You're assigning me motives that I am not expressing. If want to continue to do that, you can feel free to have the conversation with someone else, or with yourself, because you don't actually need me.
So, no, you're not going to accept that the GM doesn't wish to debate the point, and you're going to press your case anyways.
Gotcha.
I assigned no motives in my question to you, and if you believe that my statement of observation is assigning motives to you (much like you erringly believe the term "argue" is "loaded"), I can't help that.
How I am dodging. I put forward that it's perfectly reasonably to ask a DM to explain and possibly clarify a postion on something he bans from his or her game table. That seems to bother you imo. If a DM says "no gunslingers" I consider it okay to ask "why?" rather than not say anything and just accept everything the DM says.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask - it's also perfectly reasonable that the GM doesn't want to explain their decision.
Part of what makes D&D (or Pathfinder, or any RPG) great is Rule 0 - it ensures that no two games are required to be alike.
Here the thing though. When you don't like a class espcially when running a game with experienced players your going to get someone asking for more information and clarification. And there is nothing wrong with that imo. The better answer would be "I don't allow gunslingers because they target touch ac and I don't want them in my games". Which was my response for a long time until the latest AP where I allowed it.
But why does the GM need a reason beyond an "I just don't like it/I just don't want it in this game/campaign" explanation?
The GM is crafting the overall structure of the world that we're gaming in. Her/his vision for said world may not include things, simply on a whim. Why can't that just be accepted?
A simple answer. Dms who encourage feedback. Are not afraid to answer questions with just a "because I'm the DM". Don't view player who ask questions as a hassle and a bother are the ones who run games. The ones who do the opposite are the ones who sit at home wishing they had a gaming group.
Then again, there's also players who sit at home, complaining about jerk DMs, wishing they had a DM.
You people realize the problem here isn't the players who ask nicely.
It's the players who DEMAND answers who are the real problem.Brian E. Harris brings up an excellent point as well. Sometimes the only reason not to answer the 'Why?' question is because you already know the player in question is just going to try to dismiss your concerns and badger you to allow whatever. Maybe I don't like having my concerns dismissed however irrational they may seem to you. It all boils back down to trust. Do you trust me to run a fair and fun game or don't you? NO you don't NEED your special snowflake race to have fun. If you like the concept so much then adapt it to an existing race and enjoy yourself.
Exactly.
And, I'd add something here, to the statement of "if you don't like it, you don't have to play."
It doesn't need to be so black and white.
If you don't like that this GM won't let you do [X], and you're going to decide to find a different group that will let you do [X], is there any particular reason, other than your own personal hurt feelings that you'd abandon the first group for the second?
Why can't you play both?
I mean, if it's that easy to find another GM/group, take advantage of that!
|
Host: "Okay lads, I'm going to have a BBQ at my house weekend and I'm going to be serving hotdogs, hamburgers, and chicken wings. You're all invited to come.
Invited Person C: Would you please explain why you aren't serving steak?
Host: *Utterly speechless*
In my opinion, this would be just like asking your DM why he is banning something.
Discussion good, demanding bad.
|
It's perfectly reasonable to ask - it's also perfectly reasonable that the GM doesn't want to explain their decision.
I don't get that. On one hand it's okay to ask about something then on the other say that one does not have to answer the questioned asked. Well imo that kind of defeats the purpose. Why even encourage the asking of questions if your not willing to answer some or even any at all. Kind of defeats the purpose of even allowing the players let alone anyone else asking the person a question on anything.
But why does the GM need a reason beyond an "I just don't like it/I just don't want it in this game/campaign" explanation?
For the simple reason that you might be banning a class or anything else on a misconception. Who knows maybe a DM read the gunslinger incorrecly and thinks they target refelx saves as opposed to touch AC. Don' assume that asking more explanation or feedback is underming the DM in anyway. Sometimes it's needed becuase the DM is wrong and totally clueless about something. If after finding about gunslingers targeting touch ac instead of reflex saves and the dM still wants to ban the class. I may disagree yet be fine with it. The same DM better not come to my games wanting to play a gunslinger because he will not be allowed. Whatver a DM siallows in his game he can't play in mine.
The GM is crafting the overall structure of the world that we're gaming in. Her/his vision for said world may not include things, simply on a whim. Why can't that just be accepted?
Which if told to me upfront before character creation begins I have no problems with. It's when it's done after the game begins. Then again if as a DM you don't want to be questioned why even be a DM let alone open the floor to to questions and feedback. Being a DM does not in anway immunize anyone from feedback. If I feel the need to point out that the last encounter almost ended in a TPK I will. Having spent two years building your world is not going to exempt any dm from feedback at least at our gaming table.
Then again, there's also players who sit at home, complaining about jerk DMs, wishing they had a DM.
Players outnumber DMs. Which I think some posters in this thread keep forgeting. Eventually if your the DM who likes to lord ifover the players not wanting any feedback. Nor giving out any information your left playing D&D with a team of one. Dms have as much power as the players at the table are willing to give them. Both the good dms and players work toghether exchanging information. Bad dms slowly start to get less and less players. The bad players are no longer asked to join games. Still in the end as much as DMs refuse to admit they need to keep players at the table somehwat happy. Or they have no players at all imo.
|
|
Host: "Okay lads, I'm going to have a BBQ at my house weekend and I'm going to be serving hotdogs, hamburgers, and chicken wings. You're all invited to come.
