Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dragonfan20 03-01-05, 04:57 PM	In all honesty, does anyone think that this is an appropriate arguement for a DM to use when dealing with a situation? I was recently playing in another person's campaign when we came to an in-game dilemma (Whether or not someone would make a spot check to see whether or not another party member was witholding treasure from the rest of the group). When an aguement broke out over it, the DM ended the conversation with, "That's the way it is. I'm the DM and I make the decision." When questioned on what the decision was based on, he said approximately the same thing. Does anyone else see thins as a problem? I've seen this happen on multiple occasions, in multiple campaigns, and with different people DMing. Personally, I think that ultimately, it is the DM's decision to make, but when asked about the decision (unless it has something to do with the storyline or surprises of the campaign), the DM should be able to explain it in a way that doesn't make the game seem cheap or inconsistent, and well enough that makes the players feel accepting if not satisfied with the decision's outcome.
aaron3579 03-01-05, 05:06 PM	If you have players that can't accept this as a good enough reason, then you need new players. I am reminded of a child in the grocery store that whines "Mommmmmmm, I want icecreeeeeeeeam. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease?" "No." "But WHHHHHHHHHHHHHY?" "Because I said so." "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!" At my table, if I ever resorted to the "Because I said so" argument, it would be due to a lack of maturity on the player’s part. And if the player doesn't like it, he can leave. Am I saying that it is a bad idea for a DM to explain a ruling so that players know what to expect in the future? Of course not. But I also refuse to deny the legitimacy of the "Because I said so" argument.
Tusz 03-01-05, 05:07 PM	I feel that this is one of the worst things a DM can do. It just screams "power trip." If a DM can't reveal the answer to something for plot reasons, he should just say "I can't tell you why, or it'll give things away."
psionichamster 03-01-05, 05:08 PM	IG, yes, this seems a valid line of "reasoning"... you need to keep the game going, and if it's not vitally important AT THAT INSTANT (ie, you ADD your BAB to your attack roll, not subtract it?!?) then it can wait till in-between time. we've had any number of weird situations (most of them involving monks and bards, interestingly enough) and the quick and dirty, make a ruling and keep it consistent through that session (at least) is the best way not to interrupt the flow of the game if you are having an OOG argument re: skills, spots, crafting, etc. in my game, i am gonna up the ante, by providing some incentive to bring it back to the game world. metagame concerns (like whether that cleric across the battlefield can spot my rogue's sleight of hand to pocket the loot or not, WHILE A BATTLE IS RAGING) are not as important as the IG concerns. make a ruling, justify it as much as you need to, to make it believable, then look it up after the game sure, you may get some things wrong at first, but hey, that's learning... if it's a consistent "my way, because im the dm, and i say XYZ..." then it may be time to look for another dm so, in short, dont sweat the small stuff namaste, the hamster
JKnight 03-01-05, 05:09 PM	We are trained early on in D&D that the DM is the ultimate authority on the rules of the game. DM's learn very quickly that players have to "want" to play in their games. That's the balance. Some players argue too much, and become semantical nightmares of **** retentivness. Getting caught up with a player like that is lamentable, because they're trying to prove something that can never be proven. It's sad, and hard to walk away from if the person is your friend. Some DM's let the power of their position go to their heads. That's a real shame too, because it is an honor to have players, and the least you can do is offer them an open minded discussion of the game that EVERYONE is playing in and creating. The DM provides scenarios, not full blown stories. The game does not exist without the players. "Because I said so." That's just bad people skills, and poor leadership. I'm not an advocate for stopping the game to squabble over a few rules, but I am an advocate for rational, intelligent, socially adequate behaivoral qualities in DM's. I don't agree with people who raise their children this way, and I don't agree with people who game this way. In short, I have better things to do with my time than playing in a game run by an idiot. To heck with the mongoloids; arguing with them just raises your blood pressure. JK
green_yawgmoth 03-01-05, 05:10 PM	"Because I said so" is the equivalent of "I have no rational excuse for this decision, and I will probably rule the opposite way the next time it comes up." Any DM who can't come up with even a little bit of an intelligent answer should just hand over the screen to someone with and int score > 5. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Nukacola 03-01-05, 05:12 PM	While it is the DM's right to use the "I said so" to end rules arguments, a good DM should try to explain why they made the explanation they did. Like aaron3579 said, it's typically only used with immature players, but it could also be a sign that your DM is just being a jerk. You, as a player, have the right to get up and leave whenever you like if you think the DM is being unreasonable.
Vatras 03-01-05, 05:21 PM	I see the "because I said so" as a way to end an endless discussion (who someone just wanted to start again by asking "why?"), which can be held after the session, when everyone has cooled down a bit. So sometimes, it is a valid way to deal with a situation getting out of hand. /agree with Nukacola otherwise
Nomad4life 03-01-05, 05:29 PM	The DM should always take the time to explain his/her reasoning in enforcing or ignoring certain rules during play. If this fails to satisfy certain players, then YES; “Because I said so” is a “good enough” reason to keep the game moving. In all my years of gaming, I’ve hardly ever seen “because I said so” used in a “power trip” kind of context. 99 times out of 100 it actually means: “You’re trying to cheat and I’m not going to let you.” Or “Yeah, maybe. But it’s just not worth debating over and would take time away from everyone else who is here to enjoy the GAME.” This kind of thing is precisely why there is a GM in the first place. Otherwise, players would just run games without one. It’s always best just to keep things moving. If someone doesn’t like something, they’re always free to do it differently in the games that they run.
Arrowhen 03-01-05, 05:35 PM	I don't use the "because I said so" line because, frankly, I'm lazy. I figure if my players understand the logic behind one of my decisions, then the next time a similar situation comes up they'll be able to anwer their own questions. When you operate from on a purely authoritarian "need to know" basis, you just make more work for yourself, as your players are constantly asking "can we do this? how about that?"
Mirikon 03-01-05, 05:50 PM	In all honesty, does anyone think that this is an appropriate arguement for a DM to use when dealing with a situation? I was recently playing in another person's campaign when we came to an in-game dilemma (Whether or not someone would make a spot check to see whether or not another party member was witholding treasure from the rest of the group). When an aguement broke out over it, the DM ended the conversation with, "That's the way it is. I'm the DM and I make the decision." When questioned on what the decision was based on, he said approximately the same thing. Does anyone else see thins as a problem? I've seen this happen on multiple occasions, in multiple campaigns, and with different people DMing. Personally, I think that ultimately, it is the DM's decision to make, but when asked about the decision (unless it has something to do with the storyline or surprises of the campaign), the DM should be able to explain it in a way that doesn't make the game seem cheap or inconsistent, and well enough that makes the players feel accepting if not satisfied with the decision's outcome. No, it isn't a problem, unless the DM does this all the time. Usually, it is a bad idea to argue with the DM unless you have a book/page reference saying the DM is wrong. If you **** off the DM, you're going to get the 'because I said so' decisions, partly to get the game moving again, and partly because you are annoying the DM. Like most things, there is a time for 'Because I said so'. It is only a problem if it is abused frequently.
PenderGrass 03-01-05, 05:51 PM	LOL Okay, all of you out there that are obviously still hurt that your parents used this as a last resort on your snivelling and whining protests, you need to get real. Sometimes, the "because I said so" argument is the best type of clarification that you can give to a Player. Especially when explaining something to a Player to the point where he will be happy will cause a "bad" game experience or even a "lousy" DM method. Sometimes, the Players need to be happy with not knowing everything. Example? DM to Player A & B: Roll a Spot Check. Player A: Why? I just said I was going downstairs to check on the horses. Player B: I decide I don't want to go with him. DM to Player B: Okay, but before you go back, roll a Spot Check. Player B: But Why? I said I am not going with him. Player A: Yeah, I decide not to go either. DM to both Players: ROLL A SPOT CHECK - NOW. Both Players: Whhhhhhy? DM: Because I said so. I have actually seen this happen at conventions and I whole-heartedly agree with the DM using it. In fact, if he had not used it I was about ready to club both Players with a book or dice bag filled with broken glass. Players that need to be coddled every single time are immature babies and should be treated with strict DMing methods and their PCs should be slain as often and horribly as possible. :dragon: ****
green_yawgmoth 03-01-05, 05:57 PM	LOL Okay, all of you out there that are obviously still hurt that your parents used this as a last resort on your snivelling and whining protests, you need to get real. There isn't a :rolleyes: big enough to portray my sentiments on this statement. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Finarin Panjoro 03-01-05, 05:59 PM	Deleted.
darkness ninja of light 03-01-05, 06:11 PM	The DM could easily have explained (in the above situation PenderGrass gave) why the characters needed to roll Spot checks. What's wrong with saying "Even though your character's aren't going, they still have a chance to spot 'it'. I need you to roll to see if your character sees 'it' " or something along those lines? In fact, the DM probably SHOULD have explained. Why? Well... DM: Because I said so Immature Players: but WHY? I don't wanna! DM: So? I said so! Immature Players: Why do we have to roll!? I'm not rolling! etc. etc. Something like that. There's a better chance that the players will stop being such whiny crybabies if they at least know why they're rolling (it seems to me that in that case, they hardly knew what a Spot Check was...definately demands explanation or a good hard reading of the PHB). In fact, if they realize that they should listen to their DM because he usually has a good reason for everything, then the next time the DM tells them to do something, they'll likely listen. Hmm...though getting technical...the DM probably should have rolled those spot checks himself.
The Master Weaver Is Warped 03-01-05, 06:21 PM	LOL Okay, all of you out there that are obviously still hurt that your parents used this as a last resort on your snivelling and whining protests, you need to get real.They should be glad they aren't my kids. "Whhhhhy?" "Because if you don't stop chewing on my last nerve I am going show the naked cowboy pictures to every female who walks into the house for the next 20 years, including your grandmother and the minister's wife. In fact, I will make a print of said picture and keep it in my wallet for wider distribution. So go on, I dare you. Whine at me again. I know how to upload pictures too." It's my firm belief every parent should have sufficient blackmail material on all of their children to keep them in line. As far a DM reason goes, some less grating alternatives... "Do you want to play or argue?" "I'll explain it later." "You'll see." "You want to DM?"
