Mixing
What is a generally polite and succinct response to player requests for mechanical changes?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I would like a script or block of text that is nicer than "No."
Trying to keep the number of table rules and exceptions to a minimum requires turning down requests for mechanical changes.
All such requests are uniformly rejected.
Thematic re-skinning of existing descriptions are fine (fluff changes), but some requests are outright mechanical changes. What is a brief canned response or block of text that can be used as a more polite alternative to, "No"?
dnd-5e gm-techniques players
edited 12 mins ago
NautArch
46.3k6166316
asked 4 hours ago
Grosscol
4,673840
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I would like a script or block of text that is nicer than "No."
Trying to keep the number of table rules and exceptions to a minimum requires turning down requests for mechanical changes.
All such requests are uniformly rejected.
Thematic re-skinning of existing descriptions are fine (fluff changes), but some requests are outright mechanical changes. What is a brief canned response or block of text that can be used as a more polite alternative to, "No"?
dnd-5e gm-techniques players
edited 12 mins ago
NautArch
46.3k6166316
asked 4 hours ago
Grosscol
4,673840
3
Why do you feel that "No" is impolite?
– Szega
3 hours ago
2
@Szega I don't think it is impolite. It has come to my attention that some people take a terse negative response as a rebuff.
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Are you going to essentially just reject all requests for mechanical changes? Or, do you intend to hear out requests and potentially accept some and not others and you just need a script for those that you decide to reject?
– Rubiksmoose
1 hour ago
@Rubiksmoose the circumstances that prompted this question are player specific mechanical changes. The general need is politer standard response to decline mechanical change requests.
– Grosscol
1 hour ago
1
For those answering, please consider applying Good Subjective. You can read more on that in this meta.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I would like a script or block of text that is nicer than "No."
Trying to keep the number of table rules and exceptions to a minimum requires turning down requests for mechanical changes.
All such requests are uniformly rejected.
Thematic re-skinning of existing descriptions are fine (fluff changes), but some requests are outright mechanical changes. What is a brief canned response or block of text that can be used as a more polite alternative to, "No"?
dnd-5e gm-techniques players
edited 12 mins ago
NautArch
46.3k6166316
asked 4 hours ago
Grosscol
4,673840
I would like a script or block of text that is nicer than "No."
Trying to keep the number of table rules and exceptions to a minimum requires turning down requests for mechanical changes.
All such requests are uniformly rejected.
Thematic re-skinning of existing descriptions are fine (fluff changes), but some requests are outright mechanical changes. What is a brief canned response or block of text that can be used as a more polite alternative to, "No"?
dnd-5e gm-techniques players
dnd-5e gm-techniques players
edited 12 mins ago
NautArch
46.3k6166316
asked 4 hours ago
Grosscol
4,673840
edited 12 mins ago
NautArch
46.3k6166316
asked 4 hours ago
Grosscol
4,673840
edited 12 mins ago
NautArch
46.3k6166316
edited 12 mins ago
NautArch
46.3k6166316
edited 12 mins ago
NautArch
46.3k6166316
46.3k6166316
asked 4 hours ago
Grosscol
4,673840
asked 4 hours ago
Grosscol
4,673840
asked 4 hours ago
Grosscol
4,673840
4,673840
3
Why do you feel that "No" is impolite?
– Szega
3 hours ago
2
@Szega I don't think it is impolite. It has come to my attention that some people take a terse negative response as a rebuff.
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Are you going to essentially just reject all requests for mechanical changes? Or, do you intend to hear out requests and potentially accept some and not others and you just need a script for those that you decide to reject?
– Rubiksmoose
1 hour ago
@Rubiksmoose the circumstances that prompted this question are player specific mechanical changes. The general need is politer standard response to decline mechanical change requests.
– Grosscol
1 hour ago
1
For those answering, please consider applying Good Subjective. You can read more on that in this meta.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
3
Why do you feel that "No" is impolite?
– Szega
3 hours ago
2
@Szega I don't think it is impolite. It has come to my attention that some people take a terse negative response as a rebuff.
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Are you going to essentially just reject all requests for mechanical changes? Or, do you intend to hear out requests and potentially accept some and not others and you just need a script for those that you decide to reject?