Invited Person C: Would you please explain why you aren't serving steak?
Host: *Utterly speechless*
In my opinion, this would be just like asking your DM why he is banning something.
Okay your REALLY reaching at this point. Unless a guest shows up with little or no social skills (which can happen) the above scenario will almost never ever happen. First off even before Facebook and social networks whenever my friends and I organized something like a session of D&D or a dinner or BBQ we outlined exactly what we allowed in the session of D&D and what food was allowed /dislallowed at a diner or BBQ. If anything the only way the above would happen if is the host invited everyone over without tellinganyone what food was allowed/disallowed/ If your not going to tell me what food you have or not have in advance at a BBQ well of course a guest is going to ask questions on what is served.
Even then even while a little rude in asking for steak is not a "speechless" offence. I might be a little unahppy at he guest social faux pass yet it's certainly not going to ruin my night. If anything your guests are going to wonder why the hell your overeacting to such a simple question.
If anything your example above has just shown why both players and DMs need to communicate more with each other.
|
|
Discussion good, demanding bad.
Total agreement. Except apprantly any type of discussion seems to equal being demanding. with the added bonus of allowing people to ask question an not having to answer them. Which to me anyay defeats the purpose of even allowing anyone to ask a question in the first place.
Like I said before, each side is operating with a different hypothetical. And then they argue with the other side as if the other side were using the same hypotheticals.
That indeed may be the main issue here. As usual, good eye, TOZ.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get that. On one hand it's okay to ask about something then on the other say that one does not have to answer the questioned asked. Well imo that kind of defeats the purpose. Why even encourage the asking of questions if your not willing to answer some or even any at all. Kind of defeats the purpose of even allowing the players let alone anyone else asking the person a question on anything.
A> Who said this hypothetical GM who doesn't wish to explain why he doesn't want something in his game is encouraging questions?
B> Being OK to ask questions and being OK to not have to answer questions are not mutually exclusive things.
For the simple reason that you might be banning a class or anything else on a misconception. Who knows maybe a DM read the gunslinger incorrecly and thinks they target refelx saves as opposed to touch AC. Don' assume that asking more explanation or feedback is underming the DM in anyway. Sometimes it's needed becuase the DM is wrong and totally clueless about something. If after finding about gunslingers targeting touch ac instead of reflex saves and the dM still wants to ban the class. I may disagree yet be fine with it. The same DM better not come to my games wanting to play a gunslinger because he will not be allowed. Whatver a DM siallows in his game he can't play in mine.
See, this is the real problem here - a player that that is convinced they know better than the GM about something, and that the GM is disallowing something because they're not familiar with it.
Additionally, I don't see anything inherently wrong with a GM not wanting [X] in the game that they're running, but wanting to play [X] in another game.
Which if told to me upfront before character creation begins I have no problems with. It's when it's done after the game begins. Then again if as a DM you don't want to be questioned why even be a DM let alone open the floor to to questions and feedback. Being a DM does not in anway immunize anyone from feedback. If I feel the need to point out that the last encounter almost ended in a TPK I will. Having spent two years building your world is not going to exempt any dm from feedback at least at our gaming table.
As I already stated, if the GM disallows something mid-game, when it's already been allowed, that's kinda dickish. If the DM disallows something before the game begins, that's not necessarily dickish. If the DM clearly states what's disallowed before the game begins, that's certainly not dickish.
I'm a relatively new GM. I freely profess that I don't have the tightest mastery of the rules. When I ran my first session, I explicitly stated that I wanted to run PHB-only races/classes, so that I could wrap my head around stuff before getting more "out-there" in certain races/classes/etc.
I've created a table/house rules document for my players - one of those rules is now "All PC concepts must be approved by the GM."
My players are aware of this and are cool with this. As such, they don't spend tons of time fleshing out a character that may not be allowed into my game, and then getting upset because of that "wasted" investment.
All of that aside, you're now shifting the goalposts from "The GM said he/she doesn't want this specific something in his/her game and doesn't wish to explain it past "I don't like it." to "The GM doesn't want me asking questions or providing feedback!"
Players outnumber DMs. Which I think some posters in this thread keep forgeting.
Actually, I think most people are well aware of that, and know that it's far easier to find players than GMs, since players greatly outnumber GMs.
Eventually if your the DM who likes to lord ifover the players not wanting any feedback. Nor giving out any information your left playing D&D with a team of one.
Or, more likely, if you're the player who acts insufferable and can't accept a simple "I do not want [X] in my game, let's move on." you're going to find yourself without a GM.
Dms have as much power as the players at the table are willing to give them. Both the good dms and players work toghether exchanging information. Bad dms slowly start to get less and less players. The bad players are no longer asked to join games. Still in the end as much as DMs refuse to admit they need to keep players at the table somehwat happy. Or they have no players at all imo.
And, again - declining to allow something in a game, and declining to explain why you don't want that something in your game, past "I simply don't want it." is not the mark of a bad GM. You're trying to suggest this "all-or-nothing" situation that simply isn't being argued by anyone but yourself.
