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.
I don't think a satisfactory answer is always needed. Even if I disagree with a GM many times I can understand. I don't particularly care for gunslingers as an example. I hope the player would not demand that the GM keep answering questions until a "good" reason comes up. As a GM that would annoy me, but I would give a "real" answer, and the player then had to choose to accept that answer or not. I think that is fair.
Example:
PC:Can I use the Incarnum book(3.5)
ME:No.
PC:Why?
ME:I don't care for the rules enough to learn another subset of rules.
Now at the point the player may think I am lazy, but he can choose to accept that answer and play or not play. I did however give him a reason as to why that was better than "because I said so". I think that is all that those that want GM's to answer questions are saying. They are not trying to force the GM to give an answer they want to hear.
If I am incorrect then I am sure they will correct me.
I am mostly providing clarification since it seems the viewpoint is being misinterpreted as a demand for "explain it well enough for me or else.".
Example of the stance:
It is also not intended to be a 30 minute back and forth. It is not much different than me having to roll dice for character creation, which I don't like. The reasoning is not one I liked, but I did not pester the GM or demand a better answer. I also don't think those of us who want an answer from a GM would demand a better answer either.
Nothing bad comes from an actual answer so I don't see the issue with it. Normally when I explain myself it fosters a better understanding of the game, and how I run my games. That is not a bad thing. Now someone might argue that will make a player want to ask more questions. If a player is not accepting your answer as a GM, that is not a fault of you answering questions. That is the fault of a player who has trouble accepting the word "no". At some point, whether it is a your GM, boss, or any other person you just need to realize you are not going to get your way.
|
That'a very long and good post WS. I have no problems with a DM saying no. It's how it's done. I found in my long expereinces as a gamer that it's better to be upfront and give too much information as opposed to too little. Or have to make the players drag it out of you.
A example:
Me: I don't want Alchemists in the game
Player: Why not?
ME: They are not in the game don't ask why and your rude for doing so!
VS
Me: I don't allow Alechemists in the game
Player: Why not?
ME: I find the Bomb ability a pain to run as a DM and want to only stick with Sorcerers and Wizards.
Firstapproach will cause problems and ruffle feathers at the table. The second more diplomtic with a reason behind it. sure there will always be a player that insists on gettng a yes answer. Those you have to put your foot down and say no. About 99% of the time the second approach is more than enough. I don't understand why some DMs are so afraid to give more explanations. It's not like giving extra information is going to make them respect the DM less. Just the opposite imo.
I sure as hell hope my above example is not going to be taken out of context like the previous one.
Just to be clear when I said a satisfactory answer is not needed, I was saying the answer does not have to be one the player wants to accept.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear when I said a satisfactory answer is not needed, I was saying the answer does not have to be one the player wants to accept.
I have noticed though that as long as you give a reason that is all that is needed. When I mean reason not "I'm the DM' Or "becuas it is what it is.". The second asnwer from my previous post is all that is needed. AS long as you don't force the players to jump through hopes to get a answer or be evasive a simple reason is all that is needed. Now if a player is still not happy with the reason given tough for them. Yet 99% of the time I never get a player asking why or pressing the point. Giving additonal feedback alsmo makes it feel like a equal group of peers.
I'd say that depends.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that depends.
Not to be snarky, but that answer right there suggests to me that somehow my personal likes, dislikes, and opinions are subject to your approval...
Like my brussels sprouts example upthread, I don't always have a pin-point reason as to why I dislike something. And whenever that's the case, you're never going to get a better answer than "because I don't like it, therefore I don't want it in my setting"...
So I ask the question again, is that a good enough reason or not?
I think we've established that, sadly, for a certain group of people, it's not good enough, and it never will be.
I'd say that depends.Not to be snarky, but that answer right there suggests to me that somehow my personal likes, dislikes, and opinions are subject to your approval...
Like my brussels sprouts example upthread, I don't always have a pin-point reason as to why I dislike something. And whenever that's the case, you're never going to get a better answer than "because I don't like it, therefore I don't want it in my setting"...
So I ask the question again, is that a good enough reason or not?
That answer amounts to "because I said so". I think saying why you don't like them is the better option. As an example if you don't like the gunslinger because it targets reflex saves would be a better answer. If you just say "I don't like it" then you may be banning it for the wrong reason. Now if your answer is you don't like gunslingers in your fantasy setting that is also a good answer. If someone is banning something it is almost obvious that they don't like it so giving an answer that someone probably already has does not help. If you tell the player you don't like guns in your fantasy setting he can play or not play*. You have given a the root reason. "I don't like it" is not the root reason. Actually "I don't like it" is not the reason at all. It is the result of the root reason. To take this further you don't like a guns targeting reflex saves, and as a result you don't want to allow the class.
*Actually he can do that anyway, but I was making a point.
As an example people often ask me why I don't drink beer. The root reason is I don't like the taste. As a result I prefer to not drink alcohol.
That is the difference between giving the primary reason, and the result of the reason.
