Which is how I feel about anyone who would come to the GM with a single concept and demand the GM find a way to make it work.
Naturally. Good thing I'm not doing that!
The point was the reason is "I don't like it." is a fully formed complete reason in and of itself.My daughter actually likes broccoli.
Not particularly. Delve deep enough and the reasons behind it are generally "I don't like it because it tastes nasty and makes me sick to my stomach".
Most concepts a player comes up with won't have that effect on you unless you have an extremely sensitive stomach.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If she's like me she doesn't like it because its green, ugly, and taste funny.
Or she just doesn't like it. And even if there was more, "I don't like it" contains all of the needed information.
You are also not entitled to detailed psychoanalysis of why your GM doesn't like something. Courtesy says "Hey, my GM doesn't want to run that idea, maybe I should think of something else that we could both enjoy."
So, as a GM, your not only banning my catgirl Space Marine, you are banning any potential idea I could ever have.
Looks like we agree, the GM is allowed to ban concepts.
Now this is crazy, but I could totally see a game for a catgirl space marine. Its not DnD though. If it was I could let you play a catgirl race and wear some nifty homebrew armor though...
Being banned from the game(as a person) for getting into arguments isn't exactly getting banned for concept or from potential concepts.
So, as a GM, your not only banning my catgirl Space Marine, you are banning any potential idea I could ever have. Looks like we agree, the GM is allowed to ban concepts.Ciretose already used that line. And I've posted two or three times now,
I said that the DM absolutely has the right to ban things, but should be willing hear the player out before doing so, and should be open to -- not "obligated to" in any way, shape, or form, but "open to" -- allowing an accommodation that does not disrupt the game.
I'm not saying the player always gets his way. I'm not saying the DM always bans stuff without listening. I'm saying the two can actually discuss things. If it works out that the player's ideas can't be accommodated, then so be it -- but refusing to even consider that they might be is a bit close-minded, in my view.
But please don't bother reading or replying to anything I've actually written.
P.S. "Your" is possessive. "You're" means "you are."
Now this is crazy, but I could totally see a game for a catgirl space marine. Its not DnD though.
Female Catfolk Hellknight.
If she's like me she doesn't like it because its green, ugly, and taste funny.
Or she just doesn't like it. And even if there was more, "I don't like it" contains all of the needed information.
You are also not entitled to detailed psychoanalysis of why your GM doesn't like something. Courtesy says "Hey, my GM doesn't want to run that idea, maybe I should think of something else that we could both enjoy."
Except people don't just not like things. They don't like things for a reason. You don't need a psychoanalysis as to why. I don't think its courtesy as much as submission you want if you want unquestioning loyalty.
Female Catfolk Hellknight.
Now this is crazy, but I could totally see a game for a catgirl space marine. Its not DnD though.
I want this in my game. I want to find the girl for it too... Sounds like an adventure to me!
edit: Rynjin, don't make me want things!
If she's like me she doesn't like it because its green, ugly, and taste funny.
Or she just doesn't like it. And even if there was more, "I don't like it" contains all of the needed information.
You are also not entitled to detailed psychoanalysis of why your GM doesn't like something. Courtesy says "Hey, my GM doesn't want to run that idea, maybe I should think of something else that we could both enjoy."
No you are not entitled to detailed psychoanalysis of why your GM doesn't like something, but such a thing could be helpful in helping you make a character that they would like. I don't think you are really in the "I don't like this, and I'm not going to tell you why, and if you ask me, you are evil and can't play with me" camp that someone else here is.
Female Catfolk Hellknight.
Now this is crazy, but I could totally see a game for a catgirl space marine. Its not DnD though.I want this in my game. I want to find the girl for it too... Sounds like an adventure to me!
Edit: Rynjin, don't make me want things!
I'd play one if time zones and location weren't an issue.
|
|
Except people don't just not like things. They don't like things for a reason. You don't need a psychoanalysis as to why. I don't think its courtesy as much as submission you want if you want unquestioning loyalty.
If she's like me she doesn't like it because its green, ugly, and taste funny.
Or she just doesn't like it. And even if there was more, "I don't like it" contains all of the needed information.
You are also not entitled to detailed psychoanalysis of why your GM doesn't like something. Courtesy says "Hey, my GM doesn't want to run that idea, maybe I should think of something else that we could both enjoy."
I don't like it is a reason.
If I poke you and you say "Stop I don't like that" asking you "Why" is pointless and kind of annoying.