– Rubiksmoose
1 hour ago
@Rubiksmoose the circumstances that prompted this question are player specific mechanical changes. The general need is politer standard response to decline mechanical change requests.
– Grosscol
1 hour ago
1
For those answering, please consider applying Good Subjective. You can read more on that in this meta.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
3
3
Why do you feel that "No" is impolite?
– Szega
3 hours ago
Why do you feel that "No" is impolite?
– Szega
3 hours ago
2
2
@Szega I don't think it is impolite. It has come to my attention that some people take a terse negative response as a rebuff.
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
@Szega I don't think it is impolite. It has come to my attention that some people take a terse negative response as a rebuff.
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Are you going to essentially just reject all requests for mechanical changes? Or, do you intend to hear out requests and potentially accept some and not others and you just need a script for those that you decide to reject?
– Rubiksmoose
1 hour ago
Are you going to essentially just reject all requests for mechanical changes? Or, do you intend to hear out requests and potentially accept some and not others and you just need a script for those that you decide to reject?
– Rubiksmoose
1 hour ago
@Rubiksmoose the circumstances that prompted this question are player specific mechanical changes. The general need is politer standard response to decline mechanical change requests.
– Grosscol
1 hour ago
@Rubiksmoose the circumstances that prompted this question are player specific mechanical changes. The general need is politer standard response to decline mechanical change requests.
– Grosscol
1 hour ago
1
1
For those answering, please consider applying Good Subjective. You can read more on that in this meta.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
For those answering, please consider applying Good Subjective. You can read more on that in this meta.
– NautArch
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
What you say at the start of your question is a good "no" explanation that I would find hard to argue with:
- "I would like to keep the number of house rules to a minimum. You'll have to stick with the rules in the PHB."
Don't just say "no", give a suggestion
At character generation, you can point them to options that they might consider instead.
Can I make a cleric that uses INT for the spell casting?
- Sorry, clerics use WIS. The Knowledge domain has some interesting options that work with INT. What's wrong with being intelligent and wise? If you really want to focus on INT, you could be a wizard.
Can this character be proficient with scimitars?
- Sorry, you'll have to pick a weapon from the class list. Some races give weapon proficiencies, and so does the gladiator background. There are also some feats that you could think about as a variant human or save for later.
- You can try to use your ancestral scimitar without proficiency. Maybe you'll learn how to use it properly later in the game.
This character was a spy, so should have proficiency in stealth.
- If your character was a spy, you should choose the spy background. That background grants proficiency in stealth.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul T.
22115
New contributor
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I'll second to this. Routing someone to a new idea via suggestions tends to be much better received than a flat 'no.' And, leading with a 'sorry' makes you come across as more sympathetic and less "deal with it." But, of course, sometimes you do ultimately have to just say 'No' and move on...particularly if the player isn't taking the hint.
– guildsbounty
2 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit your answer.
– NautArch
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Firstly
An explanation of why the answer is 'no' comes off as more polite than a simple 'no'. Even if the reasoning is "I am trying to limit the number of house rules" players don't like when they have an idea they think is good, but it gets shot down without justification.
If this is pre-campaign and characters are still being developed, you might also remind them that they can change their backstory/background slightly to pick a different Background from the PHB which might give them what they are looking for.
Secondly
Provided this isn't an Adventure League game and you are ok with working to a compromise, instead of just saying "no", ask them "How does your backstory justify that proficiency/change?" and put the responsibility on them to make a good argument on whether or not the change might be justified.
Why would their god favor INTELLIGENCE enough for it to be the source of their power? There might not be an argument good enough for that change...but they could surprise you with an amazing case.
If they have a really good story-driven reason...maybe you consider working for a compromise to allow it? Such as allowing proficiency in Scimitars, but losing other weapon proficiencies. Or trading proficiency in Stealth for one of their other proficiencies.
If they can't justify it, I don't think it is rude at all to insist that it has a good justification in-game.
answered 3 hours ago
Newbie12345
33111
New contributor
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
OP has clarified their question - you may want to update since there is no chance for a compromise yes.
– NautArch
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As a big proponent of house rules, ignoring bothersome parts of RAW and generally vivisecting rulebooks, I'm constantly approached by creative players who want to pitch in.