For those that say it is "just because", it is never just because. On some level things don't feel right at times even if we can't put it into words. It is not much different that when I have met people and I did not like them, and I could not put a finger on it at the time. Maybe on a subconscious level I am noticing something, and it is making feel uneasy.
PS:The gunslinger is just an example, and I am aware that gunslingers don't target reflex saves.
I'll be more specific. I'd say it depends on WHAT you don't like.
I think we've established that, sadly, for a certain group of people, it's not good enough, and it never will be.
I would not say "sadly". I would be more saddened by someone that can't identify or refuses to give the root reason without even being able to say why, other than "because I can*."
*I am the GM, and I don't have to answer to players.
In actuality, not having to answer the players has nothing to with being a GM**. It is just your right as person. It is not different than a GM wanting a some feedback so he can make his games better. The players don't have to do it, I am failing to see how it hurts the game or why they would not do so.
I guess at the end of the day I the question is "why not foster open communication"?
**mentioned because the "I am the GM and what I say should go without question mentality has been expressed when it is a nonfactor, IMHO"
As to comparing inviting someone over for food, and GM, the comparison is flawed. If I am cooking anyway, and I invite you over then you should be happy to get free food. The game however is a game, that all of us put something into.
A better example is if you are proving the main dish, and the guest are bring smaller meals so you tell them, "I get to decide what you bring, and what I bring because I did the most cooking."
As you can see there is a difference between providing most of the meal, and providing everything while have others just show up to eat.
|
|
It is not much different that when I have met people and I did not like them, and I could not put a finger on...
So it's perfectly acceptable to be totally unable to rationally explain an irrational dislike of someone in real life, but somehow I have to rationally explain my irrational dislike of some class or race or other feature in a game of fantasy??
So it's perfectly acceptable to be totally unable to rationally explain an irrational dislike of someone in real life, but somehow I have to rationally explain my irrational dislike of some class or race or other feature in a game of fantasy??
You are taking my words out of context. That statement was saying there was a reason for everything, even if you don't know the reason. In short "because I don't like it" is never the reason. It is the result of the reason.
How acceptable it is only depends on whether the GM knows the reason or not. Of course none of us are mind readers so we can never really know if he has the true reason hidden from us or not as players.
The tone of the explanation is also a factor. If the GM is dismissive and vague people in general, people are less likely to accept the answer. Even if the GM say "It does not feel right", it is better than "because I said so". In both cases the root reason is not revealed, but one is better for improving communication between two people or groups. Most people can understand "It does not feel right". Telling people "because I said so" or "I don't like it" which is almost an obvious does not go over well.
Now maybe "I don't like it." and "It does not feel right" sound the same, but one to say "I don't like" would make it seem like you know the root cause. Saying "it does not feel right" does not have that affect on most people I know.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, is "because I don't like them and therefore do not want them in my setting" a valid reason for you or not??
For me that would be fine. Depending on two things. On the tone it is given. Saying it in a rude and or dismissive way is just imo going to have people question you more rather than less. If your polite or at least casual about it than no problem. Second as a player your willing to accept the same answer in return. As A DM saying that Gunnslingers and firearms have no place in in fantasy and banning the class is perfectly reasonable. Just as it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask you as a player why a dm turned player wants to play a class he feels very strongly against. My first response would be "um I thought you could not stand gunslingers." Followed by me questioning the choice of class. To me anyway makes no sense to dislike a class so much as to ban it as a DM then want to play it. A sign of a very conflicted individual imo.
I also have noticed in my experience that DMs who ban stuff at their games are usually the ones who want to be the kids at the candy store when it comes to picking and choosing what they want as players. As well as complaining the loudest when they get refused a class. YMMV but it has happened to m more than once.
|
|
as a player your willing to accept the same answer in return.
I am an old grognard, and therefore see the DM as final arbiter of the game, so if he wants to ban something from a game, then I'm fine with that (it's his game)...
And if the DM is only banning something in his game because of a ban on that same thing in my game, I may think the DM a bit childish and perhaps watch out for more of such behavior in the future, but I will accept his decision on the matter as final...
The game has so many different options to choose from and my fun is never predicated upon one particular aspect of the game (be it a class, race, or what have you). So when a DM says no to something it's no big deal to me, I don't need to know why; I just move on and decide on something else...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me give you a story as to wy I tend to ban something when another DM bans it espcially if he feels strongly about it.
It was at the time when the book of none swords was released. I was a player at the time. The DM and another player at the table both had bought the book. The player asked if he could have a WArblade. The DM not only refused he went on a long rant. I think it was about 15-20 minutes been awhile so not sure. Where he went into a huge rant about the book an the classes in the book. Not frothing at the mouth but dman close type of rant. To the point where we were wondering if we were going to ask if the DM was going to cancel the game because he felt so strong about the book. Just as were we about to ask he stopped. Needless to say even though we played the season was a write off. Kind of hard to get into character let alone enjoy a game session when the DM goes all nuclear about a topic.