Your GM doesn't like the idea and they don't want to run it. If your GM is your friend, isn't that enough reason to try to come up with another idea?
What Timezone? Location's no issue if we go online, I play over Roll20 anyway.
It'd be hilarious if the game fell apart after a session though.
What Timezone? Location's no issue if we go online, I play over Roll20 anyway.
It'd be hilarious if the game fell apart after a session though.
People in the US are asleep while I'm up and about here in Finland*. As for the campaign falling apart on the first session, I highly doubt that, even though that's probably what Kthulhu, Harris and Ciretose would think happens merely because I'd be playing in that game. Would be funny to see the campaign rock from start till end and see their reactions if you ask me. Wouldn't you find that equally hilarious?
* = It's like 05:40 AM here now, actually. I should get some sleep while I can.
|
|
TOZ and Jess are also probably people who knowing you aren't into anime wouldn't try to force you to run that kind of stuff.BS. I'd be asking to play a fullblade-wielding warblade in his latest game if we were still in the same state together.
Yeah, but you are the kind of player who can pull it off and make it fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BS. I'd be asking to play a fullblade-wielding warblade in his latest game if we were still in the same state together.
And we'd still make it work, and without ruining or warping my campaign or scrapping your character as a "turd." Because we're that awesome.
|
Except people don't just not like things.
Honestly, sometimes they do. Maybe there is a reason buried down somewhere, but not everyone is into contemplating their navel. Isn't it enough to know that you do dislike X? Do you really need to know why, or is it simply enough to know that you dislike X and try to avoid X when possible? There are both things that I like and that I dislike that I can't give you any reason for why beyond the fact that I do like/dislike them.
Except people don't just not like things. They don't like things for a reason. You don't need a psychoanalysis as to why. I don't think its courtesy as much as submission you want if you want unquestioning loyalty.
If she's like me she doesn't like it because its green, ugly, and taste funny.
Or she just doesn't like it. And even if there was more, "I don't like it" contains all of the needed information.
You are also not entitled to detailed psychoanalysis of why your GM doesn't like something. Courtesy says "Hey, my GM doesn't want to run that idea, maybe I should think of something else that we could both enjoy."
I don't like it is a reason.
If I poke you and you say "Stop I don't like that" asking you "Why" is pointless and kind of annoying.
Your GM doesn't like the idea and they don't want to run it. If your GM is your friend, isn't that enough reason to try to come up with another idea?
Dude, that analogy just doesn't work. I expect my friend to be able to tell me things. Me putting out an idea for a campaign is way different than poking someone to annoy me.
Maybe there is a reason buried down somewhere, but not everyone is into contemplating their navel. Isn't it enough to know that you do dislike X?
If you're the only one involved, and you're sort of scared to find out why, then sure, that's fine. But if you're using that as a reason that someone else should be unilaterally banned from considering something -- maybe it's not totally unreasonable to think about it a bit.
I'm not saying you have to allow it, but being honest with yourself about those buried reasons, or else being willing to consider bending a little, isn't automatically a sign of weakness that will signal the players to converge on you like a pack of jackals. Unless you play with really obnoxious people.
|
|
Dude, that analogy just doesn't work. I expect my friend to be able to tell me things. Me putting out an idea for a campaign is way different than poking someone to annoy me.Except people don't just not like things. They don't like things for a reason. You don't need a psychoanalysis as to why. I don't think its courtesy as much as submission you want if you want unquestioning loyalty.
If she's like me she doesn't like it because its green, ugly, and taste funny.
Or she just doesn't like it. And even if there was more, "I don't like it" contains all of the needed information.
You are also not entitled to detailed psychoanalysis of why your GM doesn't like something. Courtesy says "Hey, my GM doesn't want to run that idea, maybe I should think of something else that we could both enjoy."
I don't like it is a reason.
If I poke you and you say "Stop I don't like that" asking you "Why" is pointless and kind of annoying.
Your GM doesn't like the idea and they don't want to run it. If your GM is your friend, isn't that enough reason to try to come up with another idea?
You putting out "a" single idea for a campaign, which I said I don't like, means you have now found out I don't like it and I don't want to run it.
What outcome are you seeking? To make me run it? I've told you I don't want to, so what are you trying to do? Make me? Force me?
If I am running a campaign and you say "I don't want to play, I don't like the idea" should I chase you around and demand you explain why you don't like the idea?