Iyestorm 03-01-05, 07:06 PM	It depends... are you DMing at their house or not. If you're DMing at their house, I would recommend throwing ice cream at them. I mean literally. If you're DMing at your house, throw ice cream if you want to, but... I'm sorry. I can't be serious right now. YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIIIIVE!!! :P
PenderGrass 03-01-05, 07:08 PM	The DM could easily have explained (in the above situation PenderGrass gave) why the characters needed to roll Spot checks. What's wrong with saying "Even though your character's aren't going, they still have a chance to spot 'it'. I need you to roll to see if your character sees 'it' " or something along those lines? Because of the constraints on my ability to type things like this at work, I admittedly shortened much of the conversation that happened at that one particular incident. Believe me, the DM belabored the point that it would be best if the Players rolled a chance for their PCs to Spot what was about to happen to them prior to it happening. The point is, sometimes, a pyschotic rat bastard Player gets one last "because I said so" right before the 2-by-4 hits him right upside the head. Sometimes, a Player should be fine with the statement, and if he knows the DM won't do something without a reason - mayhaps a reason that his PC should NOT know - then it is perfectly reasonable for the DM to say - "Because I say so, you may or may not find out why later - but for now, all I can say is I have ruled this way because I say so." Sometimes, when a God blasts a Wizard with a bolt of lightning from the heavens when there is a Paladin with metal lance and armor right next to him and the Wizard's Player complains that he has no metal - "why didn't he get hit by lightning?" The DM may have plenty of reason to NOT reveal that information at that particular time. If you cannot imagine this being okay - ever. Well, you have issues. You might be better off playing PS2 or something else if you can't stomach someone making a ruling without it being explained every single time. Sometimes you have to let the DM be the DM. Sometimes the teenager needs to let the parent be the parent. :dragon: ****
charred 03-01-05, 07:56 PM	I couldn't agree with JKnight more. Technically the DM is the ultimate authority and is given the power to do whatever they want for whatever reason. But; (1) just because they can doesn't mean they should and (2) if you keep acting like an *** you will be the DM of an empty table. If you have a valid reason for not explaining something, then of course you shouldn't answer. An example may be answering why detect alignment doesn't work. If the DM says "That spell doesn't work on illusions" or "He has a ring of nondetection" he just gave away information that was up to the players to find out. They could of told the player that they have a good reason and left it at that. But if the DM says "because I said so" you can't know if the DM has a good reason or if they are wrong and being an *** about it. DMs make mistakes all the time, and that is just reality. There is nothing offensive with a player checking in to make sure that a particular decision is not one of those inevitable mistakes. But, if it is a decision on rules where there is no reason for secrecy, then it is inexcusable. If you don't even have the common courtesy to explain to a group of your friends why your decision came out the way it did, then you are not the right kind of person to be dealing with people in a social setting, much less DMing. Again as JKnight said, the DM is a leader. Leaders need to earn respect-- it doesn't mysticly appear just because they are a leader. Your players need confidence in you and your abilities, and that confidence can only come from your actions. If you refuse to give your logic on a contested issue, the only one doing so will be the player. If the DM won't give logical support to their ruling, then it gets very hard to have confidence that they are fulfilling their responsibilities. Especially when the player sets forth logical reasons why they are wrong. A DM is a referee making decisions on rules. If I wanted something to make arbitrary and unreasoned decisions, I would buy a magic 8-ball and I wouldn't have to bring it food. We want referees, not 8-balls. We are willing to part with the food in exchange for a good referee. But, once the decision is made and reasoning given (if an appropriate reason not to withold one) the DM can cut off argument. But, they will cut it off by accepting an explanation different than the one the player put forth. Once explained adequately, the DM can simply say they are moving on. They don't really have to, but they can always invite the player to debate with them more after the session. But the point is that rulings should be made in the open where possible. It is still your decision and after your respond to their objections once you do not have to repeat yourself. But, you need to be fair enough to let them see why you came to your decision I disagree with the idea that the player is being childish here. What sounds more mature to you? Giving a reasoned argument or saying "I'm the boss, do what I say?" Have you ever seen a child (or an idiot) with power before? If not, you would hear a lot of the "I'm the boss" variations. Aside from that it is just anti-social. I wouldn't want to play a game run by someone who can't be bothered to explain (much less defend) their logic, and on top of that act like a rude jerk.
Dragonfan20 03-01-05, 08:05 PM	I couldn't agree with JKnight more. Technically the DM is the ultimate authority and is given the power to do whatever they want for whatever reason. But; (1) just because they can doesn't mean they should and (2) if you keep acting like an *** you will be the DM of an empty table. If you have a valid reason for not explaining something, then of course you shouldn't answer. An example may be answering why detect alignment doesn't work. If the DM says "That spell doesn't work on illusions" or "He has a ring of nondetection" he just gave away information that was up to the players to find out. They could of told the player that they have a good reason and left it at that. But if the DM says "because I said so" you can't know if the DM has a good reason or if they are wrong and being an *** about it. DMs make mistakes all the time, and that is just reality. There is nothing offensive with a player checking in to make sure that a particular decision is not one of those inevitable mistakes. But, if it is a decision on rules where there is no reason for secrecy, then it is inexcusable. If you don't even have the common courtesy to explain to a group of your friends why your decision came out the way it did, then you are not the right kind of person to be dealing with people in a social setting, much less DMing. Again as JKnight said, the DM is a leader. Leaders need to earn respect-- it doesn't mysticly appear just because they are a leader. Your players need confidence in you and your abilities, and that confidence can only come from your actions. If you refuse to give your logic on a contested issue, the only one doing so will be the player. If the DM won't give logical support to their ruling, then it gets very hard to have confidence that they are fulfilling their responsibilities. Especially when the player sets forth logical reasons why they are wrong. A DM is a referee making decisions on rules. If I wanted something to make arbitrary and unreasoned decisions, I would buy a magic 8-ball and I wouldn't have to bring it food. We want referees, not 8-balls. We are willing to part with the food in exchange for a good referee. I disagree with the idea that the player is being childish here. What sounds more mature to you? Giving a reasoned argument or saying "I'm the boss, do what I say?" Have you ever seen a child (or an idiot) with power before? If not, you would hear a lot of the "I'm the boss" variations. Aside from that it is just anti-social. I wouldn't want to play a game run by someone who can't be bothered to explain (much less defend) their logic, and on top of that act like a rude jerk. Hey, look at that! Somebody actually read all the way through my first post!
charred 03-01-05, 08:14 PM	Its a good debate. Why not read past the first post?
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-01-05, 08:31 PM	I feel that this is one of the worst things a DM can do. It just screams "power trip." If a DM can't reveal the answer to something for plot reasons, he should just say "I can't tell you why, or it'll give things away." Thereby making it clear that this is plot related, ruining the element of surprise. It's the best proof against metagaming. Can the player ask: Why is the BBEG a dragon? Why does he have a strenght of 30? Why did the merchant refuse my sword? nope. at least, they can't expect an answer.
PenderGrass 03-01-05, 08:33 PM	I disagree with the idea that the player is being childish here. What sounds more mature to you? Giving a reasoned argument or saying "I'm the boss, do what I say?" You can disagree all you want - but you are wrong, because I say so. :P Really, there are a myriad of situations that a DM can feel justified in using this wording. I think the problem people here are having is that just because a DM says - "Because I say so" - it does not mean that that is the only reasoning he has. If it is, then yes, there may be a problem. But the question wasn't - "If the DMs only reason is 'because he says so' is there a problem?" The question is - "Is it appropriate for the DM to use the argument - 'because I say so'?" Obviously, like someone else pointed out, the Players and DM had reached a major impasse about a certain ruling. The Players seemingly argued to the point where everyone was losing their cool. It may have been a good time to take a break or maybe use the standby 50/50 rule, but the DM opted, as is well within his rights, to say "because I say so." That is final. The Players can take or leave it on that basis. Maybe it is me, but I think if you cannot let a DM make his own judgements, then there aint much point in playing. I know many DMs that make judgements that I just don't stomach in my game - especially when we play in RPGA where everything is pretty much RAW. But, I am a Player at this point and I allow them the respect that being a DM deserves. Including letting them say "because I said so." I love people that cannot stomach this type of attitude, mainly because I know if they are ever in combat where someone yells at them to get down - they will stand there saying very idignantly - "Why should I?" Then they will be shot and the world will be better off without them. :dragon: ****
PenderGrass 03-01-05, 08:44 PM	Hey, look at that! Somebody actually read all the way through my first post! LOL Yeah, sometimes people do that. There is obviously more than just the DM stating "because he said so" in this argument that you dumped on us. If you think the DM was JUST basing his ruling on "because he said so" then you are really trying hard to blow smoke up all of our a****. He obviously was ruling it his way because he felt he was correct. He is totally justified in doing this. What you are obviously trying to do is drag everyone into something that you have not given us all the facts about. You, I would conjecture, are the injured party in this ruling. Your sneaky and behind the back type of tactics are really bordering on childish and majorly immature. I suggest you get to your real point before you waste any more of our time. :dragon: PS - He is the DM and he does make the decisions. You may not like them, but that is his job. There is nothing wrong with him stating this. ****
aaron3579 03-01-05, 08:49 PM	I'm sorry, I know that I've been preaching tolerance, but.... :whatsthis ................... :rofl: that's just funny, whether you agree with his opinion or not.:smirk:
Arrowhen 03-01-05, 09:05 PM	The trouble with "because I said so" is that it all too often comes off as an attempt by a DM to "put the players in their place." As far as I'm concerned, a player's "place" is "sitting around the table, having just as much fun as I am." That's why on the rare occasions I can't answer a player's question for plot reason, I find a much better reply than "because I said so" is to simply wink and say "you'll see."