At the end he apologized very half-heartedly too boot. The game kind of feel apart after that because he also makde the mistake of going on about the book a couple of times after. To the point we just dropped out of his game. Then the player who had bought the smae book decided to run a game. Upfront he let us all know including the dm now turned player that it was going to be a game using mostly the 3.5 core with a select other books that were subject for apporval. Lo and behold the dm who 'hated" the book shows up with a warblade. Needless to say we were not impressed at all. The DM neither yet he was willing to read the Warblade and make a final decision. He refused. The dm turned player got anmgry and accused the DM of refusng because he turned the DM warblade. He was shown the door.
It's one thing to no allow a concept as a dM then ask to play it as a player. It's another when your going on and on about the class as a DM to the point where imo your running the fun for everyone and then show up with a smile and a ncharacter sheet in hand and want to play the class that apparenlty you so very much hate. So for me if you nad a class as a DM and want to play one in my games I allow it. If as a player you make my life miserable about a class I'm well within my rights to refuse it imo.
as a player your willing to accept the same answer in return.I am an old grognard, and therefore see the DM as final arbiter of the game, so if he wants to ban something from a game, then I'm fine with that (it's his game)...
I am not a grognard and I still agree that the GM has the final say. It is the GM who will most likely get blamed if a game falls apart so it is only fitting.
..but I will accept his decision on the matter as final...
We are not saying we won't accept the GM's decision. I think some order of logic should be presented in any situation, when possible. Refusal to do so worries me when anyone in a position of power does so, if done in a dismissive tone.
The game has so many different options to choose from and my fun is never predicated upon one particular aspect of the game (be it a class, race, or what have you). So when a DM says no to something it's no big deal to me, I don't need to know why; I just move on and decide on something else...
Knowing why lets me know what type of GM I am playing for. Should I stick around or remove myself ASAP? For me it is not so much about one thing being banned. Me not liking his GM style does not make him a bad GM, but it will let me know if our styles clash.
I have never been in a group where the lines of communication were completely closed, and I have gamed with people who go back at least as far as 1st edition. They might have been short on patience at times, but the "nobody should ever question me" attitude was never present. Normally their impatience only showed up when a player was holding the game up. They got "the glare", and the game moved on.
I guess that in a sense it boils down to a playstyle issue.
Thanks Wraithstrike. That was exactly what I was trying to say. apprently my example either was not clear enough or some just wanted to read more into it. I'm still trying to understand why such a big fuss was made over my example.
Yes but I think the issue is that memorax keeps returning to this little sliver of the concept, when other people are discussing something else.
Memorax. Wraithstrike.
What if you wanted a gunslinger, but I didn't let you use one.
You ask why. I answer that I don't like them.
You ask why I don't like them. I answer that I just don't. It's the truth. I have never analysed why I don't like them, I just don't, and I have no more to tell you.
Am I being reasonable? Simple answer, yes or no?
Like I said before, at some level there is a reason, and "just because" is never a reason. You may not be able to put your finger on it, but that does not mean there is no reason. I would just assume you have not found your reason for not liking them yet, assuming I trusted you as a GM. As to whether or not you are being reasonable well that depends on the root answer. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, so I would assume you had a decent reason, even if you did not know it yet. Of course too many "just because's", and I might change my mind about giving you the benefit of the doubt.
In short I would say you are reasonable at first.
PS:I hate giving a simple yes or no answer since things are almost never that simple when it comes to opinion based discussions. Rules are different. :)
PS2:What was going on was that people were reading into what Memorex was saying, which happens a lot around here. As an example one poster assumed he was trying to create a strawman and trying to assume he was sayign the GM had no clue. This caused them to miss the fact that the point was not about the gunslinger, nor was he assuming the hypothetical GM was clueless. It was about the fact that a misunderstanding could be solved by a little 2-way dialogue. They focused on the example(gunslinger), and not the point itself.
edit:Once I explained what he was saying the conversation moved forward.
An example, I was in the Navy, so I moved away from home for a while. When I came back, I rejoined my old gaming group. I loved playing druids. I was told I couldn't though. I asked why.
I was told it was possible, but because things had happened in game, druids were considered heretics and the main faith of the region was basically at war with them. So if I made a druid, if found out I would be tortured and killed, or at the least be made an outlaw.
I chose not to make one and I was satisfied with that response. When we played a different game, where druids weren't hated, I played one.
Also, through play we reconciled (partly), druids and the main faith, so they were playable again. There were in game reasons for it and it made sense.
"Because I said so" isn't a good reason for anything in a cooperative environment.
That's because you came back to a game that was already in motion so you had a legitimate reason to ask why.
Now, let's talk about reality for a moment. If you have been playing with a DM long enough or you understand the type of game that he wants to run and he bans certain things then 9 times out of 10 you can guess why those things were banned.
"Because I don't like them or because I don't want them in my campaign" are just as good a reason as any because it is a legitimate response. Because the DM took the time to ban a certain element should trigger something in the brain that tells you the DM has a reason why he took the time to ban XYZ.
You dismiss my ACTUAL example, and then move to a hypothetical as "real". Your argument of "real" holds no value if you're going to be so dismissive of actual reality.
How much time does it take to ban something?
Since when is "a reason" synonymous with "a good reason" or the "correct reason"?