Like I said before, each side is operating with a different hypothetical. And then they argue with the other side as if the other side were using the same hypotheticals.That indeed may be the main issue here. As usual, good eye, TOZ.
*blink*
Okay your REALLY reaching at this point. Unless a guest shows up with little or no social skills (which can happen) the above scenario will almost never ever happen.
Except this very situation was postulated on the first page of this thread.
If your not going to tell me what food you have or not have in advance at a BBQ well of course a guest is going to ask questions on what is served.
Can you seriously not see the difference between what was stated and your comment?
There's a huge gulf between "Hey, I hadn't heard, what's for dinner?" and "You've told me everything you're serving, which excludes steak. Why aren't you serving steak?"
The first is no issue. The second? A lot of people will consider it rude.
Though, I really shouldn't be surprised at this attitude of entitlement. I just experienced a homeless guy getting pissy with my group of friends for daring to offer him some food, but not offering him a Pepsi to go along with it.
Even then even while a little rude in asking for steak is not a "speechless" offence. I might be a little unahppy at he guest social faux pass yet it's certainly not going to ruin my night. If anything your guests are going to wonder why the hell your overeacting to such a simple question.
[EXCLUDING CORNER CASES LIKE FOOD ALLERGIES OR SPECIAL/NON-STANDARD DIETS] Are there people that are really so socially maladjusted that, as guests in another's home, being served an entree that isn't their first preference, ask for a different entree or question why that different entree isn't being served?
Total agreement. Except apprantly any type of discussion seems to equal being demanding.
You're the only person saying this.
with the added bonus of allowing people to ask question an not having to answer them. Which to me anyay defeats the purpose of even allowing anyone to ask a question in the first place.
Wow.
So, you're allowed to ask questions, but someone else isn't allowed to decline to answer - and it's wrong that you not be allowed to ask questions.
Me, me, me! It's all about me!
Seriously, dude - the all-or-nothing is getting tired. Nobody is advocating that a GM decline to answer all questions, or decline to provide an explanation for anything - simply that, sometimes, "I don't like it/I don't want it" is an acceptable answer, and you need to deal with the fact that it's the only one you're going to get.
I'll agree with you on one thing: Your proposed jerk GM - a construct that only you created and are arguing - the jerk GM who refuses to answer questions, make explanations, arbitrarily bans things mid-game and refuses to allow/listen to feedback? Yeah, that's a jerk GM.
Good thing nobody is arguing with you on that point, right?
|
It's not the same. Players have the right to know.Right to know what?
Why are you banning a specific class/feat/skill/whatever. When you are sitting at the table with you players, you are sitting with your peers. They have a right to know why you disallow something. Even if it's just that you dislike the class. You can't just say that you are banning something just because. I would be the first to walk away from a table of such a GM.
Edit, i obviously missed a whole page of discussion. go me
|
|
A> Who said this hypothetical GM who doesn't wish to explain why he doesn't want something in his game is encouraging questions?
Whne I ask a question and a person refuses to give a answer to a question beyond "well because" that to me is a sure sign they don't want to answer questions. Since my question was not only asnwered the person evaded giving me a answer. Yes it's a answer imo not a good one which will lead to more questions.
B> Being OK to ask questions and being OK to not have to answer questions are not mutually exclusive things.
Look if a DM opens the floor to a Q&A session I'm going to ask questions. If the DM is going to evade answering or falling back on the "Im the DM I don't have to answer" well for some questions it's good enough. Sometimes I need to know more information. don't ask to filed questions if as a DM you don't want to answer them.
See, this is the real problem here - a player that that is convinced they know better than the GM about something, and that the GM is disallowing something because they're not familiar with it.
How is it a problem? If the DM is banning something because he read the game material incorrectly and I'm correcting him how is that me knowing better than the DM. Gunslingers use touch AC to hit. If A DM is convinced it's a reflex save instead and I correct him. How is that knowing more than the DM. Now we are not only supposed to expect any straightr answers from a damn we can;t even point out any mistakes. As for not being familiar with it. Not my problem. If your banning stuff it's up to you as the DM to do the reserach and understand it completely before banning it. I'm okay with a DM banning stuff if he does his research. Not if he heard from his uncle who told the guy who cuts the grass that Gunslingers use reflex saves instead of touch ac.
Additionally, I don't see anything inherently wrong with a GM not wanting [X] in the game that they're running, but wanting to play [X] in another game.
I do acutally. If as a dM you go off on a rant on how you dislike Gunslingers because they target touch ACs. Which happened in a game I was in. Nothing ruins the night for the players at a gaming table when a DM loses it about a class right before the session starts. Why can't dms wait until the end. You don't get to play one in my game. If you hate a class you hate a class. My question to someone like that is "if allow you to take this class can I play one in your game" if the answer is no they don't play one in mine.
All of that aside, you're now shifting the goalposts from "The GM said he/she doesn't want this specific something in his/her game and doesn't wish to explain it past "I don't like it." to "The GM doesn't want me asking questions or providing feedback!"