JKnight 03-01-05, 09:11 PM	I love people that cannot stomach this type of attitude, mainly because I know if they are ever in combat where someone yells at them to get down - they will stand there saying very idignantly - "Why should I?" Then they will be shot and the world will be better off without them. :dragon: **** Christ Almighty, I don't even know where to start with this slippery slope mentality. I don't have very long right now, but to reiterate something that has been said: the issue is one of trust. This isn't a war, cowboy. It's a game, and generally one that is played amongst friends. The world will be better off without them? How provincial, and small minded can a person get? God forbid someone have intelligent reasoning behind their points of view, and God forbid someone decide to be neighborly, and rational. God forbid someone examine better ways to socially adapt their behavior to illicit more trust from their players. No one is arguing that the DM should let him/herself be run over by the players. But I think you will find, with a modicum of education, that there are good methods to avoid these situations before they happen. Are you forced by your players into saying "because I said so"? If so, maybe that should create a red light in your head that says that maybe, just maybe, you're doing something wrong to begin with. By the way... if you can't keep your players in line with any more advanced tactics than "because I said so", then I highly doubt you'd be proficient at telling anyone to duck, bullets or no. Ever hear of being positive instead of negative? JK
Iyestorm 03-01-05, 09:12 PM	I guess it's like alignment. It depends on your intent. If you're using it to put players in their place, it's neutral/evil based on how bad your group is. If it's because you can't tell them for whatever reason, it's neutral/good, again, depending on variables and such. However, no matter the reason, it's definately lawful, because YOU ARE teh LAW!!! *sees the alignment police* Uh-oh! uh, I know alignment isn't just based on intent, I was just using that as an example. uh... LOOK! A MONKEY!!! *scrams*
Dragonfan20 03-01-05, 09:45 PM	My arguement wasn't that the DM's final word isn't the final decision. My arguement was that when a DM says "That's how it is because I said so" without explaining his reasoning, he is leaving the players to assume that he is blowing them off and doesn't care about their questions. To say that a player is immature because he/she asks a question is just lazy on the part of the DM. Perhaps some DM's would prefer lobotomized shells as PCs. Example? DM to Player A & B: Roll a Spot Check. Player A: Why? I just said I was going downstairs to check on the horses. Player B: I decide I don't want to go with him. DM to Player B: Okay, but before you go back, roll a Spot Check. Player B: But Why? I said I am not going with him. Player A: Yeah, I decide not to go either. DM to both Players: ROLL A SPOT CHECK - NOW. Both Players: Whhhhhhy? DM: Because I said so. **** This is the worst example of the situation I could imagine. If a PC were to try this after already saying that he was going downstairs, the DM would call him on it. I wasn't talking about a PC trying to cheat his way out of a situation by pressing the question more and more, I was talking about a DM who is either to lazy to explain a desicion to a PC or lacking the thought process to make the decision a good one. Quite simply, a PC deserves to know that his DM is making good decisions.
charred 03-01-05, 09:46 PM	So.. if you have the audacity to expect a DM to share his reasoning with you, then not only will you ignore someone telling you to take cover from gunfire, but you deserve to die? Come on, people don't deserve to die because they expect their DM to give reasons for their rulings. If there is a good reason why you don't shouldn't give an explanation, fine. But don't be an *** about it. You can treat your friends with respect and still not answer a question. You don't have to fight with them, and your decision is still your decision. But if there is no reason why you can't let your players in on why you came out the way you did, it seems totally absurd to just say "because I said so." Think about it, if your friends asked you why you bought a SUV instead of a car would it make sense to tell them "I don't have to answer that." The only thing that changed here is that someone is a DM and let their power get to their head.
trapspringer 03-01-05, 09:47 PM	See, parents shouldn't say, "because I said so." My parents didn't. It was basically like this: Parent: "Get your shoes, were going to the grocery store." Me: "Why do I have to go?" I ask as I put my shoes on. Parent: "Because you are to little to stay home by your self." The second phrase after 'me' is the key. It is perfectly OK to ask why and to expect an explanation, so long as you do what your parents are telling you. This same obligation does not extend to a DM, because, guess what, you aren't the parent of the player and are not anywhere near as deserving of unquestioned loyalty. In fact, you don't get ANY! But you still get that question. Because if you cannot answer it, something is wrong. If you don't know why you are doing something, DON'T DO IT!
aaron3579 03-01-05, 09:51 PM	How about we try to say it like this: (except in cases of blatant human error) It is more appropriate for a DM to say "Because I said so," than it is for a player to bog down the game by demanding an explanation of every judgment call the DM makes. Can we all at least agree with this?
Dragonfan20 03-01-05, 10:04 PM	Two questions: 1) What does taking cover from gunfire have to do with asking a DM a question? 2) Why would you consider it bold to ask the DM to share his thoughts if they didn't reveal information?
Iyestorm 03-01-05, 10:06 PM	I don't know. Can we? It's possible, yes. Probable, no, but it's still possible. and who exactly do you mean by "we all"? you could be referring to anyone. *looks over shoulder* Crap! they found me! uh... Look! It's Bigfoot! "Whoa, whoa, this is about you, not me!" well, that bought me some time... *scrams again*
Dragonfan20 03-01-05, 10:09 PM	I have never seen a game get bogged down from one player asking a reasonable question. I see no reason a DM cannot answer a reasonable question. The matter changes, however, if the player is asking questions just to be annoying.
psionichamster 03-01-05, 10:17 PM	in pendergrass's example, which i think was a good one, if the players behaved in such a manner, the situation would have gone like this. DM to Player A & B: Roll a Spot Check. Player A: Why? I just said I was going downstairs to check on the horses. Player B: I decide I don't want to go with him. DM to Player B: Okay, but before you go back, roll a Spot Check. Player B: But Why? I said I am not going with him. Player A: Yeah, I decide not to go either. DM to both Players: ROLL A SPOT CHECK - NOW. Both Players: Whhhhhhy? DM: okay, *roll roll* Player 1, you take 35 HP damage and are stunned, Roll initiative... NOTE: players NOT paying attention to the DM's descriptions is vaguely like driving a car with one eye half opened. (at least, for the PC...the driver of the car is in a bit more trouble) when given an instruction in game (ie, roll initiative, roll a spot, etc...) the most intelligent thing to do is DO IT... or are you going to ask your DM/GM "why is the dragon attacking us?" or "why is that big guy in black armor riding down at us with his lance lowered" or "how come i have to roll a reflex save...nothing's happened!?!" PC rolls are in reaction to the environmental conditions...and the choice NOT to roll indicates to me 1 of 2 things: 1, the player in question is not aware of the situation...he/she gets 1 reminder, then we move on or 2, the player in question does not wish to play with the group anymore, and can observe/fetch snacks and soda for the rest of the night, or leave if you have a rules gripe with a DM (most recent for me came when time to allocate treasure, and he thought a weapon could have an elemental enchantment on it without also being a +1 weapon...we resolved that with calm tones, no tying up of game time, and some book quotes) as far as "power trips" go, being a DM is not prone to getting one his/her desired gratification. long hours, hard study, and some major skull sweat goes into the most simple (well, ok, not the really easy stuff) of game design...and for a couple hours, the players can imagine themselves in realized worlds where they have an adventure or two...cost to benefit ratio: rather low...you want power, be a telemarketer, very high cost/benefit ratio, so long as you don't care about irking people those of you who claim that it's NEVER okay to use such a reason as "because i said so...", please explain why it's more fun to listen to two players argue over some obscure rule or questionable activity, while the rest of the action is on pause, rather than getting to kill dragons and skate down glaciers and nearly get your butt blasted by lightning bolts... next time you game, try this...get a timer, set it for 30 seconds or so (5 times longer than your character has to react in an initiative-order-encounter, mind you)...now, every time it's your turn (or everyone's, if you're the DM-and everyone agrees to at least try this) activate this timer. see how much more interesting, engaging, and heart-pounding the game is...you may even break a sweat from more than chili peppers in your chinese food... i think this argument may be at an impasse now, however, although i am more than interested in the rest of the community's opinions, as well namaste, the hamster
LordHell 03-01-05, 10:20 PM	While I personally wouldn't use a 'I said so' and provide my players an explanation, the DM has a right to do this. Provided he is CONSISTANT with his rulings you don't need an explanation at all, if he is INCONSISTANT with his rulings then your game has a problem. You don't need to know WHY for everything, just so long as the universe which you play in is a consistant predictable universe and not the DM's whim then there is nothing wrong. If you have a problem with 'I said so' you have a problem with authority.
The Jade Samurai 03-01-05, 10:33 PM	Because I said so is a cop out. Why? Because I said so....... Seriously - D&D is a social game for all to enjoy, player and DM alike and players like to know the world thier charactors inhabit has logical reasoning behind it. a quick 30 sec answer would suffice then everybody would be happy. Of course some players can be obnoxious in thier demands and Because I said so may have been warrented due to frustration!!!.
LordHell 03-01-05, 10:39 PM	Because I said so is a cop out. Why? Because I said so....... Seriously - D&D is a social game for all to enjoy, player and DM alike and players like to know the world thier charactors inhabit has logical reasoning behind it. a quick 30 sec answer would suffice then everybody would be happy. Of course some players can be obnoxious in thier demands and Because I said so may have been warrented due to frustration!!!. At the end of the day as long as the DM is consistant in his/her ruling demanding an explanation is to everyones detriment. The DM simply may not have a good one and be just going off gut feeling or cannot tell you for a plot related reason, all you're doing is slowing the game down over pettiness because you have a problem with authority. Challanging the DM's authority isn't a good way to help keep the game smooth. If the DM starts being inconsistant in his rulings then you have a problem (i,e he is clearly picking on one person, when another player is in the same situation the dm rules differently), but 'I told you so' doesn't automatically mean he is being spiteful.
charred 03-01-05, 10:40 PM	I agree. But, to be fair, PrenderGrass does make an important point, (and I appreciate the great debate he put on- ((thanks)) and Aaron also makes the same point-- there still needs to be control by the DM. I will agree that you cannot let the DM get hijacked by player arguments. To be fair to their positions, losing that will kill a game faster than anything else. But, I just disagree with them about how to maintain that control.