I'm sorry, but this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]
It's generic, sure, but often important when the player doesn't realize an otherwise glaring problem with a significant change.
This may make DMing/planning/playing with this character more time-consuming/difficult than it's worth
Is my go-to when I'm offered a large or gimmicky change that would make playing with and around the character more trouble than it's worth. Always try offering alternatives to the ideas to "soften the blow".
edited 3 hours ago
Slagmoth
15.8k14190
answered 3 hours ago
Bruno Damaceno
58726
1
instead of claiming "this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]" you could always say that "I cant forsee the effects that would be made with these changes so i wont allow it."
– darnok
3 hours ago
5
@darnok That sounds like it could serve as part of its own answer If you want to post an answer (perhaps with some clarification as to why you think that's a good response in your experience)
– David Coffron
3 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit the answer.
– NautArch
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
What you say at the start of your question is a good "no" explanation that I would find hard to argue with:
- "I would like to keep the number of house rules to a minimum. You'll have to stick with the rules in the PHB."
Don't just say "no", give a suggestion
At character generation, you can point them to options that they might consider instead.
Can I make a cleric that uses INT for the spell casting?
- Sorry, clerics use WIS. The Knowledge domain has some interesting options that work with INT. What's wrong with being intelligent and wise? If you really want to focus on INT, you could be a wizard.
Can this character be proficient with scimitars?
- Sorry, you'll have to pick a weapon from the class list. Some races give weapon proficiencies, and so does the gladiator background. There are also some feats that you could think about as a variant human or save for later.
- You can try to use your ancestral scimitar without proficiency. Maybe you'll learn how to use it properly later in the game.
This character was a spy, so should have proficiency in stealth.
- If your character was a spy, you should choose the spy background. That background grants proficiency in stealth.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul T.
22115
New contributor
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I'll second to this. Routing someone to a new idea via suggestions tends to be much better received than a flat 'no.' And, leading with a 'sorry' makes you come across as more sympathetic and less "deal with it." But, of course, sometimes you do ultimately have to just say 'No' and move on...particularly if the player isn't taking the hint.
– guildsbounty
2 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit your answer.
– NautArch
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
12
down vote
What you say at the start of your question is a good "no" explanation that I would find hard to argue with:
- "I would like to keep the number of house rules to a minimum. You'll have to stick with the rules in the PHB."
Don't just say "no", give a suggestion
At character generation, you can point them to options that they might consider instead.
Can I make a cleric that uses INT for the spell casting?
- Sorry, clerics use WIS. The Knowledge domain has some interesting options that work with INT. What's wrong with being intelligent and wise? If you really want to focus on INT, you could be a wizard.
Can this character be proficient with scimitars?
- Sorry, you'll have to pick a weapon from the class list. Some races give weapon proficiencies, and so does the gladiator background. There are also some feats that you could think about as a variant human or save for later.
- You can try to use your ancestral scimitar without proficiency. Maybe you'll learn how to use it properly later in the game.
This character was a spy, so should have proficiency in stealth.
- If your character was a spy, you should choose the spy background. That background grants proficiency in stealth.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul T.
22115
New contributor
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I'll second to this. Routing someone to a new idea via suggestions tends to be much better received than a flat 'no.' And, leading with a 'sorry' makes you come across as more sympathetic and less "deal with it." But, of course, sometimes you do ultimately have to just say 'No' and move on...particularly if the player isn't taking the hint.
– guildsbounty
2 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit your answer.
– NautArch
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
What you say at the start of your question is a good "no" explanation that I would find hard to argue with:
- "I would like to keep the number of house rules to a minimum. You'll have to stick with the rules in the PHB."
Don't just say "no", give a suggestion
At character generation, you can point them to options that they might consider instead.
Can I make a cleric that uses INT for the spell casting?
- Sorry, clerics use WIS. The Knowledge domain has some interesting options that work with INT. What's wrong with being intelligent and wise? If you really want to focus on INT, you could be a wizard.
Can this character be proficient with scimitars?
- Sorry, you'll have to pick a weapon from the class list. Some races give weapon proficiencies, and so does the gladiator background. There are also some feats that you could think about as a variant human or save for later.