I shortened the post because I agree wtih what was written. I'm not shifting goalposts. A DM is allowed to say "I dont' like it" yet a players is allowed to say "care to explain wh?" Working in retail we are taught to give asnwers with as much information as possible. For example many books still are cheaper in US dollars than canadian dollars. A book that cost 11.99$ Can will cost say 9.99$. We get customers asking why the Can and US prices are not the same. WE were told not to answer" because that's how it is". It gets customers angry and/or they ask more questions. The answer is that publishers prices their books differently. If on the day the book was made the go wit the value of the currency that day. Not the value of the currency on the day the book was bought. Sure customers are still nmot happy but a reason was given. The problem is when you respond a question with "well because" most reactions to that are "why?" That is why imo your supposed to give as much information as possible so it does not lead to more questions.
Host: "Okay lads, I'm going to have a BBQ at my house weekend and I'm going to be serving hotdogs, hamburgers, and chicken wings. You're all invited to come.
Invited Person C: Would you please explain why you aren't serving steak?
Host: *Utterly speechless*
In my opinion, this would be just like asking your DM why he is banning something.
Except it isn't. In this case, the host is making a statement of positive inclusion from a starting null set. That's not the case when banning options from a game. Banning from a game is the opposite operation - excluding elements from an already populated, even default, set.
If I said I'm throwing a Thanksgiving day dinner party and I wasn't making a turkey, then I think people would be excused for asking why. I should certainly expect the question and would reasonably be considered prickly if I didnt answer it. It's an iconic, traditional part of the meal. It's an exclusion from an expected set.
I don't see what the big deal is about banning something and giving a reason for it.
Presumably you are playing with your peers, not with children. I think most people would rather here some sort of explanation, even if it is "This race/class doesn't really fit the mood I am trying to set, etc". I also think most people could wrap their heads around that. Sure some players might argue or quit, but presumably they would have done the same if you gave them no answer.
I play with friends. I am pretty sure any of us would be pretty offended if one of us gave as a reply "Because I said so". It's just setting the tone for hostility for the whole campaign before it even starts
|
|
There's a huge gulf between "Hey, I hadn't heard, what's for dinner?" and "You've told me everything you're serving, which excludes steak. Why aren't you serving steak?"
That happens very rarely. Sure theire is the guy witn no social graces whatsoever. Yes they exist. No I'm not one of them. If a host excludes steak I'm not going to ask for steak. If I'm invited to all you can eat meat type of dinner function and no steak while I'm not going to ask why because I have a decent choice in the back of my head I will be curious.
Though, I really shouldn't be surprised at this attitude of entitlement. I just experienced a homeless guy getting pissy with my group of friends for daring to offer him some food, but not offering him a Pepsi to go along with it.
Yes because a gamer who asks for more information is in the same category as a rude homeless guy in the street (rolls eyes). Wow I must be a really jerk then for asking why my DM refused to allow 3.5 materials in his current PF game then. Since without even knowing me you have grouped me in the category of those who are entitled to anything. Well I consider it a form of entitlement too when a DM asks to field questions and feels free to give whatever answers he wants. Let me guess though that is not a form of entitlement right.
]
[EXCLUDING CORNER CASES LIKE FOOD ALLERGIES OR SPECIAL/NON-STANDARD DIETS] Are there people that are really so socially maladjusted that, as guests in another's home, being served an entree that isn't their first preference, ask for a different entree or question why that
different entree isn't being served?
I don't but I have known people who do. I gamer freind of mine who used to be the very sterotype of a gamer came to a dinner with his GF who was trying to get him to socialize more. I did once host a all you can eat meat dinner at my place. ranm out of money to buy steak. He did ask not out loud and not rudely why thir was no steak. A prson who does not socialize alot does not necessarily have the right social skilsls imo. I took him aside told him why and also mentioned why ot was rude to ask. I was nto angry because he did not know any better at the time. Don't assume that every guy in the street knows how to get along with everybody.
|
|
I don't see what the big deal is about banning something and giving a reason for it.
Presumably you are playing with your peers, not with children. I think most people would rather here some sort of explanation, even if it is "This race/class doesn't really fit the mood I am trying to set, etc". I also think most people could wrap their heads around that. Sure some players might argue or quit, but presumably they would have done the same if you gave them no answer.
I play with friends. I am pretty sure any of us would be pretty offended if one of us gave as a reply "Because I said so". It's just setting the tone for hostility for the whole campaign before it even starts
That's my point exatcly. If you invite family over for Thanksgiving and you don't offer a turkey well questions are going to be asked. Asnwering with "well thats how it is" or being offeneded is going to ahve family leaving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good catch Brian. It looks like memorax was creating a straw man.
To ask is fine. What people have issue with is people who don't accept the answer. We don't GM to spend hours arguing with a player who won't take no for an answer. We GM because it's fun watching friends and acquaintances solve the scenario you created for them.
Sometimes it's needed becuase the DM is wrong and totally clueless about something.
Really? This automatic assumption that your GM is totally clueless IS a good example of the lack of trust I am talking about. No GM I know would dismiss a valid concern over an in game ruling as long as you save the debate till after the session. Again proper etiquette. But by badgering the GM over something that they decided they didn't want in their game in the first place something they told you up front they didn't want (no evil or no gunslingers are good examples) is the same as saying "Hey I think your completely clueless for not allowing my evil serial killer into your all good game." I know you wouldn't use those exact words but really isn't this what you are doing? Sure you might think it would be great fun to play the bad guy working with the good guys. But to argue about it is dismissing the GMs reasoning as invalid whether they give you a detailed reason ("I want to halt in game drama before it happens") or not ("sorry I already made my decision it isn't up for debate").
