|
Actually, 'because I don't want it', and 'because I don't like it' are smarmy answers, because they aren't answers at all.
They contain zero information.
They are a flat refusal to engage in dialogue.
They are identical to 'because I said so', because all three are effectively 'I have a reason, but I refuse to share it with the likes of YOU'.
Saying "I just don't like that" is the same as saying "because I said so"...
Not every person that plays an RPG is a critical thinker, nor are all who play them articulate speakers. Are there specific concrete reasons of why someone does not like something buried within that person's psyche? Probably so, but not everyone has the ability to bring them to the surface...
Just because one person can sit and do a little soul searching and come up with the underlying reasons for their own irrational likes, dislikes, and opinions, does not mean everyone can...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, 'because I don't want it', and 'because I don't like it' are smarmy answers, because they aren't answers at all.
They contain zero information.
They are a flat refusal to engage in dialogue.
They are identical to 'because I said so', because all three are effectively 'I have a reason, but I refuse to share it with the likes of YOU'.Saying "I just don't like that" is the same as saying "because I said so"...
Not every person that plays an RPG is a critical thinker, nor are all who play them articulate speakers. Are there specific concrete reasons of why someone does not like something buried within that person's psyche? Probably so, but not everyone has the ability to bring them to the surface...
Just because one person can sit and do a little soul searching and come up with the underlying reasons for their own irrational like, dislikes, and opinions, does not mean everyone can...
I agree that not everyone is a good speaker. With that said I think Snorter was mostly referring to those who know the answer, but refuse to share.
I will also go out on a limb and assume the answer in question won't hurt the game, if it is given to the players. Snorter correct me if I am misreading you.
What we are saying is that when that is the default operating standard for the GM, even when answering the question does no harm, he is effectively refusing to answer, and for no good reason.
And I'm not arguing that.
That basically leads us back to Snorter's last post.
Does it really?
I do have a serious question. How is "stating that you believe something is ok" not advocating it? Just to be clear the word advocate at this time does not mean you have a pep rally. The word advocate only means that you stand behind and/or support the statement.
Sorry, advocate means a bit more than that. By definition, it means you're speaking or writing in favor of it - urging people to do it. Believing something is acceptable does not mean you advocate for it.
Let me put it to you this way:
I think suicide is OK - be it physician-assisted, or whatever. It's not my business to tell someone that they can't end their life. But I certainly don't advocate that act.
I think some tattooing their face is OK. It's their face, not mine. But I don't advocate it, because at a bare minimum, it's going to make people look at you oddly, and I certainly believe it will impact their ability to gain professional employment in a lot of areas.
Do you follow me here? I honestly want to know if I'm being unclear.
Honestly I am reading a very hardline stance on the issue also, but you did say "sometimes", so it is possible that you are not as hardcore on the issue as we are reading into it. Is that "sometimes" dependent upon specific situations such as, not giving parts of the story away, or is it more along the lines of the GM making an arbitrary to not discuss it. If it is a 3rd reason I did not list then I am willing to listen to that also.
I'm not hardcore by any means, because I'm not advocating that a GM refuse to answer, or provide non-answers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: The class X is banned.
Player: Why?
GM: Because I don't like it.
...short pause...
Player: Well I guess it is a good thing you don't have to actually play the character.
:D
Does it really?
Yes it does. I am having trouble seeing how it does not.
Sorry, advocate means a bit more than that. By definition, it means you're speaking or writing in favor of it - urging people to do it. Believing something is acceptable does not mean you advocate for it.
Let me put it to you this way:
I think suicide is OK - be it physician-assisted, or whatever. It's not my business to tell someone that they can't end their life. But I certainly don't advocate that act.
I think some tattooing their face is OK. It's their face, not mine. But I don't advocate it, because at a bare minimum, it's going to make people look at you oddly, and I certainly believe it will impact their ability to gain professional employment in a lot of areas.
Do you follow me here? I honestly want to know if I'm being unclear.
I get your general feelings now, and this makes things a lot more clear.