LordHell 03-01-05, 11:00 PM	LOL Okay, all of you out there that are obviously still hurt that your parents used this as a last resort on your snivelling and whining protests, you need to get real. Sometimes, the "because I said so" argument is the best type of clarification that you can give to a Player. Especially when explaining something to a Player to the point where he will be happy will cause a "bad" game experience or even a "lousy" DM method. Sometimes, the Players need to be happy with not knowing everything. Example? DM to Player A & B: Roll a Spot Check. Player A: Why? I just said I was going downstairs to check on the horses. Player B: I decide I don't want to go with him. DM to Player B: Okay, but before you go back, roll a Spot Check. Player B: But Why? I said I am not going with him. Player A: Yeah, I decide not to go either. DM to both Players: ROLL A SPOT CHECK - NOW. Both Players: Whhhhhhy? DM: Because I said so. I have actually seen this happen at conventions and I whole-heartedly agree with the DM using it. In fact, if he had not used it I was about ready to club both Players with a book or dice bag filled with broken glass. Players that need to be coddled every single time are immature babies and should be treated with strict DMing methods and their PCs should be slain as often and horribly as possible. :dragon: **** Well I never really tell my players to roll spot checks, I do it myself behind my screen to prevent this absurd metagame behaviour. I usually constantly roll dice an random moments to 'fient' such rolls, so my players never know whats going on.
charred 03-01-05, 11:11 PM	Yeah, you definitely should roll for them so as to avoid metagaming. If they roll a 1 or 20, they will know they either succeeded or failed. Feint rolls help too. Otherwise they know everytime you roll something is up. Great tactic.
KhanJackalMoreau 03-02-05, 02:02 AM	Such a disconnect here. A player acting the fool, and asking things like "How did he hit me, does he have bull's strength, no way does a Gnoll have the bonus to hit my character, I have AC 35. Is he an illusion?" All the while, the other players are annoyed at having to wait for their turn. Nobody would begrudge a DM to shut this guy up, and move on. On the other hand, if I'm told by the DM, "You fall", and I ask "Do I hold onto my sword or not?" and the DM shouts "SHUT UP YOU FELL NEXT PLAYER"... well, I wouldn't enjoy that very much. So yeah. The GM is in charge, but shouldn't be a douche.
Arrowhen 03-02-05, 03:13 AM	I love people that cannot stomach this type of attitude, mainly because I know if they are ever in combat where someone yells at them to get down - they will stand there saying very idignantly - "Why should I?" Then they will be shot and the world will be better off without them. Or, in other words, "People who don't do what I tell them to should be shot." Nice. :rolleyes:
LordHell 03-02-05, 03:28 AM	Or, in other words, "People who don't do what I tell them to should be shot." Nice. :rolleyes: What a great leap of logic this post is. Please, explain to me how he meant that?
PenderGrass 03-02-05, 03:49 AM	1) What does taking cover from gunfire have to do with asking a DM a question? It has everything to do with DMing - I am the original, twin 9-mil, DM. :D The DM is the final arbiter in D&D. You don't like it? Well, consider carefully if you can live with it and if not then you might want to seriously consider going to find another DM. Or be a DM. If you think all the decisions by your DM are that horrible - or that they just totally offend any sense of reason you have. Run your own game. One piece of advice though, don't expect to please everyone all the time. People will always have something to argue over, especially in D&D. Take this whole entire question you have here, and it seems that there have been several reasons given for either side. But, yet, still - you have people on one side of the fence and others on the other side. I for one have used this argument on more than one occasion to great effect and without anyone on the other side of the table becoming a whanking baby. As the arbiter of my game I reserve that right. As the DM I also am willing to listen to the Players' points of views - within reason, an eye towards the fluidity of the game, and with everyone's time in mind. In fact, here is a prime example of how I use this argument to great effect: Player A: I want psionics. Me, as DM: No. You can't have them. Player A: Why not? Me: They don't fit the Campaign World design I created. Player A: But, I want them for this cool PC, why can't I have them? Me: Because I said so. Player A: Okay. Can I be the Hat from the Monopoly game then? Me: :rolleyes: See how easily the Player ignored the actual reason? Some people will play the "how come?" game all night long given the chance. I would rather devote that time to getting everyone together to play D&D. Not f*** around with answering questions that I have already answered in the best way possible. :dragon: ****
PenderGrass 03-02-05, 03:57 AM	Or, in other words, "People who don't do what I tell them to should be shot." Nice. :rolleyes: Are you threatening to not do what I am telling you????? :dragon: PS - I don't believe I have told anyone to do anything, except maybe re-evaluate whether they can live with a DM making a decision they don't happen to agree with. PPS - People that don't believe me when I try to warn them of impending doom, get what they deserve. Some may be lucky and live, others not so. I have done my part by warning them. The rest is up to them, the Fates and whatever luck they may have. So, no - I never said someone "should be shot" - I implied if they die it is their own damn fault for being indignant in the middle of a gun battle. PPSS - To spoon-feed the meaning to those that don't know what I was saying, I am quite capable of making decisions that I don't have to explain in detail to my Players. If it ever got to the point where they were that upset about it (which they never would be, they are that great a group of Players - everyone should be jealous of them), I would not be beyond leaving myself or asking them to leave. Thereby, metaphysically speaking, shooting them or the game in the head to put it out of its misery and say "the world is better for that having ended." ****
Arrowhen 03-02-05, 04:03 AM	Player A: I want psionics. Me, as DM: No. You can't have them. Player A: Why not? Me: They don't fit the Campaign World design I created. Player A: But, I want them for this cool PC, why can't I have them? Me: Because I said so. Player A: Okay. Can I be the Hat from the Monopoly game then? See, I wouldn't choose to play with a player like that in the first place.
PhaedrusXY 03-02-05, 04:15 AM	I didn't like this kind of BS when I got it from my parents as a kid. I'm not a kid anymore, and I sure as hell am not going to put up with it from some jerk who gets off on a power trip from running a game. I understand that sometimes you need to just say "Let's move on with the game for now, and discuss this later." But that's not the same as "Because I said so." One is a reasonable statement uttered between adults. The other is not.
Tenzhi 03-02-05, 04:24 AM	If you don't know why you are doing something, DON'T DO IT! But that's not a very interesting way to run things. Things are much more interesting when the DM isn't entirely sure what's going on either. Of course, I suppose knowing why you don't know why you're doing something may count for something... or something.
Bran_Dawri 03-02-05, 07:05 AM	Depends on why he uses the 'because I said so' reasoning. D&D is a complicated game. It has many rules that can easily contradict one another. Usually (IMO, anyway), the best way to solve this is DM intervention. Sometimes he'll be able to come up with a rational answer appropriate to the situation at hand. Note that as far as I'm concerned this is the only way to judge conflicting rules. Use whatever's most appropriate to the situation at hand; giving a ruling and then mindlessly applying it whenever the two rules conflict is bad. It indicates that you're unwilling to think and adapt to the story/player's actions/situation. Sometimes the two sides are about equal in 'rightness' (see the entirety of the 'paladin moral issues' thread for an example), and only a simple gut decision can solve the problem. It's not very satisfactory, but there it is. So there. Because I said so. :P
Preyo 03-02-05, 08:10 AM	I have never once had to tell one of my players "Because I'm the DM". I'm not saying that we've never had disagreements or arguments, but the players need to know that you are looking out for the best interest of the gaming experience of every single person at the table. I don't let arguing or lack of trust interfere with my sessions. If there is a decision to be made I make it, and I don't allow player's to bicker endlessly. I don't play favorites so all my players trust me to do what's best for them in the long run. If I ask a player to do something, they can ask why, they can even make a case for their point of view as long as it doesn't turn into whining, complaining, or arguing. And whenever a player asks me why, I tell them, even if it's just to say, "You'll find out once you've uncovered more of the plot." I've never had a problem, but if I did I would have the player leave for the rest of that night's session. And if it happened a second time they wouldn't be gaming with me anymore. I've played under DM's who've played favorites or been power hungry, it breaks your trust in their ability as a DM to ensure that EVERYONE, has a good time. I've also had the priviledge of playing under some very good DM's, who have been able to make it so I have even enjoyed sessions when I've had a beloved character die. It comes down to fairness, if the player's know you're fair, and looking out for them, you don't run into nearly as many problems.
jasper 03-02-05, 08:44 AM	I have used "because I said so ..." 1. Because I was immature and so were my players and they were trying to tick me off. 2. It is minor rule call if wrong and you lose you not going to die over so game on. 3. You are whining and I have given you my reasons already. 4. Something about to happen and I need to know who are targets and who will be slapping leather. 5. Because I know something which affects the raw which you don't. And if I tell you more you will mega. True story 2 nd game of Chill. Problem player was at least 5 years old than me and dm was 8 years younger. Problem player was tick because one of his rolls did not give him the information. Dm stated "because I said so". Problem player left the room and we had fun. At the end of game Dm revealed that new monster nerf the problem player power/skills.
DrMorganes 03-02-05, 08:52 AM	"Because if you don't stop chewing on my last nerve I am going show the naked cowboy pictures to every female who walks into the house for the next 20 years, including your grandmother and the minister's wife. In fact, I will make a print of said picture and keep it in my wallet for wider distribution. So go on, I dare you. Whine at me again. I know how to upload pictures too." **falls out of chair laughing** Sounds like life at my house. It's my firm belief every parent should have sufficient blackmail material on all of their children to keep them in line. Preach on, Sister Weaver! Preach on! ;)
Phrennzy 03-02-05, 10:12 AM	Player A: Okay. Can I be the Hat from the Monopoly game then? :rofl:
Phrennzy 03-02-05, 10:16 AM	What seems to be sticking in people's craws is the actual phrase "Because I said so." There is so much animosity towards that phrase it's palpable. "Because I said so." carries the meaning that YOU are not worthy to know, capable of understanding, or worth enough to take the time to explain in further detail. Instead of "Because I said so." may other phrases would not draw the same hostility. I was going to type a bunch of phrases but I'm too tired to think about them.
