Community

Dec 22, 2009 -- 3:17PM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Let me give you a little example from real life that could go with this situation. Years and years ago my old friends and I were playing outside at another friend's house and his mom came out and asked us if we wanted to come in and have some brownies. Well we all go inside for brownies when one of our friends asked the other friend's mom: "Hey could I have a cheese danish?" Well my friend's mom replied: "I invited you in for brownies, not a cheese danish." Well lets just say he got the hint and ate his brownie.

While I don't think this example is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I have to say that it simply doesn't ring true.

If he was invited in for brownies, why would he think that a danish might be an option? Were there danishes on the kitchen table?

While I understand that this "example" is about unreasonable expectations, if there were danishes to be had, the expectation is not entirely unreasonable.

What if the boy in question was allergic to chocolate? Or his mom did not want him to have chocolate? Or he simply did not like chocolate (the most likely explanation for this question coming out of the blue)?

Is his request still unreasonable? If your friend's mom knew one of these things before making the offer, would it not have been more considerate to offer another snack option to the boys so he wouldn't have to watch the other boys enjoy their brownies while he took his life into his own hands / defied his parents' wishes / settled for something he didn't like. If she didn't know, the more considerate question is, "Why, Dear? Don't you like brownies?"

A younger boy, not understanding the power of social interaction would have done exactly as you said, "got the hint and ate his brownie," even though he didn't really like it or want it. An older boy might have explained why the brownies were not a preferred snack, and a considerate parent would have found an alternative snack for the boy.

We are all (presumably) adults. It behooves us to discuss things in a mature fashion. If something that one would reasonably expect, for example, the ability to play a race as written in the Player's Handbook, is not available, we should ask why not. In response, we should get a reasonable answer.

"Because I said so!" is not a reasonable answer. It isn't reasonable to a child (but it may be the only answer the adult in question can give that a child is prepared to understand), and it certainly isn't reasonable between two adults.

"Because there are things about the race that I dislike," or "I would have difficulty fitting them into this campaign world as designed," are reasonable answers. Those answers will beg other questions from players who have their hearts set on those races. If the ensuing discussion remains civil, the player will likely find an alternative character to play. If the DM turns unreasonable at any point, it is also fair and reasonable for the player to take their dice and find some other game.

Regardless, as I said, your example does not ring true as written, so I must call shenanigans.

BTW, Xun, watching your forum behavior over the course of this thread and other threads, I know you will dismiss / ridicule my post. My response is not intended to sway you in any way, as it would be an exercise in futility, but to add to the wider discussion with the other posters in this thread.

Dec 22, 2009 -- 7:58AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 22, 2009 -- 12:50AM, MalakLightfoot wrote:

I have to believe that the people who are arguing that "the DMs word is law, players be damned" are arguing as if it was us coming into their gaming group and suggesting characters they don't like. I find it hard to believe that these people treat their friends in this manner.

Of course not.  No friend worth a grain of salt is going to try and play a race he knows will wreck the DMs enjoyment.

Nope.  A real friend would do exactly that, because he'd realize how childish this hatred of yours is, and would try to help you overcome it.

Dec 22, 2009 -- 4:17PM, Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:

It's interesting that some people equate saying "I don't want them in the game because I do not like them" with "a crummy DM that closes all avenues of communication and considers the opinions of his players to be worthless and below his own".

From what I've read I haven't seen anyone advocating an environment devoid of communication, yet I see people harping on the point that communication is key. Don't jump to conclusions.

Saying you don't want something in your game because you don't like it does not mean you're not willing to discuss it. It's simply a reason behind what you're doing, and one that you are entirely entitled to.

From the last ten pages or so, it seems like the only "Discussion is detrimental" person still arguing in this thread is Xun. Rumour has it that this is par for the course with him, and that he takes unpopular positions and argues them to stir the pot for as long as it amuses him, and then he moves on to another thread to stir that pot.

Upthread, I recall quite a few posts about DM word being law, and discussion not being welcomed, but those posters seem to have moved on. Those of us that remain seem to be arguing semantics, while not actually disagreeing with each other, Xun excepted.