I still don't agree with "I don't like it" if the person can give a better answer, but I see how you view that as being different from "because I said so".
progress made..... :)
|
Snorter, Wratistrike I'm starting to wonder if it is baiting at this point. Outside of this topic no one has ever had trouble reading my posts. All of sudden in a rather heated topic and possibly because I a more vocal than some posters on the topic all of sudden my posts are not understood. How come all the other times I posted here on otherr topics no one had trouble reading let alone understanding what I was saying in my posts. While I am willing to go into more detail on what I post I'm no changing my style. If you want to read more intent into my posts go right ahead. Otherwise stop trying to find something that is not there.
Funny how Brian insisted I had to explain every single thing I posted yet is going out of his way to be evasive in answering wraithstrike inquires on what he posted. SO whats good for the goose is not good for the gander so to speak.
Maybe he thinks your player-created race is a steaming pile of dung, and just doesn't want to hurt your feelings. Maybe he's a perfectly fine GM, and the incompetence is coming from the other side of the screen. Maybe he just doesn't like the g!@$#$n thing, and since he's the GM he will exercise his right to say no. It's become pretty clear that you aren't looking for just any explanation, you're looking for an excuse to call him incompetent. All because he said no to your special snowflake concept.
Just let it go, man. Just let it go. Play Snowie in the next game somebody else GMs.
We're not just considering player-created material, here.
Icyshadow has mentioned being aggrieved that a GM was initially open to accepting his work, then changing his mind later, with (what he describes as) no warning or good reason. He is annoyed not only by the refusal, but the way it was handled.
I believe most others are discussing GMs banning professionally produced material, which may sometimes be by 3rd party sources, but more often is Core PF material.
Which reminds me of a very pertinent post by Bill Dunn, which I intended to reply to, but which got buried a few pages back.
Say what?!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A question for all that feel that players are entitled to an explanation of a GM decision upon request:
If the GM replies with "Because I don't like [race/class/item/whatever] and do not want it in this particular game/campagin" as their explanation, and doesn't care to elaborate, are you going to accept that, or argue the point?
I missed this one or at least I think I did.
If that is the only rule I don't like then I would play and be quiet, but also offer to run the next game. Actually I might just continue to GM for a while after that, with the group's permission, while trying to look for another player who does not mind running a game so that when I get told "no" I get what I consider to be an actual answer.
edit:This also assumes that GM is capable of explaining himself, but just refuses to, which I see as being difficult for no good reason.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if everyone here is purposefully talking around each other. So here is what I am seeing;
If you are playing with a DM who arbitrarily bans classes/races/feats/etc... without warning or explanation, then you are probably playing with a bad DM.
If you are playing with a DM who says, I want to start a new campaign where everyone plays western characters in a eastern setting so no PCs can play samurai, ninjas, or monks, then you have a DM running a specific setting who is banning things for flavor. Most people wouldn't have a problem with this unless you only play one of these classes when you play and won't have fun otherwise so you don't play that campaign and that's fine.
However, you might also have a DM who says, I don't like gunslinger mechanics, I think it's unfair that a martial class targets touch AC and guns don't really fit into my concept of high fantasy so they are out. Also, I don't really like the witch class so I say it's out as well.
In other words: never answers questions=probably bad
always answers questions=probably good
tries to answer questions but doesn't have an answer to every question=probably ok
Also: If you are asking questions to better understand the campaign setting so you can make a character to fit into that setting better then good. If you are asking questions so you can try to find so way to weasel in the banned material then bad.
Hope that helps!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm entitled to an answer as much as the GM is entitled to me paying attention to the game.
Just to clarify:
Earlier, I was defending the "Because I don't like x" because it's something I myself have said (about one thing - gunslingers).
But I would never withhold a more detailed answer if I had one. I suppose that's why my (excellent) bunch of players accept that answer on that particular issue - because it's the only instance of it.
Surely we can find something more interesting to argue about? :)
|
Just to clarify:
Earlier, I was defending the "Because I don't like x" because it's something I myself have said (about one thing - gunslingers).