Thoronmir 03-02-05, 10:41 AM	As usual, context has a significant impact on the issue. People have posited various contexts in which “Because I said so!” can appear alternatively appropriate and condemnable. Personally, I don’t think the phrase should ever be the first club out of the bag. As the examples already posted illustrate, most DMs resort to this most draconian of phrases for one of three reasons: (1) the player has ignored or rejected the DM’s rational explanation of his ruling; (2) the DM wishes not to reveal an element of the plot or specific game mechanics that might give the players an undeserved advantage; or (3) the DM is just making up rules as he goes and chooses not to be tied down by such frivolous things as logic, fairness, or consistency. In Situation (1), the DM has tried to explain his ruling, so it’s not as if “Because I said so!” was his first response. No one wants D&D to degrade into a debate. If the DM is in violation of the RAW, I have no problem with players bringing it to his attention. But beyond that, players need to accept the DM’s ruling and move on. Situation (2) is a little tricky in that the DM may not want to admit that there are plot repercussions to the encounter. The thing is, too often, this situation involves metagaming by the players. “We’ve already done 50 points of damage to that Orc and I know he can’t have more than 25 … why isn’t he dead?” The DM is not required to justify such matters during the game. I’m not about to take time at the table to break down how I’ve built every NPC or monster just so the players don’t feel “cheated.” As for Situation (3), well, all I can say is that it’s time to find a new DM. I’m much more forgiving of players’ questions regarding matters of game-mechanics, in which consistency is important. I want the players to understand how I’m interpreting the mechanical rules so that they can use the same interpretations to their advantage. However, I won’t necessarily stop and explain every decision I make since, as noted above, there may be special circumstances of which the PCs are unaware. In such cases, my usual response is ask them how they think the RAW ought to apply (I do this to make sure I haven’t overlooked a pertinent rule). Assuming I’ve taken the RAW into account, I usually tell them, “Just trust me … let’s keep the game going … I can’t explain it right now, but will be happy to discuss when we’re done for the night.” A player who can’t accept that answer isn’t welcome at my table.
PenderGrass 03-02-05, 12:37 PM	I didn't like this kind of BS when I got it from my parents as a kid. I'm not a kid anymore, and I sure as hell am not going to put up with it from some jerk who gets off on a power trip from running a game. I understand that sometimes you need to just say "Let's move on with the game for now, and discuss this later." But that's not the same as "Because I said so." One is a reasonable statement uttered between adults. The other is not. :rofl: Are you seriously saying unless someone sugar coats their words you are gonna pack up your dice and go home? My friendships are not based on whether someone is always saying things to not hurt anothers feelings, but whether someone is being honest with one another. Bluntness is sometimes, in fact - most times - the best form of communication. Especially between friends. I suggest that if you are this sensitive about a certain phrase, that you may want to reflect on your own maturity. Knowing my group of friends, if you made this statement, you would hear everything phrased with "because I said so" from that point until, 1) you left in tears, 2) grew up and admitted how foolish you are by being so sensitive to a certain phrase. Granted, a power-tripping DM is a bad thing, but obviously the "best" power-tripping DM would make sure to use flowery and sugar-coated phrases to disguise his power trip, n'est pas? Player A: What do you mean, I can't benefit from more than one curative spell per game year? Clever Power-Tripping DM: Your distress is noted and I will take your complaint under advisement, but for now you need to rest for the next week to regain all your HPs. Player A: Gee, I totally disagree with that reasoning since it completely nerfs my Cleric, but you used such nice words that I won't disagree further. DM: Mwah-ha-ha... If you have been paying attention in life, you will realise that there are people that use flowery language to dupe gullible people into thinking that they are so wonderful and great. Treating someone with respect is more than just the choice of phrases used. Maturity has nothing to do with someone using the phrase - "because I said so." :dragon: ****
jaspercrey 03-02-05, 01:27 PM	Well, sometimes asking "why" can be just as bad as "because i said so . . ." Taking a previous exmaple: DM: Please roll a Spot check. Player: Why? What would a player think the DM would want him to roll a Spot check for? Maybe to Spot something? Sometimes there is no excuse for asking "why" - especially when the answer is so complelely obvious. Sometimes players ask "why" not because they really want to know the DMs reasons behind something, but becuase they want to make it known that they are not happy regardless of the DMs reasoning. Can I understand why some DMs would say "Because I said so!" ? Absolutely. Would I condone it? Probabaly not.
Arrowhen 03-02-05, 01:32 PM	Are you seriously saying unless someone sugar coats their words you are gonna pack up your dice and go home? "Let's move on with the game for now, and discuss this later" is NOT just a sugar coated form of "Because I said so." The two statements convey entirely different messages. The former says "I respect your opinion and I want to come to an agreement with you; however, as DM I am responsible for keeping the game running smoothly, so let's move on for now. But after the game, we'll discuss it and hopefully you'll be able to see where I'm coming from." The latter says "HOW DARE YOU THREATEN MY PRECIOUS AUTHORITY, YOU... YOU... PLAYER, YOU!" The desire for authority is a sign of insecurity.
weasel fierce 03-02-05, 02:08 PM	I dont see a particular issue, unless the DM is deliberately doing dumb things. For the most part, the DM is the one that calls for skill checks, dice rolls, or determines how rulings fall. If you dont like that particular DM's style, run your own game instead.
HamHam 03-02-05, 02:13 PM	If a DM has to use this either he, or his players, or both, suck.
weasel fierce 03-02-05, 02:29 PM	My experience in the past is that giving lengthy explanations leads to people questioning those explanations, or simply arguing for the sake of doing so. While a certain amount of player complaints are valid, for the most part its just dragging the game down, while one person tries to weasel their way out of something, and 5-6 people sit around and watch
PenderGrass 03-02-05, 02:32 PM	The latter says "HOW DARE YOU THREATEN MY PRECIOUS AUTHORITY, YOU... YOU... PLAYER, YOU! Actually, you are placing that emphasis and meaning upon the statement. A person can also use the statement to mean - "I have already discussed this with you, in-game and out-of-game, for the last 3 months, and I am really tired of going round and round with you about it. I have heard all sides of the argument and even researched the subject extensively in my spare time. So, I am finally putting my foot down and telling you that it is the end of this ongoing, time-consuming and totally inane argument that you are not going to win." In that circumstance, at the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ending a dispute in this manner. It may not be pretty. It may not even be viewed as being fair. But it is direct, to the point, and final. Sometimes, that is what is required of a DM. If a DM cannot make a final decision instead of opening endless, in-game, out-of-game, or whatever else type of pointless arguments, then he should turn in his DMG to the same place he dropped off his spine. That is what is required of an arbiter. Making judgement calls. If a Player finds that he cannot stomach the authority of a DM, he should find another game, DM, pasttime, whatever. As someone else pointed out, most DMs put a lot of effort and time into their games, and bogging it down with endless arguments over obscure and undefined rules that have been fairly researched, listened to, and reviewed, is just unfair to everyone involved. A DM can, and should, assert some amount of authority to return the game to what it should be - the game. If it means drawing a line in the sand, then do it. If the DM is being abusive - he will soon find that he is out of Players. At that time he himself can reflect on whether he overstepped his bounds. But, the phrase "because I said so" is not abusive in and of itself. In fact, it may even be followed up with "...and if you don't like it, I am sorry, but there is the door." :dragon: ****
JKnight 03-02-05, 03:08 PM	Actually, you are placing that emphasis and meaning upon the statement. A person can also use the statement to mean - "I have already discussed this with you, in-game and out-of-game, for the last 3 months, and I am really tired of going round and round with you about it. I have heard all sides of the argument and even researched the subject extensively in my spare time. So, I am finally putting my foot down and telling you that it is the end of this ongoing, time-consuming and totally inane argument that you are not going to win." In that circumstance, at the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ending a dispute in this manner. It may not be pretty. It may not even be viewed as being fair. But it is direct, to the point, and final. Sometimes, that is what is required of a DM. If a DM cannot make a final decision instead of opening endless, in-game, out-of-game, or whatever else type of pointless arguments, then he should turn in his DMG to the same place he dropped off his spine. That is what is required of an arbiter. Making judgement calls. If a Player finds that he cannot stomach the authority of a DM, he should find another game, DM, pasttime, whatever. As someone else pointed out, most DMs put a lot of effort and time into their games, and bogging it down with endless arguments over obscure and undefined rules that have been fairly researched, listened to, and reviewed, is just unfair to everyone involved. A DM can, and should, assert some amount of authority to return the game to what it should be - the game. If it means drawing a line in the sand, then do it. If the DM is being abusive - he will soon find that he is out of Players. At that time he himself can reflect on whether he overstepped his bounds. But, the phrase "because I said so" is not abusive in and of itself. In fact, it may even be followed up with "...and if you don't like it, I am sorry, but there is the door." :dragon: **** I love the way people's arguments get more rational over time. Now, at least, we're not talking about shooting someone for disagreeing with us - we're talking about a subject that has been gone over in painstaking detail the last "3 months". Okay, so that's fine. Suddenly the details are different. I can accept that. My only point here is that there are easier methods to solve arguments, or debates, especially over 3 months(?!?!) than resorting to base language like "I said so". In my experience, the better the DM's communication skills, the less time needed to explain common sensical things to players. Now, you seem to be saying that some players are just this intransigent. But pigheaded as they are, they surprisingly respond to "I said so". I doubt that. I highly doubt that. If they respond to that, then they respond to other forms of communication. If you're too reactionary to find that string of words, you'll tend to act out with bullheaded measures of your own. I believe that responding in such a way is an example of how far out of control a DM actually is. Good luck with that. JK
PenderGrass 03-02-05, 03:27 PM	I love the way people's arguments get more rational over time. Now, at least, we're not talking about shooting someone for disagreeing with us - we're talking about a subject that has been gone over in painstaking detail the last "3 months". 3 months or 3 minutes, there is a point where a DM may need to make a final decision. Whether the Player accepts that decision or not, is not up to the DM. :dragon: PS - I suggest that you go back over the posts in regard to the misconception that anyone spoke about shooting anyone. You may enlighten yourself to be more up to speed about making comments in that matter. ****
LordHell 03-02-05, 03:37 PM	As far as I see it people who have a problem with the term 'Because I said so' because they THEMSELVES have an insecurity problem. 1. They have a problem with authority, and quite frankly the DM is authority in D&D. If you don't like that, you be the DM. *mutters something about chaotic people* 2. You have this knee jerk reaction to the phrase and automatically assume that somehow the person thinks you're not good enough to know the reason why. In some cases this is true, in other cases this is not true. Now it seems to me that the people arguing for 'I said so' are using examples of annoying insecure players. The people who are arguging against 'I said so' are using examples of powertripping DM's. I think to be honest there are far more annoying players than powertripping DM's, because at the end of the day it's the DM's responsibility to make the game run smoothly and fun for everyone. DM's who try to 'win' or whatever and like to powertrip generally don't have too many players left at the end of the day and games like that don't last long so arn't very common. If you decide to be a player, then you have to accept the DM's word is FINAL. The DM is not the only one who has responsibility to make the game run smoothly and fun for all. If you can't accept the DM's word as FINAL then you should either not play D&D or be the DM yourself, but leave your insecurities at the door (wah wah i hated it when my parents used that term on me wah wah). Let's also all remember that 'I said so' wasn't the term used by the DM in the original topic, but rather the player 'sugarcoating' the topic to make it sound worse. I doubt hardly any DMs actually use that term specifically anyway. When an aguement broke out over it, the DM ended the conversation with, "That's the way it is. I'm the DM and I make the decision." Im guessing that most people who are complaining about the 'I said so' term and what it means are players. Let me tell you something about being a DM. Most people who DM don't DM because they want 'power' over the players, we DM because we love creating. We love to create a new world for YOU the players to experiance. We love it when you come out of our world at the end of each gaming session and go 'wow that was fun, just like a good book!'. We love to have you interact through a believable world with beleivable people and we love the unexpected challanges that you present to us, and also the challanges that you manage to overcome. We have authority to make sure that those above things happen. Without that authority the game would bog down into mindless bickering, and you as the players have the respect that authority.