See the "gunslinger using reflex save" posts for an example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before, at some level there is a reason, and "just because" is never a reason. You may not be able to put your finger on it, but that does not mean there is no reason. I would just assume you have not found your reason for not liking them yet, assuming I trusted you as a GM. As to whether or not you are being reasonable well that depends on the root answer. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, so I would assume you had a decent reason, even if you did not know it yet. Of course too many "just because's", and I might change my mind about giving you the benefit of the doubt.
In short I would say you are reasonable at first.
PS:I hate giving a simple yes or no answer since things are almost never that simple when it comes to opinion based discussions. Rules are different. :)
PS2:What was going on was that people were reading into what Memorex was saying, which happens a lot around here. As an example one poster assumed he was trying to create a strawman and trying to assume he was sayign the GM had no clue. This caused them to miss the fact that the point was not about the gunslinger, nor was he assuming the hypothetical GM was clueless. It was about the fact that a misunderstanding could be solved by a little 2-way dialogue. They focused on the example(gunslinger), and not the point itself.
edit:Once I explained what he was saying the conversation moved forward.
Yes, good to see the conversation did shift. For some reason I thought I'd reached the end of the thread when I posted...
And to be honest, my " hypothetical" situation is my reality. I don't like gunslingers, and I don't have much more justification than that. They're not to my taste, which is what "I don't like them" means. Any further waffle I could summon up to try to explain it further would be a waste of time.
So, they don't get a run in my game. It has nothing to do with mechanics - I may have read the class's mechanics once, but I've forgotten them. My players don't bother to ask if they can play them, and none have questioned me to explain further than "I don't like them".
Having said that, I'm not that attached to GMing - I only do it because I'm pretty good with the rules, I like plot building, and no one else in my group wants to do it. If you want gunslingers, GM your own game, or convince someone else to - I'll be happy to play! You run it, your rules. I'm currently playing in a PbP game with a gunslinger among other things I find a bit whacky and out there, but I ain't running it - so I'm just enjoying the ride.
I don't know, maybe it's because I'm not so attached to being the GM, but if you don't like the way I run a game, I'm more than happy to play with you as the ref, using your rules. In fact, I'd probably prefer it!
Edit: I also disagree that "I don't like it" is not a real reason. Sure it is. Let me demonstrate.
You ask why no gunslingers. I say "I don't like it."
You say, "That's not a real reason. Why don't you like it?"
I say, "I don't like it because they attack touch AC."
You say, "See? The real reason is they attack touch AC."
But I say, " No, the touch attack isn't the reason. They could still do touch attacks, but if I liked them, I'd let them in my game anyway. They're not out of the game because they do touch attacks, or they'd be out of every game. They're out of my game because I don't like them. So "I don't like them" is actually the real reason."
"I don't like it" is definitely a real and reasonable answer.
Is "I simply don't like x class, I have my reasons but it's not open for discussion right now" an acceptabe answer? I've gamed with folks who think that answering the 'why' question means that it's open for debate or that you're willing to discuss it. I've learned that with certain folks, all this does is get you dragged into a pointless argument.
Yes, good to see the conversation did shift. For some reason I thought I'd reached the end of the thread when I posted...And to be honest, my " hypothetical" situation is my reality. I don't like gunslingers, and I don't have much more justification than that. They're not to my taste, which is what "I don't like them" means. Any further waffle I could summon up to try to explain it further would be a waste of time.
So, they don't get a run in my game. It has nothing to do with mechanics - I may have read the class's mechanics once, but I've forgotten them. My players don't bother to ask if they can play them, and none have questioned me to explain further than "I don't like them".
Having said that, I'm not that attached to GMing - I only do it because I'm pretty good with the rules, I like plot building, and no one else in my group wants to do it. If you want gunslingers, GM your own game, or convince someone else to - I'll be happy to play! You run it, your rules. I'm currently playing in a PbP game with a gunslinger among other things I find a bit whacky and out there, but I ain't running it - so I'm just enjoying the ride.
I don't know, maybe it's because I'm not so attached to being the GM, but if you don't like the way I run a game, I'm more than happy to play with you as the ref, using your rules. In fact, I'd probably prefer it!
"They are not to my taste" would lead to me thinking you did not like the class for a good reason, even if I was incorrect. Your taste being taken into account would at least give a point of comparison, and I think that is a valid reason. That makes it sound better than "I just don't like them". At the very least, it is not the "I am the GM. Why are you questioning the person who does all of the work?" answer.
When nobody else wants to run they are kind of stuck with what the GM wants to do though. On a related note I do wish more players would GM, just so they would know what it is like. More GM's should also get to play. Sometime being only on one side of the screen makes you forget what the other side of the screen is like.
See edit of previous post...
Is "I simply don't like x class, I have my reasons but it's not open for discussion right now" an acceptabe answer? I've gamed with folks who think that answering the 'why' question means that it's open for debate or that you're willing to discuss it. I've learned that with certain folks, all this does is get you dragged into a pointless argument.