- You can try to use your ancestral scimitar without proficiency. Maybe you'll learn how to use it properly later in the game.
This character was a spy, so should have proficiency in stealth.
- If your character was a spy, you should choose the spy background. That background grants proficiency in stealth.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul T.
22115
New contributor
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What you say at the start of your question is a good "no" explanation that I would find hard to argue with:
- "I would like to keep the number of house rules to a minimum. You'll have to stick with the rules in the PHB."
Don't just say "no", give a suggestion
At character generation, you can point them to options that they might consider instead.
Can I make a cleric that uses INT for the spell casting?
- Sorry, clerics use WIS. The Knowledge domain has some interesting options that work with INT. What's wrong with being intelligent and wise? If you really want to focus on INT, you could be a wizard.
Can this character be proficient with scimitars?
- Sorry, you'll have to pick a weapon from the class list. Some races give weapon proficiencies, and so does the gladiator background. There are also some feats that you could think about as a variant human or save for later.
- You can try to use your ancestral scimitar without proficiency. Maybe you'll learn how to use it properly later in the game.
This character was a spy, so should have proficiency in stealth.
- If your character was a spy, you should choose the spy background. That background grants proficiency in stealth.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul T.
22115
New contributor
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul T.
22115
New contributor
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul T.
22115
answered 2 hours ago
Paul T.
22115
22115
New contributor
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Paul T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I'll second to this. Routing someone to a new idea via suggestions tends to be much better received than a flat 'no.' And, leading with a 'sorry' makes you come across as more sympathetic and less "deal with it." But, of course, sometimes you do ultimately have to just say 'No' and move on...particularly if the player isn't taking the hint.
– guildsbounty
2 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit your answer.
– NautArch
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
I'll second to this. Routing someone to a new idea via suggestions tends to be much better received than a flat 'no.' And, leading with a 'sorry' makes you come across as more sympathetic and less "deal with it." But, of course, sometimes you do ultimately have to just say 'No' and move on...particularly if the player isn't taking the hint.
– guildsbounty
2 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit your answer.
– NautArch
8 mins ago
1
1
I'll second to this. Routing someone to a new idea via suggestions tends to be much better received than a flat 'no.' And, leading with a 'sorry' makes you come across as more sympathetic and less "deal with it." But, of course, sometimes you do ultimately have to just say 'No' and move on...particularly if the player isn't taking the hint.
– guildsbounty
2 hours ago
I'll second to this. Routing someone to a new idea via suggestions tends to be much better received than a flat 'no.' And, leading with a 'sorry' makes you come across as more sympathetic and less "deal with it." But, of course, sometimes you do ultimately have to just say 'No' and move on...particularly if the player isn't taking the hint.
– guildsbounty
2 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit your answer.
– NautArch
8 mins ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit your answer.
– NautArch
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Firstly
An explanation of why the answer is 'no' comes off as more polite than a simple 'no'. Even if the reasoning is "I am trying to limit the number of house rules" players don't like when they have an idea they think is good, but it gets shot down without justification.
If this is pre-campaign and characters are still being developed, you might also remind them that they can change their backstory/background slightly to pick a different Background from the PHB which might give them what they are looking for.
Secondly
Provided this isn't an Adventure League game and you are ok with working to a compromise, instead of just saying "no", ask them "How does your backstory justify that proficiency/change?" and put the responsibility on them to make a good argument on whether or not the change might be justified.
Why would their god favor INTELLIGENCE enough for it to be the source of their power? There might not be an argument good enough for that change...but they could surprise you with an amazing case.
If they have a really good story-driven reason...maybe you consider working for a compromise to allow it? Such as allowing proficiency in Scimitars, but losing other weapon proficiencies. Or trading proficiency in Stealth for one of their other proficiencies.
If they can't justify it, I don't think it is rude at all to insist that it has a good justification in-game.
answered 3 hours ago
Newbie12345
33111
New contributor
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
OP has clarified their question - you may want to update since there is no chance for a compromise yes.
– NautArch
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Firstly
An explanation of why the answer is 'no' comes off as more polite than a simple 'no'. Even if the reasoning is "I am trying to limit the number of house rules" players don't like when they have an idea they think is good, but it gets shot down without justification.