JKnight 03-02-05, 03:43 PM	3 months or 3 minutes, there is a point where a DM may need to make a final decision. Granted. The method of "I said so", is just a **** poor way of doing it. PS - I suggest that you go back over the posts in regard to the misconception that anyone spoke about shooting anyone. You may enlighten yourself to be more up to speed about making comments in that matter. I've read every post on here up until now. I'm not illiterate, and I certainly understood the meaning of your first post. Following it up with some hot shot, cowboy image claim of being the "original, twin 9-mil DM" is, in my humble opinion, not only lame, but also bounds away from your original statement. You want to retract it. Fine. Do so, but at least have the courtesy to write, "sorry, I reacted harshly there, and I didn't mean it like that at all". I'm not trying to single you out here, but it is that exact reactionary impulse that leads poor DM's into blanket statements like "I said so". Later. JK
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-02-05, 03:52 PM	My arguement wasn't that the DM's final word isn't the final decision. My arguement was that when a DM says "That's how it is because I said so" without explaining his reasoning, he is leaving the players to assume that he is blowing them off and doesn't care about their questions. Yet, by explaining his reasons to the players, he's giving them a bit of the plot. This is what makes it bad. As a player, I try really hard not too metagame, but not metagaming AT ALL is impossible. As a player, I prefer my DM not to give me OOC explanations about the plot (even hints), as it's much more fun to discover it as my PC would have. Caveat: If the DM constantly give the players a "that's my word and it's final" answer, there is a problem. This problem can come from 2 sources. 1): The DM. He's making arbitrary rulings because of a power trip, poor knowledge of the rules or just plain dictatorial mentality. no plot reasonning behind a "wrong" ruling. This DM is obviously at fault. 2): The PLAYERS. They're asking very technical questions about everything and feel it's there god given right to know every modifier to the situation, so that they can savegard the letter of the rules. These players are boring to play with as they slow the game to a crawl. no DM likes to have everything he say contested. Point is, let's not forget most "classical" (powergaming, nerfing, alignement, monty hauling, killfrenzy...) DM (or PC) problem can be caused by either the DM or the PC (and often, both).
LordHell 03-02-05, 03:59 PM	I'm not trying to single you out here, but it is that exact reactionary impulse that leads poor DM's into blanket statements like "I said so". Later. JK It's also that poor reactionary response from players who ignore the context of the discussion that leads to poor players and mindless arguments. The original topic went like this: "We argued about it and the DM said 'I'm the DM and it's my ruling" Then we got a whole bunch of insecure players ranting about powertripping DM's who come out with the term 'I said so' despite the fact it wasn't mentioned in the original post at all, rather, the topic of the post. Which is a blatant attempt by the original poster to twist the subject to make it sound like he was hard done by, and it seems it worked. Now we have all these reactionary players coming out and telling us about how any DM who uses that term is a poor DM, period, no exception. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me to be talking about reactionary responses.
PenderGrass 03-02-05, 04:19 PM	I've read every post on here up until now. I'm not illiterate, and I certainly understood the meaning of your first post. Following it up with some hot shot, cowboy image claim of being the "original, twin 9-mil DM" is, in my humble opinion, not only lame, but also bounds away from your original statement. Your assumption of me being "cowboy" in the least is very insulting - especially since I am the furthest thing from a "cowboy" there is. An antithesis of "cowboy," as it were. You want to retract it. Fine. Do so, but at least have the courtesy to write, "sorry, I reacted harshly there, and I didn't mean it like that at all". Have you ever considered that you have a problem? I'm not trying to single you out here, but it is that exact reactionary impulse that leads poor DM's into blanket statements like "I said so". Ah, but you are singling me out. Aren't you? When you word a statement, thusly: "I am not blah blah blah, BUT blah blah blah." ...that "but" always seems to completely negate anything prior to it. Doesn't it? Young grasshopper, you have so much to learn. :cool: :dragon: ****
Arrowhen 03-02-05, 04:19 PM	Let's also all remember that 'I said so' wasn't the term used by the DM in the original topic, but rather the player 'sugarcoating' the topic to make it sound worse. I doubt hardly any DMs actually use that term specifically anyway. "That's the way it is. I'm the DM and I make the decision" is no better. 1. They have a problem with authority, and quite frankly the DM is authority in D&D. If you don't like that, you be the DM. *mutters something about chaotic people* I don't like that, and I AM the DM. ;) I guess what it comes down to is that there are different DM "alignments." I'm very much a Chaotic Good DM -- Chaotic in that I believe that rules are tools, not goals and Good in that I'm happier when the PCs win than I am when they lose. I do NOT consider myself the ultimate authority at our gaming table. The ultimate authority is the shared experience we all help to create; each of us is responsible for ensuring that we all have fun. In general, that responsibility entails me making decisions and the players accepting them; occasionally, that responsibility requires me to reverse a ruling and say, "no, you're right, THIS happens instead," based upon input from my players. In either case the question is not "who's in charge?" but rather, "what's going to make this game fun and fair for all?"
JKnight 03-02-05, 04:21 PM	It's also that poor reactionary response from players who ignore the context of the discussion that leads to poor players and mindless arguments. The original topic went like this: "We argued about it and the DM said 'I'm the DM and it's my ruling" Then we got a whole bunch of insecure players ranting about powertripping DM's who come out with the term 'I said so' despite the fact it wasn't mentioned in the original post at all, rather, the topic of the post. Which is a blatant attempt by the original poster to twist the subject to make it sound like he was hard done by, and it seems it worked. Now we have all these reactionary players coming out and telling us about how any DM who uses that term is a poor DM, period, no exception. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me to be talking about reactionary responses. LordHell, No wonder I couldn't get that name when I signed on to these boards. Seriously though, in response to your statement above - you may very well be correct about the reasoning of the post in the first place. And you certainly are correct about the authentic phrase being something different than "I said so", and more along the lines semantically of "I'm the DM, and I make the rules". All that is granted. Now I'm not sure who all here are players, and who all are DM's. Myself, I'm a DM. That's what I do in regards to D&D. And I know all the joys of creating worlds, and watching players enjoyment come to fruition. But I also know people, heck, I study them, if only to better portray them in games. And people, lemme tell ya, are not all one hundred percent innocent of power trips. A lot of DM's mistake their role in the game as being one of authority. Mostly this tends to come from DM's with low paying, menial jobs; the type of people that hit dead ends in life right and left. "I'm the DM, and I make the rules." That's the statement, or something like it, right? Well, yes you are the DM, but Wizards of the Coast makes the rules, and that's why I just spent over a hundred dollars buying the books. So that we could play the game as it is written; not some cockeyed concoction put together by someone too busy, and/or inept, to create such a vast, encompassing mechanic. So many DM's would have us believe that they are renaisance men, when the truth is quite the contrary. Look, unfortunately I don't have too long at the moment; life calls. But what I'm saying is, there are better ways. The majority of my argument on this post has been stipulating reasons not to use the phrase "I said so". Whether this example used it or not, the reasons for striving to find better wording remains solid. JK
Cleric_of_Asclepius 03-02-05, 04:26 PM	"That's the way it is. I'm the DM and I make the decision" is no better. The quote above indicates that this thread is simply about semantics. Some DM’s apparently disagree with the way it was said rather than the meaning behind what was said. Whether the DM proclaims, “Because I said so,” or whether the DM uses some politically correct statement such as “I would appreciate it if you stayed away from a character that focuses on psionics because it will upset the game balance I worked so hard to create,” the end result is the same. NO PSIONICS!!! My decision is final!!! Similarly, the DM has the right to make decisions regarding rules interpretations, etc., without endless “PC” debate. If you don’t like the tone of his voice or the manner in which it was said, you are being too sensitive. Get over it!! Accept the DM’s decision and move on… Then again, maybe you would feel better if I coddled you with politically correct language. No matter, the end result will be the same. The Cleric
Cantankerous 03-02-05, 04:27 PM	How about the simple, "because I said so", with the proviso "for now" thrown in, so that the flow of the game isn't disrupted, and a good discusion, if it seems warranted to the involved parties, afterwards? Look, as long as the DM has adhered to the RAW, or set down what in his game does not adhere to the RAW ahead of time, and is able to be honest with himself, and not self centered and conceited, requiring that ALL bow before him, then these situations just don't arise. In the sitiuation that it does arise, which should be rare, I haven't had one for months and we play twice weekly, if you've picked your players with an eye towards maturity and a chance to enjoy yourselves, even those few aren't any stress. I've certainly ammended my in game decisions (for FUTURE reference) based on someting my players have brought up. It makes the whole thing more smooth if you can put your ego in your back pocket and think about what the other person has to say. If you're comparing your players to whiners, YOU have some growing up to do; either as a DM, or as a person in the skill of picking your friends. Isshia
Arrowhen 03-02-05, 04:39 PM	Whether the DM proclaims, “Because I said so,” or whether the DM uses some politically correct statement such as “I would appreciate it if you stayed away from a character that focuses on psionics because it will upset the game balance I worked so hard to create,” the end result is the same. NO PSIONICS!!! The end result of the first statement is no psionics. The end result of the second statement is no psionics and a player who has been reminded that the DM works hard to create game balance and that as a player, she too bears some of the responsibility for maintaining that balance. Which of these two results do you think will lead to a healthier campaign in the long run?