But I would never withhold a more detailed answer if I had one. I suppose that's why my (excellent) bunch of players accept that answer on that particular issue - because it's the only instance of it.
Surely we can find something more interesting to argue about? :)
This is the core of the issue; you sound a reasonable person. If you have a history of being open with your players about your reasons for allowing and disallowing material, they are more likely to shrug and trust your judgment, on the rare occasion you do rely on a gut feeling.
I still think it would be a worthwhile exercise, to take a few moments to clarify the reasons behind that gut feeling. Not because players demand it, but because it's a good practice to get into. The better you understand your own reasons, the clearer you can explain them, the more happy the players. It's a positive cycle.
If a GM has a standard response of "Why should I tell you my reasons? How dare you ask!", then the players will be more likely to challenge future decisions, because the GM has a history of making arbitary rulings.
That's a vicious cycle, spiralling ever onward into acrimony.
The tone of many of the posts in this thread imply that GMs need protecting from their unruly, demanding players, need to hold them at arms length, possibly with a chair and whip, as they prowl the gaming venue, looking for any sign of weakness, before they pounce, thirsting for hot, red, pulsing GM's blood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Agreed. I think a lot of posters are projecting some issues into this thread and insisting things that aren't really there.
Any player has the right to ask them DM ANY question. It's all about context and manners. A good DM should never turn away a reasonable question.
But sometimes, "because I just don't like ____ and it doesn't fit the game setting I'm trying to portray" IS an appropriate answer. I don't care how much a player really, really likes cyborg mechs, if they don't fit in my fantasy game, then they don't fit.
Some things just don't belong in some games, period. For example, in Ravenloft, according to the Core Setting book, there are no Orcs/half-Orcs. A DM could throw an Orc in somewhere, but the core setting explicitly states they are not present. Now, a player could argue why they should be allowed to play an Orc/half-Orc in Ravenloft, since they are an otherwise mechanically balanced core race, but the DM can simply point to the book and say "No."
EDIT: Holy cow, didn't realize how big this thread jumped in the past day or so. Sorry for the almost necro quote.
Didn't Ravenloft have this odd canon thing of beings from other realms falling there on occasion? If I recall right, some guy from Dragonlance ended up there for a time, as did Vecna. Then again, Vecna's so hardcore that not even the dark realms of Ravenloft could keep him trapped for very long.
Wait wait? So, by saying that a player is not entitled to an answer, and that sometimes it's acceptable that a GM not answer, that's advocating that a GM should refuse to answer?Errrr....yes.
In what way is it not?
Perhaps in the way that that's not what the word "advocate" means?
If a GM has a standard response of "Why should I tell you my reasons? How dare you ask!", then the players will be more likely to challenge future decisions, because the GM has a history of making arbitary rulings.
That's a vicious cycle, spiralling ever onward into acrimony.
The tone of many of the posts in this thread imply that GMs need protecting from their unruly, demanding players, need to hold them at arms length, possibly with a chair and whip, as they prowl the gaming venue, looking for any sign of weakness, before they pounce, thirsting for hot, red, pulsing GM's blood.
Again, only in your imagination.
Just to clarify:
Earlier, I was defending the "Because I don't like x" because it's something I myself have said (about one thing - gunslingers).
But I would never withhold a more detailed answer if I had one. I suppose that's why my (excellent) bunch of players accept that answer on that particular issue - because it's the only instance of it.
Bingo!
Surely we can find something more interesting to argue about? :)
Aren't they already doing that with their invented scenarios that only they posited?
So you've seen and played in every table in the world, Harris?
Because apparently you either have and that's why you know it all, or you are the one with a vivid imagination, fooling yourself into a false sense of being right when you clearly aren't. Oh, and your argument borders on ad hominem with the whole "you're just imagining things" part.
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.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 don't see a problem, really. Like in my orc/Ravenloft example in my post above this one, some things do not belong in some games. If I'm DM'ing Ravenloft, that doesn't mean I'll never ever play an Orc in any other game someone else runs. They just don't exist in this one niche setting, not banned across the board.