No it is not acceptable as a general statement. It also depends on why the GM can't discuss it "right now". That is mostly a player problem, if he does not know when to drop an issue. It is probably those types of players that make GM's not want to discuss things, because the player will turn it into a debate, when the GM has made it clear that the answer is no. I am basically saying take each individual on his own merits. If the player just wants to argue then he does not get an answer until he learns to recognize when to stop trying to debate an issue. If he wants to know why John gets more detailed answers then explain that John knows when to back off.
I am basically saying take each individual on his own merits.
This is an excellent rule of thumb. :)
Edit: I also disagree that "I don't like it" is not a real reason. Sure it is. Let me demonstrate.
You ask why no gunslingers. I say "I don't like it."
You say, "That's not a real reason. Why don't you like it?"
I say, "I don't like it because they attack touch AC."
You say, "See? The real reason is they attack touch AC."
But I say, " No, the touch attack isn't the reason. They could still do touch attacks, but if I liked them, I'd let them in my game anyway. They're not out of the game because they do touch attacks, or they'd be out of every game. They're out of my game because I don't like them. So "I don't like them" is actually the real reason."
"I don't like it" is definitely a real and reasonable answer.
The player would only want to know why they are not in your game, which means the touch attack is the reason they are not in your game.
So in by the above post you don't like them because they target touch AC so that is the root reason. Other games besides yours are not even a point for discussion. He is not asking about "the game". He is specifically asking about your game.
Were that situation real I would just clarify that I was only discussing your game.
Edit: I also disagree that "I don't like it" is not a real reason. Sure it is. Let me demonstrate.
You ask why no gunslingers. I say "I don't like it."
You say, "That's not a real reason. Why don't you like it?"
I say, "I don't like it because they attack touch AC."
You say, "See? The real reason is they attack touch AC."
But I say, " No, the touch attack isn't the reason. They could still do touch attacks, but if I liked them, I'd let them in my game anyway. They're not out of the game because they do touch attacks, or they'd be out of every game. They're out of my game because I don't like them. So "I don't like them" is actually the real reason."
"I don't like it" is definitely a real and reasonable answer.
The player would only want to know why they are not in your game, which means the touch attack is the reason they are not in your game.
So in by the above post you don't like them because they target touch AC so that is the root reason. Other games besides yours are not even a point for discussion. He is not asking about "the game". He is specifically asking about your game.
Were that situation real I would just clarify that I was only discussing your game.
See, I suppose I just fundamentally think differently about this than you do. To me, it seems that hardly ever do people completely objectively analyse a thing, withholding all judgement until they have done, and then give an opinion based completely rationally on a thing's attributes, pros and cons. Far more often, people have a gut reaction to something, liking it or not, and then they find reasonable supporting arguments which give the appearance of a rationally reached appraisal.
I include myself in that appraisal of general opinions :)
Edit: I also disagree that "I don't like it" is not a real reason. Sure it is. Let me demonstrate.
You ask why no gunslingers. I say "I don't like it."
You say, "That's not a real reason. Why don't you like it?"
I say, "I don't like it because they attack touch AC."
You say, "See? The real reason is they attack touch AC."
But I say, " No, the touch attack isn't the reason. They could still do touch attacks, but if I liked them, I'd let them in my game anyway. They're not out of the game because they do touch attacks, or they'd be out of every game. They're out of my game because I don't like them. So "I don't like them" is actually the real reason."
"I don't like it" is definitely a real and reasonable answer.
The player would only want to know why they are not in your game, which means the touch attack is the reason they are not in your game.
So in by the above post you don't like them because they target touch AC so that is the root reason. Other games besides yours are not even a point for discussion. He is not asking about "the game". He is specifically asking about your game.
Were that situation real I would just clarify that I was only discussing your game.
See, I suppose I just fundamentally think differently about this than you do. To me, it seems that hardly ever do people completely objectively analyse a thing, withholding all judgement until they have done, and then give an opinion based completely rationally on a thing's attributes, pros and cons. Far more often, people have a gut reaction to something, liking it or not, and then they find reasonable supporting arguments which give the appearance of a rationally reached appraisal.
I include myself in that appraisal of general opinions :)
I am one of those logical types, and I am laid back enough that I don't care where the logic takes me most of the time. I also trust people to be rational in most situations, meaning the reason influences the decision, not the decision influencing the reason.
Well, I'm also a rational, logical person, but I also know that quite often I'll make judgements based on gut instinct.
If you really do make all of your decisions based solely on observable data, no trace of emotion or bias, then I would suggest you are a member of a very small minority. Most people make most decisions based on their world view, and use logic to support that initial decision.
I try not to as much as possible. I would suggest that I am also part of a minority, but a larger minority than yours :)
"Summoners are banned because I don't like them," isn't a good explanation because it doesn't even hint at what it is you don't like about them. Is it that you think they're overpowered? That they take up too much game time due to summoning too many monsters?
"I don't like alchemists because I think their bombs are silly and they don't fit into the high fantasy atmosphere I'm trying to create," should be acceptable. (Then the player can say, "How about a vivisectionist? They don't use bombs." and the GM will have to try again...)
Or even, "I just don't like ninjas. Sorry. I'm not exactly sure what it is about them that irritates me so much, I just know I don't want them in my game." A player would probably be OK with that - most people can empathize with an irrational dislikes.
