 'you' like that which makes it condescending. It's the massive presumption inherent in the statements. You were addressing, what, at least two folks who are/were career military and a woman who doesn't even have an RL group at the moment due to scheduling issues about how as you get older, scheduling conflicts become an issue, as if we didn't already know about schedule issues or the value of time.
But guess what? We do know, and it's still not an excuse to treat players like crap.
Ah I see this thread as become a "Your GMing wrong " thread. Really guys if ya have that big an issue to being told no or how he said it, just don't play with that GM.
It's not even a DMing issue. It's a basic human courtesy issue. You do not have the right to treat your peers like crap. Whether you're the DM or not has nothing to do with it. Using DM status as an excuse to treat your peers like crap is wrong because you do not have the right to treat your peers like crap.
It's not, "You're DMing wrong." It's, "You do not, as a human being, have the right to treat people this way."
Saying "I do not allow that in my games" or "I find that unbalanced" or "That concept does not fit the game" or even "Sorry in this world all monks are part of one single order of monk, you need to be from that order" is not treating folks like crap.
"I am the DM, dumb ass. You play what I tell you to play" is treating folks like crap
You see the difference there?
Hi seeker, feels like old times doesn't it? :)
Lillith, my perhaps too-subtle point was that I don't think I'm particularly enlightened, so if I don't have trouble with your exercise it may not be as universal as you think.
Saying "I do not allow that in my games" or "I find that unbalanced" or "That concept does not fit the game" or even "Sorry in this world all monks are part of one single order of monk, you need to be from that order" is not treating folks like crap.
"I am the DM, dumb ass. You play what I tell you to play" is treating folks like crap
You see the difference there?
I know we may have danced around this, but what about: "Oh, that's alright. I've trained myself to physical and spiritual perfection as a martial artist. I'm not a monk. I don't know how to chant or garden."
Problem solved! And all because the DM was kind enough to explain why he didn't want a monk in the party.
Honestly, your examples are more in line with the "explain more" side of the argument than the "because I said so" side.
"I find that unbalanced" is something the players can discuss. "That's how it is" is just a silencing tactic; and that sort of thing is pretty rude.
Frankly I wish I had all of you in a class, the discussion would be crazy awesome.
That was the last 4 or so as well wasn't it?
Another thread degenerating into style-of-play bickering! Awesome!
I think the OP's questions were answered on page 1. At least I hope so, because I wouldn't want to wade through all these posts to find useful information if I were him/her.
I hereby invoke the OT army! Activate the smurf signal! If this page is destined to be filled with meaningless blather, it might as well be the amusing variety.
Indeed I found everything worth reading on page 1. Page 2 looked like it had started an interesting discussion, but things went down hill form
there.Personally I'm hoping this thread dies down so it wont be cluttering up the forums. I almost feel bad having my first topic turning out like this.
There. I summarized the next 10 pages of posts, so nobody has to post them.
Yeah, but sadly it's gonna happen anyway.
If it is a game world he devised, and adventure he has written, then I'm afraid he pretty much IS the expert, period. Even when this is not the case, part of his job is as referee - and the ref is right, even when he's wrong.
This is not to say that players cannot contribute - to the game world, the adventure, or the rules interpretations. However, the extent to which they do is dependent on the extent to which the DM is willing to bend his plans. Some will bend a lot, some will prefer to run 'out of the box, one size fits all'.
You can't be right and wrong no more than you can go left and right at the same time. He may be in charge, but that should never confused with being right. Those of us that have had unqualified bosses can tell you tell that being right and being are not synonymous .
It's all good blackwing. Stuff happens. Give it a bit it may even get locked.
Smurf it all, smurfing no regrets!
You are outside the designated work sector
Indeed I found everything worth reading on page 1. Page 2 looked like it had started an interesting discussion, but things went down hill form
there.Personally I'm hoping this thread dies down so it wont be cluttering up the forums. I almost feel bad having my first topic turning out like this.
Yeah, but sadly it's gonna happen anyway.
Just because two sides of an issue are intractable doesn't make the discussion worthless.
EDIT
And why would you want something to "stop cluttering the boards" when clearly more people are interested in the current discussion than the original?
DM an ally?
Or a villian in disguise?
"Because I said so"
Saying "I do not allow that in my games" or "I find that unbalanced" or "That concept does not fit the game" or even "Sorry in this world all monks are part of one single order of monk, you need to be from that order" is not treating folks like crap.
"I do not allow that in my games," is indeed treating the players like crap because it's a complete non-answer, it's refusing to communicate with the player every bit as much as, "Because I said so." Why don't you allow it in your games?
"I find that unbalanced," or, "That concept does not fit the game," are both acceptable reasons, though it is subject to a discussion of why it is unbalanced or doesn't fit, and what makes it unbalanced or not fit. The monk thing... we've already discussed ad infinitum.
Now this IS different from what Wraithstrike was saying. However, you realize that you have actually made it a requirement that the DM provide an answer upon request. You specifically outlined this in the last sentance.
I'm not Wraithstrike, and I've had that as a requirement from the start.
Why? Aren't you just questioning the intelligence and judgement of the GM and treating them like a child? That's kinda crappy, don'cha think? I mean, in many legal systems you are not compelled legally to testify (plead the 5th in the US). It seems this is an unreasonable and unfair burden to place on someone who is supposed to be an equal.
Humans make mistakes. Acting under the assumption that there is a non-zero chance that the DM made a mistake or an oversight and analyzing the possibility, discussing it logically as an equal? That's not treating the DM as an equal. Asking to review the logic and seeing if you can work something out? That's not treating the DM like a child.
However, refusing to proffer the information required to even hold a logical discussion on the issue? That is treating the player like a child. Saying, "Because I said so," and expecting the player to comply without question is inherently disrespectful.
And do note that the US legal system is very hierarchical and structured, not a system of equals. And oftentimes, it makes no bloody sense. Not a very useful analogy.
uh oh somebody made the robot mad
You have spotted a robot?
We would be interested in such an item
DM an ally?
Or a villian in disguise?
"Because I said so"
<3
uh oh somebody made the robot madYou have spotted a robot?
We would be interested in such an item
Robots are good friends
Except when they shoot my faceA Monster is scared.
[
"I do not allow that in my games," is indeed treating the players like crap because it's a complete non-answer, it's refusing to communicate with the player every bit as much as, "Because I said so." Why don't you allow it in your games?
Again you have an odd definition of crap. If I added some kind of derogatory comment then yes it would be treating someone like crap. Saying "I do not allow that" is simply stating a fact like "Its cold out side"
Am I treating someone like crap when I say "We have snow outside"?