Additionally, if a DM goes on a rant about how much they hate a certain class/race/etc, and then they turn around and play on in another game, maybe they are giving it a try and seeing if they can get over what it is they hate about it? I hated Psionics for the longest time, so I challenged myself to play a Psion in a game once so that I could see firsthand what the class does and how it works. Or, maybe what they banned from their own game, actually exists and is playable in another game?
|
|
The tone of many of the posts in this thread imply that GMs need protecting from their unruly, demanding players, need to hold them at arms length, possibly with a chair and whip, as they prowl the gaming venue, looking for any sign of weakness, before they pounce, thirsting for hot, red, pulsing GM's blood.
Agreed and seconded. It's as if by asling questions any questions no matter how reasonable or polite. A player either distrusts his DM. Is out to screw his DM. Or is trying to imply that the DM is dumb or incomptent or both.
Didn't Ravenloft have this odd canon thing of beings from other realms falling there on occasion? If I recall right, some guy from Dragonlance ended up there for a time, as did Vecna. Then again, Vecna's so hardcore that not even the dark realms of Ravenloft could keep him trapped for very long.
Right, and this did confuse me a bit as to why a race as common as Orcs were disallowed. So, I gave a but of leeway and allowed the odd one in here and there. Since Ravenloft is the veritable storm-drain of the multiverse, it's only natural one would eventually wind up there.
|
|
So you've seen and played in every table in the world, Harris?
Because apparently you either have and that's why you know it all, or you are the one with a vivid imagination, fooling yourself into a false sense of being right when you clearly aren't. Oh, and your argument borders on ad hominem with the whole "you're just imagining things" part.
Don't expect a straight answer. Remember he expects and sometines not only demands answers from other posters. Where he can decide to respond, answer or ignore any questons put to him to his hearts content.
|
|
Right, and this did confuse me a bit as to why a race as common as Orcs were disallowed. So, I gave a but of leeway and allowed the odd one in here and there. Since Ravenloft is the veritable storm-drain of the multiverse, it's only natural one would eventually wind up there.
You learn something everyday. I always thought orcs were allowed as a playable race in Ravenloft. Since as you say Ravenloft is the storm drain of the universe. It seemed the way they portrayed that world was that anyone from anywhere could end up stuck in that setting.
I'm surprised I remembered that tidbit despite never playing much on Ravenloft campaigns. Oh well, shows you what a lore freak knows. And by that I mean I read all the Warcraft, Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Golarion things I can get my hands on, because I love fantasy.
I also write my own stuff, but my lack of self-esteem makes me hide that fact in shame.
You learn something everyday. I always thought orcs were allowed as a playable race in Ravenloft. Since as you say Ravenloft is the storm drain of the universe. Since it seemed the way they portrayed that world was that anyone from anywhere could end up stuck in that setting.
Right, and this did confuse me a bit as to why a race as common as Orcs were disallowed. So, I gave a but of leeway and allowed the odd one in here and there. Since Ravenloft is the veritable storm-drain of the multiverse, it's only natural one would eventually wind up there.
I honestly think it was just a flavor thing. Completely pulling this out of the air, since I have no official sources or quotes, but in my opinion, 3e+ orcs have always been seen as warmongering barbarians, which clashes with a lot of the subtle suspense and horror elements in Ravenloft. Might have also been trying to curb an endless array of Powers Checks for orc behavior as to whether certain mannerisms were actually evil, or second nature.
The general populace of npc's in the setting are often times seen as very xenophobic and prone to torch and pitchfork mobs, so having a PC with green/gray skin and tusks was probably a bad idea as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravenloft had this race replacing the half-orcs, the name of which I forgot.
But the main thing was that they all looked more or less like Quasimodo due to magic and mutations.
Ravenloft had this race replacing the half-orcs, the name of which I forgot.
But the main thing was that they all looked more or less like Quasimodo due to magic and mutations.