Really, Do you trust your GM to run a fair and fun game or not?
It sure sounds like some of you are choosing 'not'.
Whne I ask a question and a person refuses to give a answer to a question beyond "well because" that to me is a sure sign they don't want to answer questions. Since my question was not only asnwered the person evaded giving me a answer. Yes it's a answer imo not a good one which will lead to more questions.
That's your problem. You're insinuating that all GMs who decline to answer a single question are inherently opposed to answering all questions.
That's a fallacy you've conjured.
Look if a DM opens the floor to a Q&A session I'm going to ask questions. If the DM is going to evade answering or falling back on the "Im the DM I don't have to answer" well for some questions it's good enough. Sometimes I need to know more information. don't ask to filed questions if as a DM you don't want to answer them.
See above.
How is it a problem?
Because there's any of a number of reasons that a GM may decide to disallow something in his game, and one of those reasons might just simply be "I do not want [X] in THIS particular game/campaign."
Your assumption and supposition that it's being disallowed because of a rules misunderstanding is only one particular scenario.
I do acutally. If as a dM you go off on a rant on how you dislike Gunslingers because they target touch ACs. Which happened in a game I was in. Nothing ruins the night for the players at a gaming table when a DM loses it about a class right before the session starts. Why can't dms wait until the end. You don't get to play one in my game. If you hate a class you hate a class. My question to someone like that is "if allow you to take this class can I play one in your game" if the answer is no they don't play one in mine.
So, you think a GM is being petty and ridiculous, and your answer is to be more petty and ridiculous, rather than leading by example.
GREAT IDEA!
I shortened the post because I agree wtih what was written. I'm not shifting goalposts. A DM is allowed to say "I dont' like it" yet a players is allowed to say "care to explain wh?"
You ARE shifting goalposts. You're arguing that a GM that provides an answer you're not satisfied with is a GM that doesn't want questions asked or feedback given. That's nonsense.
And, again, I'll agree - the player IS allowed to say "care to explain why?" just like the GM is allowed to say "Nope."
If the player can't accept that, and instead want to continue to act the petulant child, the problem doesn't reside in the GM, it resides in the player.
Working in retail we are taught to give asnwers with as much information as possible. For example many books still are cheaper in US dollars than canadian dollars. A book that cost 11.99$ Can will cost say 9.99$. We get customers asking why the Can and US prices are not the same. WE were told not to answer" because that's how it is". It gets customers angry and/or they ask more questions. The answer is that publishers prices their books differently. If on the day the book was made the go wit the value of the currency that day. Not the value of the currency on the day the book was bought. Sure customers are still nmot happy but a reason was given. The problem is when you respond a question with "well because" most reactions to that are "why?" That is why imo your supposed to give as much information as possible so it does not lead to more questions.
So you were taught (I'm assuming by your employer?) to answer questions with as much information as possible, but you were also told by your employer not to provide an explanation for a specific question, yet you do so anyways.
I think we're starting to find the root of your issue with this subject.
I don't see what the big deal is about banning something and giving a reason for it.
Presumably you are playing with your peers, not with children. I think most people would rather here some sort of explanation, even if it is "This race/class doesn't really fit the mood I am trying to set, etc". I also think most people could wrap their heads around that. Sure some players might argue or quit, but presumably they would have done the same if you gave them no answer.
I play with friends. I am pretty sure any of us would be pretty offended if one of us gave as a reply "Because I said so". It's just setting the tone for hostility for the whole campaign before it even starts
This is why I make the distinction between trust and no trust. If I know the player trusts me and will accept my answers I am probably going to give you an explanation. It's the nice thing to do. If I know the player will argue and not accept my answers then I won't give one. And I am perfectly in my rights to not answer. You have a history of arguing. I don't want your drama, it's clear you don't trust me to run my own game. If you want to do things differently by all means man up and sit in the GMs chair.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what the big deal is about banning something and giving a reason for it.
Nor do I - but I also don't see what the big deal is about disallowing something and giving a response that isn't as expositional as the asking party desires.
Presumably you are playing with your peers, not with children. I think most people would rather here some sort of explanation, even if it is "This race/class doesn't really fit the mood I am trying to set, etc". I also think most people could wrap their heads around that. Sure some players might argue or quit, but presumably they would have done the same if you gave them no answer.
I play with friends. I am pretty sure any of us would be pretty offended if one of us gave as a reply "Because I said so". It's just setting the tone for hostility for the whole campaign before it even starts
And nobody is particularly arguing in favor of a "Because I said so." response.
"I don't like it." is not "Because I said so."
That's my point exatcly. If you invite family over for Thanksgiving and you don't offer a turkey well questions are going to be asked. Asnwering with "well thats how it is" or being offeneded is going to ahve family leaving.