A lot of this thread seems like a debate between lawful good and chaotic good. Lawfuls are content to accept arbitrary rules because there's probably a reason and if you argue with the rules all the time you'll never get anything done. Chaotics resent any rule they don't know the reason for.
This raises a good question. Am I the only DM who can run a game without the need to ban anything from the Core books, and also allowing homebrew races for those who want to them, assuming they are not trying to use a horridly overpowered one? Because to me it seems like everyone (or a large majority of people) is against homebrew races (being suspicious of homebrew classes is acceptable) and also willing to even ban some Core material, sometimes without the support of the reason "because they don't fit the setting" when doing so.
|
Is "I simply don't like x class, I have my reasons but it's not open for discussion right now" an acceptabe answer? I've gamed with folks who think that answering the 'why' question means that it's open for debate or that you're willing to discuss it. I've learned that with certain folks, all this does is get you dragged into a pointless argument.No it is not acceptable as a general statement.
To be blunt about it, it "is" a perfectly acceptable answer.
It may not be acceptable to you but at this stage I don't need your approval to justify my answer. It's up to you at this point to decide whether you are going to play in my game or sit this one out.
Also, there are other in the group that nobody has yet to bring up. 9 times out of 10 if nobody else agrees with you and are ready to accept my ban on things then you will most likely play anyway.
|
|
"Summoners are banned because I don't like them," isn't a good explanation because it doesn't even hint at what it is you don't like about them.
Why does it matter? Again, this situation turns into "me" "me" "me" because you feel like you need a proper explanation as to why the DM doesn't like Summoners. Not liking something is a perfectly acceptable explanation and while you think you are entitled to a proper explanation that satisfies what ever it is inside of you that feels like you need more in order to let the discussion end.
It's basically telling me that my explanation, even when it's simple, isn't good enough for you to accept and move on.
What it boils down to is you either want it in the game anyway or you feel like I need to come up with a reason as to why that is better than your why not in order for you to accept it.
In the end it's all about opinion arguing which may never end.
|
|
This raises a good question. Am I the only DM who can run a game without the need to ban anything from the Core books, and also allowing homebrew races for those who want to them, assuming they are not trying to use a horridly overpowered one? Because to me it seems like everyone (or a large majority of people) is against homebrew races (being suspicious of homebrew classes is acceptable) and also willing to even ban some Core material, sometimes without the support of the reason "because they don't fit the setting" when doing so.
This doesn't raise a good question. Sounds to me like you are tooting your own horn a little too loudly and mistaking ability for choice.
As a DM I am fully capable of running games where everything is allowed. I DM'd 3rd edition for years and I allowed everything, Pathfinder is tame compared to that. Sometimes DMs want to run specific games that may have a theme or there are options that the DM just doesn't like and wants to leave out.
You know Shallowsoul I've been thinking and it possible that some of them maybe right.
Hear me out.
I once had a GM who love the Xanth novels. So she and the boyfriend both GM a Xanth campaign.
Xanth is a comic fantasy world with anachronistic qualities.
Most of the adventure was her trying to get us to do the exact thing the characters did in the book.
Like she insisted my character walk through some curse spur. I couldn't jump over them, go around them or fly over them.
Basically, she really didn't understand how to GM correctly.
Her boyfriend ran the combat encounters. When the party quickly killed the monster he planed for us to fight he decided to make us fight a couple of monsters three challenge monsters higher then us. Basically, he really didn't understand how to GM correctly.
So ya if someone invites you over for Brownies it's rude to ask them for a cheese danish. But if they're brownies are brunt or doughy you can then ask for an alternative.
Still, if your GM says you can't play a Rogue then no one should complain. This isn't the same thing as not knowing how to GM this is making a choice based on the campaign world and has president.
This raises a good question. Am I the only DM who can run a game without the need to ban anything from the Core books, and also allowing homebrew races for those who want to them, assuming they are not trying to use a horridly overpowered one? Because to me it seems like everyone (or a large majority of people) is against homebrew races (being suspicious of homebrew classes is acceptable) and also willing to even ban some Core material, sometimes without the support of the reason "because they don't fit the setting" when doing so.This doesn't raise a good question. Sounds to me like you are tooting your own horn a little too loudly and mistaking ability for choice.
As a DM I am fully capable of running games where everything is allowed. I DM'd 3rd edition for years and I allowed everything, Pathfinder is tame compared to that. Sometimes DMs want to run specific games that may have a theme or there are options that the DM just doesn't like and wants to leave out.
Are you implying that just because I am open-minded, I couldn't run a game with a theme?
Because if you were doing that, I'd have to admit that I find your lack of faith rather disturbing.Kingmaker is an Adventure Path with a rather strong theme, and it kinda comes with the name of it. I'm still not going to outright ban anything at the from it, because I don't need to. So yeah, I'm not tooting a horn, I'm proving a point. You call it arrogance. I instead call it the recognition of my own strengths as a DM. Hell, there are options that I don't like, but that won't stop the players from liking said options. Need I remind you that Pathfinder still is and probably also will be a group game?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
How are the players supposed to know the GM is banning perfectly workable material, based on a misinterpreting of the text, if the players aren't allowed to ask the GM what their reasons are for the ban?