Yeah, the Caliban. They were people from other races who had been somehow magically manipulated while still in the womb, whether by way of a curse, torture, etc. They could be born randomly from perfectly healthy parents. They had the same stats as half-orcs, so it was their way of allowing players to play freakish brutes without all the baggage of being an orc.
|
|
I noticed with 2E that the devs made and implemented som really strange rules and concepts. Like the Caliban. "Um they are not really half-orcs see they are the caliban". Or some strange thing with the kits. Reading over the Cavalier kit I'm basically supposed to ignore a suit of lesser quality even magical because a Cavalier goes into battle with the best. To the point where they even write into the kit description that a DM has to penalize a player who refuses to wear say full plate of a suite of plate mail +5. So if real life followed those rules if I were to ever need a bulletproof vest and I had a choice of either the latest top of the line or a first gen vest I'm supposed to take the first gen vest even if it provides less protection and stops less bulletts. Truly 2E imo was the weirdest imo of rulesets sometimes. With some pretty bad design by the 2e devs. Don't get me wrong like 2E warts and all but glad that 3E came along.
Don't expect a straight answer. Remember he expects and sometines not only demands answers from other posters.
This is what's known as a lie. A complete fabrication.
Where he can decide to respond, answer or ignore any questons put to him to his hearts content.
And so can you, chief.
Oh, and your argument borders on ad hominem with the whole "you're just imagining things" part.
Well, adow, it's hard to figure otherwise when someone makes up tripe like:
Don't expect a straight answer. Remember he expects and sometines not only demands answers from other posters.
We play a fantasy game. We live in the real world. Some people apparently have a hard time telling them apart.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also write my own stuff, but my lack of self-esteem makes me hide that fact in shame.
As long as it isn't MLP:FIM brony self-insert clopfic, you can hold your head up high, that you haven't hit the point of no return.
Now there's a fandom that tries to cram its Sparkly Snowflake Mary Sues into settings they have no business in.
I'm getting rather sick of seeing 'Doctor Whooves' playing with his sonic screwdriver, in a manner Terry Nation would never have imagined.
GMs get to control every aspect of design and behavior of the others beings (NPCs) in the game "universe".
Players can only directly make decisions of design in relation with their own PC.
Thus a GM should have a better reason for infringing on the single design option the player has than just, "I don't like it." As I suggested above, the GM doesn't have to run the character, thus the GMs likes or dislikes aren't really relevant to PC design issues.
A GM doesn't have to learn the rules for a PC, any more than a player has to learn the rules for a monster the GM is running. The player can just say, "I am targeting the creature's touch AC. Does a 15 hit?" The GM doesn't need to know how the PC mechanics work in order to correctly respond if it hits or not.
Does that mean the GMs can't place any restrictions on character design? No [nor is implied in the above, though I'm sure someone would be capable of inferring it]. There are very legitimate reasons why certain character options are not allowed. Maybe something doesn't fit the genre (like cyborgs in a fantasy game) or thematically (gunslingers in a sword and sandal setting). Maybe a setting doesn't have a particular race present (orc not in Ravenloft). Maybe the class is poorly designed or disruptive (such as 3.5 Frenzied Berserker).
Think of it this way. Would you be fine playing in a game where another player (not the GM) said that you couldn't play a particular character because they "don't like it"? If not, then how is it any more valid when the GM says it? You'd tell the other player to worry about their own character, the GM should do likewise.
Besides it is GROOVY when the GM is willing to tweak the flavor to allow something that didn't fit the genre to now fit.
Again, I would respectfully disagree. I hear where you're coming from, but I'm simply not going to run a game of PF with gunslingers. If any of my players want gunslingers in Golarion, they can run it, and make as many NPC 'slingers as they want. I'll play in that game, because I don't have to invest hours a week running a style of game I don't like - I can just turn up and enjoy running my PC.
And if I want to run a summoner, or ninja, or whatever, and the GM says " No dice, Hewy," I'm cool with that. S/he is running the game, putting the effort in. I'll abide by their rules without complaint.
Like I said before, I'm mad keen to be a player, not a GM, so I don't mind if someone can't hack my one little rule and decides to take over :) And I'd be so grateful that they're GMing that I'd happily respect their vision of a campaign.
But, so far, no one at my table really cares that I don't allow gunslingers.