And as a player, why no just come up with something else? Why do you have to force the GM into the awkward conversation of the specific reasons they don't like your idea, rather than just come up with another one?
What Timezone? Location's no issue if we go online, I play over Roll20 anyway.
It'd be hilarious if the game fell apart after a session though.
I've never used roll20. Should probably start, I live in the middle of a forest myself. You know how hard it is to find a GM when the nearby sentient life is mostly squirrels? Would probably be more lively than the play by post I've done lately.
Except people don't just not like things.Honestly, sometimes they do. Maybe there is a reason buried down somewhere, but not everyone is into contemplating their navel. Isn't it enough to know that you do dislike X? Do you really need to know why, or is it simply enough to know that you dislike X and try to avoid X when possible? There are both things that I like and that I dislike that I can't give you any reason for why beyond the fact that I do like/dislike them.
That's not usually the case though. Its also a dire extreme. "During my childhood cats haunted me... That's why I can never allow cat girls!" or something crazy like that. "Anime is too wacky." is a valid excuse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there is a reason buried down somewhere, but not everyone is into contemplating their navel. Isn't it enough to know that you do dislike X?If you're the only one involved, and you're sort of scared to find out why, then sure, that's fine. But if you're using that as a reason that someone else should be unilaterally banned from considering something -- maybe it's not totally unreasonable to think about it a bit.
I'm not saying you have to allow it, but being honest with yourself about those buried reasons, or else being willing to consider bending a little, isn't automatically a sign of weakness that will signal the players to converge on you like a pack of jackals. Unless you play with really obnoxious people.
People have written 1000-page theses on the right, or lack thereof, to ignorance of self. I seriously doubt it is going to be solved on the Paizo message boards.
|
|
Maybe there is a reason buried down somewhere, but not everyone is into contemplating their navel. Isn't it enough to know that you do dislike X?If you're the only one involved, and you're sort of scared to find out why, then sure, that's fine. But if you're using that as a reason that someone else should be unilaterally banned from considering something -- maybe it's not totally unreasonable to think about it a bit.
I'm not saying you have to allow it, but being honest with yourself about those buried reasons, or else being willing to consider bending a little, isn't automatically a sign of weakness that will signal the players to converge on you like a pack of jackals. Unless you play with really obnoxious people.
No one is saying it is.
But we aren't just talking about the people we play with, we are talking about people in general.
And at this point it seems at least some people are arguing you have to provide a "good" reason why it isn't included, and that "I don't like it" isn't a "good" reason, so...what is a "good" reason.
Because it seems like there are no "good" reasons, according to some people, which is the same as saying the GM must allow it.
MrSin, if they are really your friend, shouldn't you just accept their likes and dislikes
With actual friends, that's bi-directional, which means we're back to discussing them and maybe even making allowances. The player isn't allowed to force it on the DM, and for his part the DM agrees to consider if there's some way to make it work.
So I'm an a!$$+%& who's afraid of self-discovery if I can't be bothered to examine why I dislike something as ridiculously inconsequential as oversized anime-esque swords? Sorry dude, but if I spend any time in self-discovery mode, I'm gonna focus on stuff that's a bit more important.
(Shrug) My friends are important to me. YMMV.
Dude, I'm not giving you money. :)
Nice one! Luckily, "Kirthfinder" is strictly non-profit.
MrSin, if they are really your friend, shouldn't you just accept their likes and dislikesWith actual friends, that's bi-directional, which means we're back to discussing them and maybe even making allowances. The player isn't allowed to force it on the DM, and for his part the DM agrees to consider if there's some way to make it work.
That's for hitting that one for me. Pretty much what I was going to say.
What outcome are you seeking? To make me run it? I've told you I don't want to, so what are you trying to do? Make me? Force me?
The outcome is to have a fun time. No I won't make you. No I won't force you. If I question your judgement its because I want to work with you so we both have a fun time.
Except people don't just not like things.Honestly, sometimes they do. Maybe there is a reason buried down somewhere, but not everyone is into contemplating their navel. Isn't it enough to know that you do dislike X? Do you really need to know why, or is it simply enough to know that you dislike X and try to avoid X when possible? There are both things that I like and that I dislike that I can't give you any reason for why beyond the fact that I do like/dislike them.
Honestly, I do think you need to know why you dislike something.
Most often to figure out whether you dislike it because it's BAD or you dislike it because of another reason personal to you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What outcome are you seeking? To make me run it? I've told you I don't want to, so what are you trying to do? Make me? Force me?The outcome is to have a fun time. No I won't make you. No I won't force you. If I question your judgement its because I want to work with you so we both have a fun time.