And, before you dodge the question, with the inevitable "No-one is stopping the players asking why...";
Yes, your side are forbidding the players to ask, since telling them that you'll refuse to give any answer other than "Because I said so", is preventing any meaningful discussion.
Snorter has gained the achievement "Found the Fallacy" !!
|
|
I've been playing and DMing for many years so I'm saying this using my personal experience as my reason.
I don't buy the "curiosity" issue with regards to asking why. If you are truly just "curious" then you are going to make your character using what's allowed and play the game. Now outside of the game you may ask the DM why and he will most likely give you an answer. Now waiting on a good enough reason before you decide you are going to play rarely happened and if it did then it was not out of curiosity but out of wanting to play the class or race anyway.
I've been playing and DMing for many years so I'm saying this using my personal experience as my reason.
I don't buy the "curiosity" issue with regards to asking why. If you are truly just "curious" then you are going to make your character using what's allowed and play the game. Now outside of the game you may ask the DM why and he will most likely give you an answer. Now waiting on a good enough reason before you decide you are going to play rarely happened and if it did then it was not out of curiosity but out of wanting to play the class or race anyway.
That's far more condescending and elitist than anything I've said.
"You don't get to say anything because I know better. Now shut up."And "not buying it" translates to "I don't trust these idiots" to me, and I can't see how you'd make a good DM if you automatically assume that the players must trust you, yet you don't give them the same trust in return. If I imagined my Cleric of Zon-Kuthon as a member of the homebrew race I made, I can't really see myself playing her as anything else. I'm very character-focused, and changing the race is far more dire than changing the class when it comes to adapting a concept.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Summoners are banned because I don't like them," isn't a good explanation because it doesn't even hint at what it is you don't like about them.
Why does it matter? Again, this situation turns into "me" "me" "me" because you feel like you need a proper explanation as to why the DM doesn't like Summoners. Not liking something is a perfectly acceptable explanation and while you think you are entitled to a proper explanation that satisfies what ever it is inside of you that feels like you need more in order to let the discussion end.
"Because I don't like them" is a rotten explanation, because it contains zero information.
Why does that matter?
Because if you actually gave the reason, the player could act on it, and create a PC that you would like.
Not giving them any information, means they keep coming back, again and again, with PC ideas for you to shoot down. And not knowing why they're being shot down. So they keep making the same choices that are so offensive to the GM's vision of their campaign.
Taking the Summoner example above: why doesn't the GM like them? There could be lots of reasons. I play one in PFS, and participated in the APG playtests, so I've heard a lot of negativity over the last 3 years, some of it deserved (I pushed for a better explanation of Life Link, which has been FAQ'ed, but has yet to make it into errata);
One reason I see a lot, is that GMs don't like a player being in charge of lots of minions, since they rarely know the stats of these minions, have to borrow the GM's Bestiary, spill food all over it, tear the pages, lose the GM's place so he can't run the encounter efficiently, it slows play to a crawl, and hogs spotlight time from other players.
If that's your reason, why not say so?
What's the big secret?
Some of those objections can be overcome, by applying a table rule that no-one summons anything they don't have a prepared stat-card for. The Summoner's player could offer to make a communal deck of such cards for every player, or pay back the GM's generosity by working through the Bestiaries and making the GM a super-deck to help prepare for future games. Every future session flows like a dream. Everyone wins.
If it's still a no-go, that the GM doesn't want PCs running groups of minions (maybe for party balance issues, or spotlight time), then it may be that a Summoner is a poor fit for that campaign, and a reasonable player may choose to save that concept for another table.
But now he knows what the problem is, he can avoid planning other PCs with similar issues.
He knows not to make a conjuration-specialist wizard, an enchanter-specialist wizard, a Zombie Master cleric, a Zookeeper druid, a Domination-specialist bard, a telepathic mindbender psion....
By knowing what the real issue is, he can make a PC that fits the campaign.
By not knowing what the real issue is, he will keep on hitting the same wall, picking at the same scab, gnawing on the GM's last frayed nerve.
And if that happens, the GM has no-one to blame but themself. Not the player, who is operating in a fog of non-information.
By refusing to answer basic questions, the GM is wasting everyone's time.
"How about A?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I said so."
"How about B?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I said so."
"How about C?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I said so."
"How about D?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I said so."
"How about E?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I said so."
"How about X?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I said so."
"This is dumb. Just give me a pre-gen PC, that you do like. In fact, keep him, and run him as an NPC, or GMPC. Run all our PCs as GMPCs, and tell us later what happens, so we don't offend you by making choices you don't like."
|
|
You know Shallowsoul I've been thinking and it possible that some of them maybe right.
Hear me out.
I once had a GM who love the Xanth novels. So she and the boyfriend both GM a Xanth campaign.
Xanth is a comic fantasy world with anachronistic qualities.
Most of the adventure was her trying to get us to do the exact thing the characters did in the book.