Cool.
Edit: And if people really want guns, I'm happy to run another system :)
|
|
Didn't Ravenloft have this odd canon thing of beings from other realms falling there on occasion? If I recall right, some guy from Dragonlance ended up there for a time, as did Vecna. Then again, Vecna's so hardcore that not even the dark realms of Ravenloft could keep him trapped for very long.
Right, and this did confuse me a bit as to why a race as common as Orcs were disallowed. So, I gave a but of leeway and allowed the odd one in here and there. Since Ravenloft is the veritable storm-drain of the multiverse, it's only natural one would eventually wind up there.
It always struck me as a writing team trying far too hard to make their setting 'yooneek', without thinking through the consequences.
Ravenloft is a mosaic world, with pieces ripped off other existing game worlds, including ones published by TSR; worlds which explicitly included orcs.
So, apparently all the orcs and half-orcs were out of town that day?
They came back from their Greenskin Jamboree, to find a huge crater where their village had been.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I also write my own stuff, but my lack of self-esteem makes me hide that fact in shame.As long as it isn't MLP:FIM brony self-insert clopfic, you can hold your head up high, that you haven't hit the point of no return.
Now there's a fandom that tries to cram its Sparkly Snowflake Mary Sues into settings they have no business in.
I'm getting rather sick of seeing 'Doctor Whooves' playing with his sonic screwdriver, in a manner Terry Nation would never have imagined.
I lul'd. This thread was dead to me until I read this.
I also write my own stuff, but my lack of self-esteem makes me hide that fact in shame.As long as it isn't MLP:FIM brony self-insert clopfic, you can hold your head up high, that you haven't hit the point of no return.
Now there's a fandom that tries to cram its Sparkly Snowflake Mary Sues into settings they have no business in.
I'm getting rather sick of seeing 'Doctor Whooves' playing with his sonic screwdriver, in a manner Terry Nation would never have imagined.
Good lord, no. I write stuff inspired by Fire Emblem, Disgaea and various other things, both mundane and weird. The only fanfiction I've ever made is of Touhou, and that I refuse to be ashamed of because that series is a personal favourite for some unexplainable reason. Also, I think the discussion with Harris is going nowhere because he refuses to acknowledge the points others present while highlighting his as if it was a fact instead of an opinion. Debates don't work that way, buddy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really know where I stand on this whole topic. I do know, however, that I have a player who likes to argue. A lot. About everything. Sometimes, it feels like you have to present a 20-slide power point presentation detailing your justification for something (with valid statistical data of course), and that's just...
Sorry, but sometimes "because I'm the one who's going to spend two months writing the campaign and I say so" just has to be good enough.
If not, I'll be happy to play in your campaign. :p
I had never heard of Disgaea before today, but I've come across it twice today from disparate sources. Googling now :)
I had never heard of Disgaea before today, but I've come across it twice today from disparate sources. Googling now :)
You're welcome, I'd say. Hope you like strategy games and grinding.
...and just plain weird humor.
|
|
a GM should have a better reason for infringing on the single design option the player has than just, "I don't like it." As I suggested above, the GM doesn't have to run the character, thus the GMs likes or dislikes aren't really relevant to PC design issues.
I'm going to have to call hogwash on that one...
I may not have to play the character, but I sure as heck have to run the setting. And if I don't like something (even if I can't properly explain to someone why that is), why would I want to have that something represented in any way shape or form in my games (whether it be PC or NPC)??
Additionally, if a DM goes on a rant about how much they hate a certain class/race/etc, and then they turn around and play on in another game, maybe they are giving it a try and seeing if they can get over what it is they hate about it? I hated Psionics for the longest time, so I challenged myself to play a Psion in a game once so that I could see firsthand what the class does and how it works. Or, maybe what they banned from their own game, actually exists and is playable in another game?
I don't have a problem with people changing their minds or trying something out with an open mind. But after a rant against the introduction of a new book that derailed the game session, I sure as hell would expect a proper explanation to that effect. Again, like most of this thread, this is a question of opening lines of communication and not being a dick about shutting them down.