I'm REAL glad I don't have family or friends so rude as to question why I'm not providing them meal A instead of meal B, and then decide to leave because my answer was "This is what I chose to serve," I say "Good riddance," and remove them from the guest list of future gatherings.
|
|
It's not a strawman imo. Go to anyone in the street and ask what response would you prefer hearing from someone when asking a question about why something is not allowed A)It just the way it is or B)a reason why it was not allowed. I can almost guarantee that the answer will overwhlemingly be the a reason why it was not allowed.
And no I'm not assuming a DM is always wrong. But hey feel free to add words in my mouth. If a DM keeps insisting that Gunslingers target reflex saves why would I not point out his error. I trust my DMs except they make mistakes like everyone else. Trusting your DM does not mean closing your eyes as a player to mistakes a DM makes. What I'm saying is not that players need a hour long explanation as to why sometihng is banned. Just that sometimes in certain rare occasions "sorry I already made my decision it isn't up for debate" may not be the answer. 99% of the time I fine with "I'm not allowing a class". If a DM goes "'m not llowing Ninjas because ninjas should not be allowed in any fantasy rpgs of any kind" your sort of opening yourself up to being questioned as to why you don't believe ninjas should be allowed in a fantasy rpg.
The whole entitlement BS kind of works both wys. On one had you cant't accuse players of wanting more inforation as entitlement than on the other say that a DM can filed questions with any kind of answer. That too is a form of entitlement.
I do cocdede that I maybe unfair with not allowing a DM who basn one class not to play it at my table. I will aska person why he wants to play one though if he dislikes a certain class so much.
|
|
I'm REAL glad I don't have family or friends so rude as to question why I'm not providing them meal A instead of meal B, and then decide to leave because my answer was "This is what I chose to serve," I say "Good riddance," and remove them from the guest list of future gatherings.
Glad I don' eat you place then. IF i'm invited over for a turkey dinner and no turkey is served telling me to "suck it up eat what you have" is going to make me think that your a horrible host. You accuse me of not having any manners yet yo feel free to tell people who you invited over toyour house for dinner "it's my house suck it up" and expect them not to think you have poor manners.
It's not a strawman imo.
If a DM keeps insisting that Gunslingers target reflex saves why would I not point out his error.
The whole entitlement BS kind of works both wys. On one had you cant't accuse players of wanting more inforation as entitlement than on the other say that a DM can filed questions with any kind of answer. That too is a form of entitlement.
Since no one anywhere is saying gunslingers target ref saves this IS a good example of stawman. Since no one anywhere is suggesting it would be inappropriate to call a GM on a rules mistake when she actually makes one (and not just because your convinced she is too clueless not to be making one in the future). Really listen to yourself. I am reusing words you used. Making an imaginary hypothetical to argue against... what would you call it?
The entitled players are the ones who DEMAND answers. I thought we all already agreed those players are bad?
Glad I don' eat you place then. IF i'm invited over for a turkey dinner and no turkey is served telling me to "suck it up eat what you have" is going to make me think that your a horrible host. You accuse me of not having any manners yet yo feel free to tell people who you invited over toyour house for dinner "it's my house suck it up" and expect them not to think you have poor manners.
I'm REAL glad I don't have family or friends so rude as to question why I'm not providing them meal A instead of meal B, and then decide to leave because my answer was "This is what I chose to serve," I say "Good riddance," and remove them from the guest list of future gatherings.
Who exactly invited you over for turkey dinner? Clearly not the host in that example. Do you show up for a ham dinner at your families house and ask them why they invited you to a turkey dinner? When they clearly invited you to a ham dinner?
It's not a strawman imo.
You're arguing a point that nobody is making. People are saying [X] and you're arguing that if they support [X], they obviously are supporting [Y].
So, while your opinion may disagree, the fact of the matter is that you're arguing a straw man.
Go to anyone in the street and ask what response would you prefer hearing from someone when asking a question about why something is not allowed A)It just the way it is or B)a reason why it was not allowed. I can almost guarantee that the answer will overwhlemingly be the a reason why it was not allowed.
And that has no bearing on anything but their (or your) personal preference.
It doesn't support your opinion that you're not arguing a straw man, nor does it refute that nobody but you is arguing that "It's just the way it is" is at issue here.
And no I'm not assuming a DM is always wrong. But hey feel free to add words in my mouth. If a DM keeps insisting that Gunslingers target reflex saves why would I not point out his error. I trust my DMs except they make mistakes like everyone else. Trusting your DM does not mean closing your eyes as a player to mistakes a DM makes. What I'm saying is not that players need a hour long explanation as to why sometihng is banned. Just that sometimes in certain rare occasions "sorry I already made my decision it isn't up for debate" may not be the answer. 99% of the time I fine with "I'm not allowing a class". If a DM goes "'m not llowing Ninjas because ninjas should not be allowed in any fantasy rpgs of any kind" your sort of opening yourself up to being questioned as to why you don't believe ninjas should be allowed in a fantasy rpg.
More gunslinger exposition nobody is arguing that supports the suggestion that your issue is that the GM just doesn't know the rules.
As far as the ninja, so, a GM doesn't believe ninjas belong in fantasy - their opinion is such that the fantasy trope, to them, doesn't include ninjas - and you're going to continue to challenge that?
The whole entitlement BS kind of works both wys. On one had you cant't accuse players of wanting more inforation as entitlement than on the other say that a DM can filed questions with any kind of answer. That too is a form of entitlement.