Aaah, yes.
"Dragonlance Syndrome."|
|
Why does it matter? Again, this situation turns into "me" "me" "me" because you feel like you need a proper explanation as to why the DM doesn't like Summoners. Not liking something is a perfectly acceptable explanation and while you think you are entitled to a proper explanation that satisfies what ever it is inside of you that feels like you need more in order to let the discussion end.It's basically telling me that my explanation, even when it's simple, isn't good enough for you to accept and move on.
What it boils down to is you either want it in the game anyway or you feel like I need to come up with a reason as to why that is better than your why not in order for you to accept it.
In the end it's all about opinion arguing which may never end.
Here the thing though the arguing never ends because as the DM you fail to provide even the basics of any information about the game you plan to run. Why would they be no arguing if I ask you a question as a player and your response are limited to "no" and "because I said so". Imo yor kind of proving the point of those who think more communication is the best. Not to mention a player who asks a DM to explain a decsion made at the table is not arguing. He is asking a question. That may mean arguing to some posters to everyone else that is asking questions. Now if a player keep hounding the DM no matter how many times the question was answered that is arguing. That would mean tht at my job I would berguing with clients all day. since 90% of the time I'm getting questions and need to answer them.
The no asking questions does that apply to you as a player too then. Since you feel very strongly about being asked anything at the the table do you also subscriobe to no asking anything as a player. In my experience the DMs that are not very coounicative at the table are the ones that badger DMs the most at the table.
|
|
Many years ago, my friend's mom invited us in for brownies while playing outside one day. Well as we are sitting there, this lad I knew saw a cheese danish and asked if he could have it. Well my friend's mother told him no because she invited him over for brownies and not a cheese danish. Well his response was why couldn't he have it and her's was, "either have a brownie or you can leave, it's your choice".
There is no right or wrong way to DM and I don't like it when people judge you because you don't DM a style that they like. Sometimes I run games where everything is allowed and sometimes I run games where certain things are banned because that's okay. Sometimes I don't care how good of a reason you give as to why a class, race, feat etc that I have banned should be allowed. Sometimes I do allow it and sometimes I don't but what I can't stand is a player who expects you to say yes all the time and is ready to call your DMing into question if you say no. I even heard something along the lines of my imagination being limited because I supposedly couldn't figure out a way to make everything fit into my campaign.
As I said in another thread, I don't force my games on anyone. I present to everyone what I would like to run and everyone decides if they want to or not and I say that's okay.
I, as a DM, should have to worry about being ridiculed for saying no and not giving when someone demands that I do. I've been reading through the Pathfinder books and I don't see anything that would make people believe that this behavior is okay. I don't see anywhere that the book describes entitlement on anyone's part so I'm not sure where this attitude comes from.
If I invite you over for an undead game then that is what I have offered you. If you politely decline then that's all good but if you start insulting me because I won't give in then I find that really rude.
I just love the bolded part as the entire post speaks to a feeling of entitlement from the OP as a GM.
BTW, the example given is IMO an adult speaking to a child with a sense of entitlement, ie not giving any respect to the child as another human being, but saying basically I am the adult, you are the child, thus I am entitled to expect obedience without explanation on my part, no matter how unfair this may be.
Also, just to be clear, a GM dealing with his players is not a parent confronted with children. Both players and GM are adults and should be treated as such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are the players supposed to know the GM is banning perfectly workable material, based on a misinterpreting of the text, if the players aren't allowed to ask the GM what their reasons are for the ban?
And, before you dodge the question, with the inevitable "No-one is stopping the players asking why...";
Why are the players automatically assuming that the GM is disallowing something because he/she doesn't understand the rules?
Yes, your side are forbidding the players to ask, since telling them that you'll refuse to give any answer other than "Because I said so", is preventing any meaningful discussion.
Where do I EVER suggest that I or the GM would refuse to answer every question thusly?
Not only did I say that "Because I said so" is not a good answer, and that I advocated NOT using such an answer, but that I also advocated providing explanation when possible - just that, sometimes, the players need to accept that they're not going to get the answer that satisfies them.
Snorter has gained the achievement "Found the Fallacy" !!
Really? Because it seems like you both gained the achievement "Lack of Reading Comprehension" since you're attributing things to me or others that nobody ever said.
This raises a good question. Am I the only DM who can run a game without the need to ban anything from the Core books, and also allowing homebrew races for those who want to them, assuming they are not trying to use a horridly overpowered one? Because to me it seems like everyone (or a large majority of people) is against homebrew races (being suspicious of homebrew classes is acceptable) and also willing to even ban some Core material, sometimes without the support of the reason "because they don't fit the setting" when doing so.
That's not a good question. Your whole argument is another useless straw man.
The argument at hand is that it is sometimes acceptable for a GM to provide an answer that doesn't satisfy the players, and doesn't expand upon the GM's reasoning for making a decision past "I don't like [X]."
You've constructed your straw man to say that because a GM doesn't want to/can't answer to a player's satisfaction, that this GM is against homebrew racdes or classes and willing to ban core material.
How's your imaginary argument going?