If this is pre-campaign and characters are still being developed, you might also remind them that they can change their backstory/background slightly to pick a different Background from the PHB which might give them what they are looking for.
Secondly
Provided this isn't an Adventure League game and you are ok with working to a compromise, instead of just saying "no", ask them "How does your backstory justify that proficiency/change?" and put the responsibility on them to make a good argument on whether or not the change might be justified.
Why would their god favor INTELLIGENCE enough for it to be the source of their power? There might not be an argument good enough for that change...but they could surprise you with an amazing case.
If they have a really good story-driven reason...maybe you consider working for a compromise to allow it? Such as allowing proficiency in Scimitars, but losing other weapon proficiencies. Or trading proficiency in Stealth for one of their other proficiencies.
If they can't justify it, I don't think it is rude at all to insist that it has a good justification in-game.
answered 3 hours ago
Newbie12345
33111
New contributor
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
OP has clarified their question - you may want to update since there is no chance for a compromise yes.
– NautArch
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Firstly
An explanation of why the answer is 'no' comes off as more polite than a simple 'no'. Even if the reasoning is "I am trying to limit the number of house rules" players don't like when they have an idea they think is good, but it gets shot down without justification.
If this is pre-campaign and characters are still being developed, you might also remind them that they can change their backstory/background slightly to pick a different Background from the PHB which might give them what they are looking for.
Secondly
Provided this isn't an Adventure League game and you are ok with working to a compromise, instead of just saying "no", ask them "How does your backstory justify that proficiency/change?" and put the responsibility on them to make a good argument on whether or not the change might be justified.
Why would their god favor INTELLIGENCE enough for it to be the source of their power? There might not be an argument good enough for that change...but they could surprise you with an amazing case.
If they have a really good story-driven reason...maybe you consider working for a compromise to allow it? Such as allowing proficiency in Scimitars, but losing other weapon proficiencies. Or trading proficiency in Stealth for one of their other proficiencies.
If they can't justify it, I don't think it is rude at all to insist that it has a good justification in-game.
answered 3 hours ago
Newbie12345
33111
New contributor
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Firstly
An explanation of why the answer is 'no' comes off as more polite than a simple 'no'. Even if the reasoning is "I am trying to limit the number of house rules" players don't like when they have an idea they think is good, but it gets shot down without justification.
If this is pre-campaign and characters are still being developed, you might also remind them that they can change their backstory/background slightly to pick a different Background from the PHB which might give them what they are looking for.
Secondly
Provided this isn't an Adventure League game and you are ok with working to a compromise, instead of just saying "no", ask them "How does your backstory justify that proficiency/change?" and put the responsibility on them to make a good argument on whether or not the change might be justified.
Why would their god favor INTELLIGENCE enough for it to be the source of their power? There might not be an argument good enough for that change...but they could surprise you with an amazing case.
If they have a really good story-driven reason...maybe you consider working for a compromise to allow it? Such as allowing proficiency in Scimitars, but losing other weapon proficiencies. Or trading proficiency in Stealth for one of their other proficiencies.
If they can't justify it, I don't think it is rude at all to insist that it has a good justification in-game.
answered 3 hours ago
Newbie12345
33111
New contributor
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Newbie12345
33111
New contributor
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Newbie12345
33111
answered 3 hours ago
Newbie12345
33111
33111
New contributor
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Newbie12345 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
OP has clarified their question - you may want to update since there is no chance for a compromise yes.
– NautArch
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
OP has clarified their question - you may want to update since there is no chance for a compromise yes.
– NautArch
10 mins ago
OP has clarified their question - you may want to update since there is no chance for a compromise yes.
– NautArch
10 mins ago
OP has clarified their question - you may want to update since there is no chance for a compromise yes.
– NautArch
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As a big proponent of house rules, ignoring bothersome parts of RAW and generally vivisecting rulebooks, I'm constantly approached by creative players who want to pitch in.
I'm sorry, but this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]
It's generic, sure, but often important when the player doesn't realize an otherwise glaring problem with a significant change.