Really, it doesn't - because the the recipient of a question isn't required to answer you, nor are they required to explain their answer if it doesn't suit you.
They *ARE* entitled to not answer, and the question is *NOT* entitled to an answer.
Glad I don' eat you place then. IF i'm invited over for a turkey dinner and no turkey is served telling me to "suck it up eat what you have" is going to make me think that your a horrible host. You accuse me of not having any manners yet yo feel free to tell people who you invited over toyour house for dinner "it's my house suck it up" and expect them not to think you have poor manners.
Remember when you said this:
I'm not shifting goalposts.
Then remember when you said this:
If you invite family over for Thanksgiving and you don't offer a turkey well questions are going to be asked.
Then remember where you said this:
IF i'm invited over for a turkey dinner and no turkey is served telling me to "suck it up eat what you have" is going to make me think that your a horrible host.
??
You just shifted the goalpost from "I was invited over for Thanksgiving dinner" to "I was invited over for a turkey dinner."
I'm not the only one here that sees these words on the screen, am I?
Methinks the horrible moniker needs to be applied to the guest, not the host.
|
|
Since no one anywhere is saying gunslingers target ref saves this IS a good example of stawman.
Really that's the strawman. A hypothetical example I used to try and prove my point. I know no one here said that. I never said anyone here said that. I used that as a example on when to question a DM response to banning a class. I guess I need to repeat it. If A a DM (no one in this thread) bans gunslingers because he thinks they target reflex AC (no one in this thread) by mistake then I think it's alright for a player to question why a class was banned. Since the DM (no one in thsi thread) is banning a class becuase of wrong information on that class. Clear enough for you or is it another "Strawman". Dms make mistakes. I know this your probably know this it happens.
The entitled players are the ones who DEMAND answers. The netitled DMs refuse to provide answers of any kind. I thought we all already agreed those players and DMs are bad. are bad?
Fixed that for you
|
|
Really, it doesn't - because the the recipient of a question isn't required to answer you, nor are they required to explain their answer if it doesn't suit you.
They *ARE* entitled to not answer, and the question is *NOT* entitled to an answer.
So let me get this straight a player asking for more information because a DM response with "because that's how it is" is being entitled. Yet a DM who responds to question with whatever he feels like responding to a player is entitled to do so and it's not a form of entitlement. I wonder if you even notice how one sided that is.
|
|
I don't like that class is an answer, if that answer does not satisfy you, then feel free to be rude and demand a more comprehensive explanation.
People have the right to not like something and you have no right to demand to know why.
I don't mind a class being banned. As long as a explanation is given. I banned gunslngers from my games because they target touch AC for the longest time. My player knew this. Sure a few wanted to try the class yet given a explanation respected my decison not to allow it in the game. If I had tried the " because that's how it is" they would have definaterly questioned it more. I allowed one into one of my games just recently. If I wanted to play one and a DM would tell tell me that the Gunslingers ability to target touch ACs is not something he wants to deal with in his games I would have no problems. Unhappy as a player but I would not question it. Being told "that's how it is don't question me on it" is not the right or diplomatic way to go imo.
|
|
I said, that i banned the class because i did not like it. I have a right not to like something. Usually, there is no explanation. I don't like gunslingers and don't allow them in any of my games. I don't know what it is about them that i don't like, but whenever i read or hear the word gunslinger, my mood sours. So i banned. If that is not good enough for any of my players, they are free to go find another gm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since no one anywhere is saying gunslingers target ref saves this IS a good example of stawman.
Really that's the strawman. A hypothetical example I used to try and prove my point. I know no one here said that. I never said anyone here said that. I used that as a example on when to question a DM response to banning a class. I guess I need to repeat it. If A a DM (no one in this thread) bans gunslingers because he thinks they target reflex AC (no one in this thread) by mistake then I think it's alright for a player to question why a class was banned. Since the DM (no one in thsi thread) is banning a class becuase of wrong information on that class. Clear enough for you or is it another "Strawman". Dms make mistakes. I know this your probably know this it happens.
Ok since you want to tie yourself to this lets explore it. Has the GM made any such mistake at the point you are accusing her of doing so? Nope. Since no play has even begun yet you have no idea whether the GM is using a mechanical aspect wrong. SO isn't it insulting to excuse your demands for a straight answer based on an error SHE HASN'T MADE YET?!
|
|
I said, that i banned the class because i did not like it. I have a right not to like something. Usually, there is no explanation. I don't like gunslingers and don't allow them in any of my games. I don't know what it is about them that i don't like, but whenever i read or hear the word gunslinger, my mood sours. So i banned. If that is not good enough for any of my players, they are free to go find another gm.
Sorry my mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind a class being banned. As long as a explanation is given. I banned gunslngers from my games because they target touch AC for the longest time. My player knew this. Sure a few wanted to try the class yet given a explanation respected my decison not to allow it in the game. If I had tried the " because that's how it is" they would have definaterly questioned it more. I allowed one into one of my games just recently. If I wanted to play one and a DM would tell tell me that the Gunslingers ability to target touch ACs is not something he wants to deal with in his games I would have no problems. Unhappy as a player but I would not question it. Being told "that's how it is don't question me on it" is not the right or diplomatic way to go imo.I don't like that class is an answer, if that answer does not satisfy you, then feel free to be rude and demand a more comprehensive explanation.