You are beyond questioning my judgement, you are demanding explanation for it.
If the GM says I don't like it and thinks it will be a problem, and the GM is your friend, that should be more than enough of a reason for you to want to find something that will not be a problem.
|
|
Except people don't just not like things.Honestly, sometimes they do. Maybe there is a reason buried down somewhere, but not everyone is into contemplating their navel. Isn't it enough to know that you do dislike X? Do you really need to know why, or is it simply enough to know that you dislike X and try to avoid X when possible? There are both things that I like and that I dislike that I can't give you any reason for why beyond the fact that I do like/dislike them.Honestly, I do think you need to know why you dislike something.
Most often to figure out whether you dislike it because it's BAD or you dislike it because of another reason personal to you.
Why?
Your entire argument thus far has been predicated on the premise that if a player wants to play something, it doesn't matter why they want to play it, and it doesn't matter that they have many other options that they could play, the GM should find a way to accommodate it.
Does the player have to provide a reason beyond "I want to play this" to the GM?
Does the player have to provide a reason beyond "I want to play this" to the GM?
Yes, they should.
What outcome are you seeking? To make me run it? I've told you I don't want to, so what are you trying to do? Make me? Force me?The outcome is to have a fun time. No I won't make you. No I won't force you. If I question your judgement its because I want to work with you so we both have a fun time.You are beyond questioning my judgement, you are demanding explanation for it.
If the GM says I don't like it and thinks it will be a problem, and the GM is your friend, that should be more than enough of a reason for you to want to find something that will not be a problem.
Not demanding anything. Your replacing words now. Picking ones to make me look bad.
If we're friends he can tell me what is wrong. He can tell me he thinks it will be a problem and probably why. I always question my friends when something is wrong, this is how I make sure they are okay and that I can do what I can.
You need to stop saying people are telling you, that you have to absolutely allow everything in no questions. No one is saying that. No one. Both the player and the GM talk it out if there are problems with something.
|
|
Yes, they should.
Does the player have to provide a reason beyond "I want to play this" to the GM?
And what reason beyond "I want to play this" are they providing?
I want to play this because I think it is cool? Not really any more information there.
I want to play this because I like big swords, and I cannot lie (you other brothers can't deny)
Seriously, this is getting absurd. I have to provide a detailed explanation of why I want to be a wizard in a made up game.
Really?
|
|
What outcome are you seeking? To make me run it? I've told you I don't want to, so what are you trying to do? Make me? Force me?The outcome is to have a fun time. No I won't make you. No I won't force you. If I question your judgement its because I want to work with you so we both have a fun time.You are beyond questioning my judgement, you are demanding explanation for it.
If the GM says I don't like it and thinks it will be a problem, and the GM is your friend, that should be more than enough of a reason for you to want to find something that will not be a problem.
Not demanding anything. Your replacing words now. Picking ones to make me look bad.
If we're friends he can tell me what is wrong. He can tell me he thinks it will be a problem and probably why. I always question my friends when something is wrong, this is how I make sure they are okay and that I can do what I can.
You need to stop saying people are telling you, that you have to absolutely allow everything in no questions. No one is saying that. No one. Both the player and the GM talk it out if there are problems with something.
If you say the GM has to do something, you are demanding it.
You can change the words to make it sound nicer, but you are saying if the GM does not do it, they are wrong and bad.
So you are saying they have to do it, or they are wrong are bad.
Which is demanding they do it, or be wrong or bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they should.
Does the player have to provide a reason beyond "I want to play this" to the GM?And what reason beyond "I want to play this" are they providing?
I want to play this because I think it is cool? Not really any more information there.
I want to play this because I like big swords, and I cannot lie (you other brothers can't deny)
Seriously, this is getting absurd. I have to provide a detailed explanation of why I want to be a wizard in a made up game.
Really?
Sorry, let me be more specific. If it is something that is not firmly established in the campaign world, than yes you should provide me with an explanation as to why you want to add this. It's really no different than the GM saying why she won't allow xxx. And yes, I have given the excuse "I can't tell you, it's a secret" as to why I wouldn't allow a certain thing. But the next campaign, that thing was open to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I've never endorsed any kind of 'screw the player, TPK' approach or whatever.Nor have I ever implied that you do. What you do endorse, however, are extremely rigid (indeed, totally inflexible) campaign restrictions, which cannot deviate an iota from what you consider "canon" or "pure," in either fluff or mechanics, and that all players are expected to be extremely happy (or at least grudgingly accepting) that you handle all the creative work for them. This sort of a setup is NOT "generally accepted."