LordHell 03-02-05, 04:53 PM	LordHell, No wonder I couldn't get that name when I signed on to these boards. Seriously though, in response to your statement above - you may very well be correct about the reasoning of the post in the first place. And you certainly are correct about the authentic phrase being something different than "I said so", and more along the lines semantically of "I'm the DM, and I make the rules". All that is granted. Now I'm not sure who all here are players, and who all are DM's. Myself, I'm a DM. That's what I do in regards to D&D. And I know all the joys of creating worlds, and watching players enjoyment come to fruition. But I also know people, heck, I study them, if only to better portray them in games. And people, lemme tell ya, are not all one hundred percent innocent of power trips. A lot of DM's mistake their role in the game as being one of authority. Mostly this tends to come from DM's with low paying, menial jobs; the type of people that hit dead ends in life right and left. "I'm the DM, and I make the rules." That's the statement, or something like it, right? Well, yes you are the DM, but Wizards of the Coast makes the rules, and that's why I just spent over a hundred dollars buying the books. So that we could play the game as it is written; not some cockeyed concoction put together by someone too busy, and/or inept, to create such a vast, encompassing mechanic. So many DM's would have us believe that they are renaisance men, when the truth is quite the contrary. Look, unfortunately I don't have too long at the moment; life calls. But what I'm saying is, there are better ways. The majority of my argument on this post has been stipulating reasons not to use the phrase "I said so". Whether this example used it or not, the reasons for striving to find better wording remains solid. JK No, I disagree with you entirely, but it doesnt mean I dont respect your opinion. Sorry about the nickname. I have been using it for roughly 14 years now tho (not on these boards) ;) I am the DM and I make the rules. The books we all payed for (being a DM, you usually payed for more anyway) have nothing to do with this. The rules WoTC made are a common ground that we can revolve our games around, but in MY world and MY game that I spent HOURS, WEEKS, or even MONTHS making I make the rules. Those rules revolve around EVERYONE having the most fun, and if they are unfair on one player it is for a good reason. Having said that I tend to do explain my decisions to my players and I probably wouldn't use the exact phrase 'I said so', but I stand by the fact that the DM has the final say and players NEED to respect that. If the DM is being a powertripper it is fairly clear from the onset and that game won't last long, but if players go into every game with the mindset that 'I paid x amount of money for this PHB, so im going to challange every rule the DM makes that I don't agree with' then that player is going to ruin the game. I believe that in my games I am the authority figure, part judge and part director. I certainly don't have a menial job, I think you are confusing 'authority' with powertrip. I consider myself a 'lawful' person. In other games where I am not the DM I respect the DM's authority for the sake of the game. Even if I reaaaaaallllyyy want to play a Wizard and the DM says no I respect that, it's his campaign. If the DM ends up being a loser (and I've been in a few of those games) then I politely leave the game after the end of the session when I've had enough. I dont get off over squashing players and I certainly don't like killing them - I believe that TPKing a party because they've annoyed you is lame. I DO get off over having a great time with my group, and that includes putting an end to mindless bickering and getting on with the game. Fortunately it's a rare occasion that my games end up like that, but I reserve the right to override anything you spent your precious money on (especially none-core) books if its detrimental to everyones enjoyment. I think at the end of the day we both agree that the principal of the game is for everyone to have fun, and really, I think we're just talking past each other. The power the DM holds can be used either wisely or poorly. That is humanity
Cleric_of_Asclepius 03-02-05, 04:53 PM	The end result of the first statement is no psionics. The end result of the second statement is no psionics and a player who has been reminded that the DM works hard to create game balance and that as a player, she too bears some of the responsibility for maintaining that balance. Which of these two results do you think will lead to a healthier campaign in the long run? Your second end result may or may not be true. I have tried the latter phraseology and the response has still been a sulking player who constantly reminded me how "weak" his character was and how unhappy he was that I had the nerve to make him play a core class. I no longer game with this individual, but the point is still valid. Some people will not like a ruling no matter how you couch the language. At some point, there needs to be finality, and "because I said so" may be the only way to get there. I agree it should not be a first response, but it is a valid option. The Cleric
Arrowhen 03-02-05, 05:12 PM	Many of the arguments on this thread seem to boil down to: "It's ok to use obnoxious tactics against obnoxious players." To me, it's even MORE ok to simply not invite said obnoxious players back to the next session. Rigid authoritarian tactics may shut down most of the audible whining, at least for a while, but more often than not the obnoxious players will just end up adopting passive agressive tactics to get their way.
Cleric_of_Asclepius 03-02-05, 06:50 PM	Rigid authoritarian tactics may shut down most of the audible whining, at least for a while, but more often than not the obnoxious players will just end up adopting passive agressive tactics to get their way. I think just the opposite. It was my attempt at being politically correct with this player that, I believe, allowed the incessant whining and other passive aggressive tactics to continue. Had I been more forceful, I believe it would have ended the matter. Either the player would have made no further mention of it, or he simply would have left the game (that is, sooner than he did). A poster above likened this to child rearing. I couldn’t agree more. A child will continue to push to get his way until told forcefully, "No. Because I said so, and don't make me tell you again!" After a statement such as this, the "negotiations" end. Hopefully, a player won’t continue to push until it reaches this point. But if she does, a firm decision should bring finality in one form or another. Perhaps “finality” means the player picks up her dice and goes home. If that happens, so be it. The Cleric
Arrowhen 03-02-05, 07:00 PM	A poster above likened this to child rearing. I couldn’t agree more. A child will continue to push to get his way until told forcefully, "No. Because I said so, and don't make me tell you again!" After a statement such as this, the "negotiations" end. Hopefully, a player won’t continue to push until it reaches this point. But if she does, a firm decision should bring finality in one form or another. Perhaps “finality” means the player picks up her dice and goes home. If that happens, so be it. I'm glad *I've* never had to play with a DM who viewed his players as "children" who need to be "reared."
LordHell 03-02-05, 07:22 PM	I'm glad *I've* never had to play with a DM who viewed his players as "children" who need to be "reared." Not worth it, just going round and round and round.
Rolk Flameraven 03-02-05, 08:25 PM	Have I used it? Yes. I've used it a heck of a lot, am I a bad DM? I don't know, my players are still with me and they don’t seem to hate me so I guess I'm ok. Why do I use it? Well when you’re a rules lawyer, and you've got two friends who are rules lawyers and all three of you think your right and the other two or three people in the room are not and your 'conversation' is about ready to wake up the rest of the house I've found it works. What happens is the one of the ones I've over ridden goes finds the book and finds out I'm right, he's right or we are both right (has happened) or we are both wrong (has happens more then once). If I'm right they get the dawning look, if they are right they show me and I start using the right rule from that point on after grumbling about how it was that way in 3.0 (once I even went back to AD&D and looked properly sheepish) It’s how we work. What worries me about some of the posts here is that people seem to use "because I said so" to not reveal something in the plot or a monster stat or something. My players ask "why?" or do the "I know this guy should be dead by now God damn it!" I do my evil DM smile and my best Muhahahahahah! It works wonders, its just like an "I said so"; in that they get nothing out of it AND you can use it for no reason at all save for messing with them.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-03-05, 01:13 AM	In my experience, the better the DM's communication skills, the less time needed to explain common sensical things to players. Now, you seem to be saying that some players are just this intransigent. But pigheaded as they are, they surprisingly respond to "I said so". I doubt that. I highly doubt that. If they respond to that, then they respond to other forms of communication. If you're too reactionary to find that string of words, you'll tend to act out with bullheaded measures of your own. I believe that responding in such a way is an example of how far out of control a DM actually is. Good luck with that. JK True, but explainning the hidden reasons to the players give them OOC information about the plot. As a player, I prefer to find things as my PC would. Less risk of metagaming. At best, the DM's gonna say: you're right, usualy it would work that way. This allow the player to understand that somwething strange happened. That said, the DM's not necessarily out of control. The fault can be the DM's, the player's or (80% of the case) a little of both. Player who constantly ask technical questions are annoying for a DM. More than that, to a point, if you have a problem between story and rules, the rules have to give.
Phrennzy 03-03-05, 01:28 AM	PenderGrass - is the last word in every one of your posts a cuss word, or just four asterisks?
aaron3579 03-03-05, 01:34 AM	PenderGrass - is the last word in every one of your posts a cuss word, or just four asterisks? Hey, my Drill Sergeant ended every one of his expression's with G D it. And he was a pretty cool dude... Sorry, I know, I know, the CoC says... :rolleyes:
Arrowhen 03-03-05, 02:25 AM	Not worth it, just going round and round and round. Heh. I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative for its own sake. It's just that there's so much pro-authoritarianism in this thread that I feel compelled to offer what I think is a valid alternative. Yes, I'll admit that there are immature players who care more about having the "kewelst charactor" than about having fun as a group. Yes, I understand that there are immature players whose approach to D&D is "I'm gonna do all the stuff I wish I could get away with at SCHOOL!" rather than "What would it be like to be this character in this world?" And yes, there are immature players whose favorite part of any gaming session is "Haw haw! I remembered an obscure rule that the DM FORGOT! Yay me!" I understand that those types of immature players exist, and that the concept of shared responsibility around the gaming table would be completely lost on them... That is why I only choose to game with mature players. (No matter what age they happen to be.)