People have the right to not like something and you have no right to demand to know why.
These people consider the player "sucking it up" as the most diplomatic approach to it.
Don't question the king, just lick his boot since he was nice enough to let you play....except that the next time we play at a friend's house, we'll kick him out if he tries to ruin the game for the players yet again. He might be the DM, but it's the player's house, and I can quite easily take his place and do a better job while I'm at it. There's a difference between trust issues and really just being a jerk. Some of you here fail to see that, and also automatically assume the DM is ALWAYS right, which is just plain wrong.
So let me get this straight a player asking for more information because a DM response with "because that's how it is" is being entitled. Yet a DM who responds to question with whatever he feels like responding to a player is entitled to do so and it's not a form of entitlement. I wonder if you even notice how one sided that is.
Yes, that's correct. Just as you're not required to ask a question, nor are you required to explain why you're asking a question, the recipient of that question is not required to provide an answer, or, if providing an answer, they're not required to provide one that satisfies you.
Equally so, the GM is not entitled to player feedback on his session. There's nothing "wrong" with the players simply playing the game, and not commenting on the session, and, if asked how he/she did, the GM is not entitled to an answer.
It would be fantastic for all involved if, upon being asked a question, the GM would/could provide an answer that satisfies all parties.
Sometimes, that'll happen.
Sometimes it won't.
And, sometimes, the GM is going to decline to answer.
It's not one-sided whatsoever.
This is why folks are calling you on the entitlement issue - you're perfectly entitled to ASK the question, you're just not entitled to an answer that satisfies you, or an answer, period. The GM entitled to request feedback on their session, but they're not entitled to positive feedback, or any feedback for that matter.
These people consider the player "sucking it up" as the most diplomatic approach to it.
Don't question the king, just lick his boot since he was nice enough to let you play.
Yet another straw man.
...except that the next time we play at a friend's house, we'll kick him out if he tries to ruin the game for the players yet again. He might be the DM, but it's the player's house, and I can quite easily take his place and do a better job while I'm at it.
Then why weren't you doing it already?
|
|
Ok since you want to tie yourself to this lets explore it. Has the GM made any such mistake at the point you are accusing her of doing so? Nope. Since no play has even begun yet you have no idea whether the GM is using a mechanical aspect wrong. SO isn't it insulting to excuse your demands for a straight answer based on an error SHE HASN'T MADE YET?!
I have played in way too many games where DMs have a tendancy to do last minute DMing and preparation. It's entirely poosible for a unprepared DM to make mistakes with a class at character creation and during the game.
I'm running a Rise of the Runelords. I allowed a Gunslinger. Lets say I made the mistake the day of character creation misread what the Gunslinger targets and refused to allow a player to take a gunslinger. A player is well within rights to question my refusal of a class when I'm telling him that I disallow it because gunsliners use reflex saves not touch AC instead. Whch would be unfair to the player. Better the player question me and point out my mistake. It avoids conflict and problems.
I have played in way too many games where DMs have a tendancy to do last minute DMing and preparation. It's entirely poosible for a unprepared DM to make mistakes with a class at character creation and during the game.
Sure.
I'm running a Rise of the Runelords. I allowed a Gunslinger. Lets say I made the mistake the day of character creation misread what the Gunslinger targets and refused to allow a player to take a gunslinger. A player is well within rights to question my refusal of a class when I'm telling him that I disallow it because gunsliners use reflex saves not touch AC instead. Whch would be unfair to the player. Better the player question me and point out my mistake. It avoids conflict and problems.
But this doesn't address what Aranna brought up.
In your example here, you (the GM) has explained WHY they were disallowing the Gunslinger, and the player is disputing your reasoning for disallowing it.
That isn't at issue. If the GM is clearly wrong about something, then there's really no issue with the player pointing this out either before the session begins or after the session, and attempting to have the error rectified.
Nobody is disputing this, and you keep arguing as if they were.
Icyshadow, i am glad that i have never GM-ed for you, or that i never will for that matter. Players like you are the ones that ruin my fun when i GM.
You've never done me wrong, so I would never do that to you.
There's a difference between you and the guy who ruined my fun.
Besides, I barely know you, so I'll optimistically assume you'd be able to treat your players better.
|
|
Icyshadow, i am glad that i have never GM-ed for you, or that i never will for that matter. Players like you are the ones that ruin my fun when i GM.You've never done me wrong, so I would never do that to you.
There's a difference between you and the guy who ruined my fun.
Besides, I barely know you, so I'll optimistically assume you'd be able to treat your players better.
Quite better, never had any complaints...
But go lick your master's boot? Seriously? Where did you get that from the discussion...Some people were simply saying that they have a right to have preferences and that they have a right not to have to explain themselves for that.
Icyshadow, i am glad that i have never GM-ed for you, or that i never will for that matter. Players like you are the ones that ruin my fun when i GM.You've never done me wrong, so I would never do that to you.
There's a difference between you and the guy who ruined my fun.
Besides, I barely know you, so I'll optimistically assume you'd be able to treat your players better.
Trust.