What it does is indicate the habit of being a not very flexible gm. Which isn't a great precedent to set before the game even starts.
And How in the bloody hell are you making the bizarre leap from me not giving a f~## why I dislike giant swords to me not caring about my friends?
I'd guess that you could figure it out, if you really tried (or read the post right above that), and if that wasn't too navel-gaze-y.
What outcome are you seeking? To make me run it? I've told you I don't want to, so what are you trying to do? Make me? Force me?The outcome is to have a fun time. No I won't make you. No I won't force you. If I question your judgement its because I want to work with you so we both have a fun time.You are beyond questioning my judgement, you are demanding explanation for it.
If the GM says I don't like it and thinks it will be a problem, and the GM is your friend, that should be more than enough of a reason for you to want to find something that will not be a problem.
Not demanding anything. Your replacing words now. Picking ones to make me look bad.
If we're friends he can tell me what is wrong. He can tell me he thinks it will be a problem and probably why. I always question my friends when something is wrong, this is how I make sure they are okay and that I can do what I can.
You need to stop saying people are telling you, that you have to absolutely allow everything in no questions. No one is saying that. No one. Both the player and the GM talk it out if there are problems with something.
If you say the GM has to do something, you are demanding it.
You can change the words to make it sound nicer, but you are saying if the GM does not do it, they are wrong and bad.
So you are saying they have to do it, or they are wrong are bad.
Which is demanding they do it, or be wrong or bad.
Your really trying to work on me.
The GM doesn't have to do a thing. I'm not demanding anything. I have my expectations though. I expect to be treated as an adult and some maturity. I expect to be with friends who'll talk with me and tell me if something is wrong. I don't want to refer to other peoples ideas as turds or stupid and I expect the same respect. Would you like it if I called your ideas that sort of thing? Would you like it if my response to things was always limited and not telling at all. If you ask me for further information such as just now could I say "Well I just don't like it" and move on? There's little personality in that. There isn't a demand, but what your suggesting certainly isn't the best thing to do and it definitely doesn't work with everyone.
Do you have a problem with changing things to make them nice though? Do you think that "I don't like it" is a valid reason anymore than "I like it" from the players perspective? You just tried to throw that to the wind. Insulted it. Its not too different. Its the same thing. The only difference is the title. Your both friends right? Talk about it. You might learn something about the other person.
Why?
Your entire argument thus far has been predicated on the premise that if a player wants to play something, it doesn't matter why they want to play it, and it doesn't matter that they have many other options that they could play, the GM should find a way to accommodate it.
No it hasn't. Put your reading glasses on.
I have said that the GM should TRY to accommodate FEASIBLE character concepts, or at the very least give a good reason for banning something. Especially since if the reason they don't like it is because of one facet of the character that can be easily changed (the aforementioned "I don't like people playing cross gender" thing, for example) or refluffed to fit better (No Eastern themed classes, their fluff doesn't fit).
Does the player have to provide a reason beyond "I want to play this" to the GM?
If it's in conflict with previously stated rules, yes. While it's a bit harder to justify something you like rather than something you dislike, at the very least you can say precisely what concept you wanted that requires the mechanics of the class you're doing.
If you say "No Gunslingers" and your player had a concept they really wanted to carry out that could really only be viable with Gunslinger ("Well I had an idea for a Rifleman type character that would go through X, Y, and Z character developments and I think would add a lot to the story"), a compromise could be reached depending on what you don't like about them.
No gunpowder? Well, is there any way that you would allow the Gunslinger class abilities to apply to a crossbow or something? The concept still works, and there's no gunpowder involved.
Gunslinger is broken? Much harder to reconcile. Though if it's because "Attacking touch AC all the time is OP" the crossbow thing fixes that too.
Something else that can't be reconciled? Fine, play a different character. But at least explain that reason so the player isn't missing out on an easy fix for their idea that would make it fit your sensibilities.
The point here is not to make the GM work harder. The player should be the one to come up with a justification for why his player would work, and if that is unacceptable, perhaps one more before dropping it. The GM has to do nothing but listen and say "Yes" "No" or "Change X and Y and sure why not".
I just don't understand why this is such an unreasonable relationship.