Cleric_of_Asclepius 03-03-05, 09:44 AM	That is why I only choose to game with mature players. (No matter what age they happen to be.) The last time I checked, mature people can have involved, lengthy discussions on rules interpretations, etc. Those discussions can also be respectful. As a mature player, I realize that those lengthy discussions need to end at some point for the sake of the game and the other players. When that time comes and when I am told by the DM, "I understand your point of view on this, but I disagree. This is how I am ruling. End of discussion." I accept it and move on. You may find abruptness obnoxious. It is not. It has a valid place in the game environment, and is as valid as a "softer" response. The Cleric
Arrowhen 03-03-05, 12:12 PM	The last time I checked, mature people can have involved, lengthy discussions on rules interpretations, etc. Those discussions can also be respectful. Of course they can. I never meant to imply that they couldn't. As a mature player, I realize that those lengthy discussions need to end at some point for the sake of the game and the other players. When that time comes and when I am told by the DM, "I understand your point of view on this, but I disagree. This is how I am ruling. End of discussion." I accept it and move on. You may find abruptness obnoxious. It is not.[/quote] No, it's not abruptness I object to, it's disrespect. "I understand your point of view on this, but I disagree. This is how I am ruling" is a perfectly resonable and respectful way of bringing a discussion to a close in order to get on with the game. However, the bulk of this thread has not been about ending discussions in a reasonable and respectful manner, it's been about DMs precluding discussion with "I am the DM. My word is law" chest-pounding dominance assertions.
PenderGrass 03-03-05, 01:23 PM	However, the bulk of this thread has not been about ending discussions in a reasonable and respectful manner, it's been about DMs precluding discussion with "I am the DM. My word is law" chest-pounding dominance assertions. Really? I have not seen that the "bulk" of this thread is that. I have actually seen the "bulk" of the thread as a bunch of posts that seem to have been written by people with some sort of childhood flashback nightmares about the phrase - "because I said so." Countered by people that say - "yes, this phrase can be used by the DM in certain situations without having it mean anything more than 'end of discussion.'" :dragon: PS - Phrennzy, I cannot be held responsible for what this dragon does or says. ****
HamHam 03-03-05, 01:40 PM	I have actually seen the "bulk" of the thread as a bunch of posts that seem to have been written by people with some sort of childhood flashback nightmares about the phrase - "because I said so." Countered by people that say - "yes, this phrase can be used by the DM in certain situations without having it mean anything more than 'end of discussion.'" Except, if the player takes it that way (which he very well might judging by the people here) it can't be used that way. Therefore the intelligent and mature DM will be concious of the phrasing he uses and not use something as potentially gratting as "because I said so".
PenderGrass 03-03-05, 02:05 PM	Except, if the player takes it that way (which he very well might judging by the people here) it can't be used that way. Therefore the intelligent and mature DM will be concious of the phrasing he uses and not use something as potentially gratting as "because I said so". Which is one of the reasons I am so immensely grateful that my Players are all mature enough if I were to say "because I said so" to them that they would realise that I am not attacking them. That, in fact, I am just tired of listening to them and they should just shut their pie holes and conform to my every whim. Because I said so. :D Really, at my table we can cheer on for other people to have their PC die horribly or call each other names and all of us know that we are just f***ing around. That is what friends do. As I said before, judging by the people posting here I am so eternally grateful that I have the group of friends that I do that I will kiss god for blessing me so. At least my friends aren't so sensitive to a string of stupid words that it would ruin a friendship. After all, it is the meaning behind words that truly reflect someone's meaning - not the words themselves. At least at my table/home. :dragon: ****
LordHell 03-03-05, 02:52 PM	I'm willing to conceed that using the exact phrase 'i said so' is not the most diplomatic term and should probably be avoided unless you're with a group of friends who use such terminology with each other. However, I am not willing to conceed that the DM isn't the authoritive figure in a D&D game in the way a judge or director is, and that players need to respect that his word is final. I seriously dont want any players in my game who think that they know how to run my game better than I do. I'm sorry I'm a pretty damn good DM from the feedback I've been given and I know how to run my games. If you think you can do it better than you run your own game, and if Im a player in your game Ill be damn sure to respect your authority and trust in your abilities as a DM. Does that mean I don't listen to good suggestions? No. If a player has a good suggestion or corrects me on a rule, so long as it adds to the enjoyment or smoothness of the game I will thank that player for his valid input. Being a judge is still being someone of authority, but it's a world away from being a dictator.
Kittencaboodle 03-04-05, 08:13 AM	In fact, the DM probably SHOULD have explained. Why? Well... etc. etc. Something like that. There's a better chance that the players will stop being such whiny crybabies if they at least know why they're rolling (it seems to me that in that case, they hardly knew what a Spot Check was...definately demands explanation or a good hard reading of the PHB). I disagree... Rule 0 is in full effect on our tuesday night games and as the DM says "If you don't like it, you can leave." Plus, if they're going to act like whiny crybabies, why are you even allowing them to play in your game. Who needs that? And explaining to them isn't going to stop it, it will only encourage them to argue more. "Well then since XYZ is the reason I shouldn't have to because LMNOP" Or, if it's a particular plot hook, the DM may not want to give it away. Because I said so is a perfectly acceptable answer... Although, if they are acting young enough to warrent a parental type response, now might be a good time to talk to them about their behavior.
Uglak 03-04-05, 08:29 AM	The problem here is that the DM's ruling is in direct opposition to the RAW. Using Sleight of Hand as a skill, the victims are allowed a Spot check to notice the attempt. The DM does have the right to make a ruling, and does not HAVE to explain why, but it is considered common courtesy. Players need to accept a DM's ruling, and if they can't, then they need to find a new group. I will not argue with players. My rule is that if you disagree, then you can point out a book and a page number, and then I will look it up and make a decision. I think that a DM has the right to make aforementioned rulings, but a DM must also make an attempt to be fair in their rulings.
PenderGrass 03-04-05, 01:48 PM	Since the original poster did little to state anything beyond the gripe that his DM has not explained anything about the reason for coming to his decision of disallowing an opposed Spot/Sleight of Hand roll. In fact, as far as we know he has not even communicated his desire to have an explanation to his DM. Who knows, maybe his DM has an actual reason for deciding the way he did - but did not want to go into it at the time? This is one of the reasons that I came down a bit on the original poster to quit trying to cover up the real situation by complaining here with a poorly explained and purposefully vague report on what actually happened. Players, or DMs for that matter, that come here to complain about others' actions without first going through the normal routines of communication with the people that they are actually gaming with are usually suspect. Someone that cannot handle a dispute with their fellow gamers - or needs to have third party pats on their back ("yeah, Johnny D, your DM is such a jerk for saying 'because I said so.'") - is probably a weak gamer, has a weak argument, or is just juvenile. :dragon: ****
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-04-05, 05:16 PM	The problem here is that the DM's ruling is in direct opposition to the RAW. Using Sleight of Hand as a skill, the victims are allowed a Spot check to notice the attempt. The DM does have the right to make a ruling, and does not HAVE to explain why, but it is considered common courtesy. Players need to accept a DM's ruling, and if they can't, then they need to find a new group. I will not argue with players. My rule is that if you disagree, then you can point out a book and a page number, and then I will look it up and make a decision. I think that a DM has the right to make aforementioned rulings, but a DM must also make an attempt to be fair in their rulings. In this situation, the DM could just as well have rolled the spot check in secret (making it fail no matter the score) instead of banning it outright since he didn't want no spot checks... Still, the important thing to remember is that even in real life, strange and unusual (ie against the rules as the player knows it (he don't know about hidden reasons...)) events DO happen. When they happen, who are you gonna ask to know why it happenned that way? It's the same in a game. As a DM, I trust my player to understand that what I say as a DM happens, period. I'm descriving the world. They are reacting to that world. not the other way around.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-04-05, 05:18 PM	The problem here is that the DM's ruling is in direct opposition to the RAW. Using Sleight of Hand as a skill, the victims are allowed a Spot check to notice the attempt. The DM does have the right to make a ruling, and does not HAVE to explain why, but it is considered common courtesy. Players need to accept a DM's ruling, and if they can't, then they need to find a new group. I will not argue with players. My rule is that if you disagree, then you can point out a book and a page number, and then I will look it up and make a decision. I think that a DM has the right to make aforementioned rulings, but a DM must also make an attempt to be fair in their rulings. In this situation, the DM could just as well have rolled the spot check in secret (making it fail no matter the score) instead of banning it outright since he didn't want no spot checks... Still, the important thing to remember is that even in real life, strange and unusual (ie against the rules as the player knows it (he don't know about hidden reasons...)) events DO happen. When they happen, who are you gonna ask to know why it happenned that way? It's the same in a game. As a DM, I trust my player to understand that what I say as a DM happens, period. I'm descriving the world. They are reacting to that world. not the other way around. If I feel the need to say because I say so, it's because a player has repeatedly challenged a ruling I made for reasons I don't consider valid and feel he's dragged the argument too much. If I'm DMing, I want to play a game. Not argue rules for half an hour. When the whinning is too long, it become take it or leave it.
Slider33 03-04-05, 05:59 PM	A DM has to have some kind of authority. Otherwise discrepancies, rules arguments etc. will be never-ending. If he can give a semi-reasonable explanation as to why, and the explanation and judgement is fair and in the *best interests of the game*, then it should be that way. Rule 0...always. If it's something causing unfairness in the game or between players than it's a little different, but sometimes you just have to accept it and move on and play the rest of the game.
weasel fierce 03-05-05, 01:11 AM	The stuff in the book is guidelines to how you can play. Not divine law