This may make DMing/planning/playing with this character more time-consuming/difficult than it's worth
Is my go-to when I'm offered a large or gimmicky change that would make playing with and around the character more trouble than it's worth. Always try offering alternatives to the ideas to "soften the blow".
edited 3 hours ago
Slagmoth
15.8k14190
answered 3 hours ago
Bruno Damaceno
58726
1
instead of claiming "this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]" you could always say that "I cant forsee the effects that would be made with these changes so i wont allow it."
– darnok
3 hours ago
5
@darnok That sounds like it could serve as part of its own answer If you want to post an answer (perhaps with some clarification as to why you think that's a good response in your experience)
– David Coffron
3 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit the answer.
– NautArch
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As a big proponent of house rules, ignoring bothersome parts of RAW and generally vivisecting rulebooks, I'm constantly approached by creative players who want to pitch in.
I'm sorry, but this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]
It's generic, sure, but often important when the player doesn't realize an otherwise glaring problem with a significant change.
This may make DMing/planning/playing with this character more time-consuming/difficult than it's worth
Is my go-to when I'm offered a large or gimmicky change that would make playing with and around the character more trouble than it's worth. Always try offering alternatives to the ideas to "soften the blow".
edited 3 hours ago
Slagmoth
15.8k14190
answered 3 hours ago
Bruno Damaceno
58726
1
instead of claiming "this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]" you could always say that "I cant forsee the effects that would be made with these changes so i wont allow it."
– darnok
3 hours ago
5
@darnok That sounds like it could serve as part of its own answer If you want to post an answer (perhaps with some clarification as to why you think that's a good response in your experience)
– David Coffron
3 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit the answer.
– NautArch
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
As a big proponent of house rules, ignoring bothersome parts of RAW and generally vivisecting rulebooks, I'm constantly approached by creative players who want to pitch in.
I'm sorry, but this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]
It's generic, sure, but often important when the player doesn't realize an otherwise glaring problem with a significant change.
This may make DMing/planning/playing with this character more time-consuming/difficult than it's worth
Is my go-to when I'm offered a large or gimmicky change that would make playing with and around the character more trouble than it's worth. Always try offering alternatives to the ideas to "soften the blow".
edited 3 hours ago
Slagmoth
15.8k14190
answered 3 hours ago
Bruno Damaceno
58726
As a big proponent of house rules, ignoring bothersome parts of RAW and generally vivisecting rulebooks, I'm constantly approached by creative players who want to pitch in.
I'm sorry, but this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]
It's generic, sure, but often important when the player doesn't realize an otherwise glaring problem with a significant change.
This may make DMing/planning/playing with this character more time-consuming/difficult than it's worth
Is my go-to when I'm offered a large or gimmicky change that would make playing with and around the character more trouble than it's worth. Always try offering alternatives to the ideas to "soften the blow".
edited 3 hours ago
Slagmoth
15.8k14190
answered 3 hours ago
Bruno Damaceno
58726
edited 3 hours ago
Slagmoth
15.8k14190
edited 3 hours ago
Slagmoth
15.8k14190
edited 3 hours ago
Slagmoth
15.8k14190
15.8k14190
answered 3 hours ago
Bruno Damaceno
58726
answered 3 hours ago
Bruno Damaceno
58726
answered 3 hours ago
Bruno Damaceno
58726
58726
1
instead of claiming "this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]" you could always say that "I cant forsee the effects that would be made with these changes so i wont allow it."
– darnok
3 hours ago
5
@darnok That sounds like it could serve as part of its own answer If you want to post an answer (perhaps with some clarification as to why you think that's a good response in your experience)
– David Coffron
3 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit the answer.
– NautArch
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
instead of claiming "this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]" you could always say that "I cant forsee the effects that would be made with these changes so i wont allow it."
– darnok
3 hours ago
5
@darnok That sounds like it could serve as part of its own answer If you want to post an answer (perhaps with some clarification as to why you think that's a good response in your experience)
– David Coffron
3 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit the answer.
– NautArch
11 mins ago
1
1
instead of claiming "this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]" you could always say that "I cant forsee the effects that would be made with these changes so i wont allow it."
– darnok
3 hours ago
instead of claiming "this won't work due to [explain the mechanical or balance inconsistencies]" you could always say that "I cant forsee the effects that would be made with these changes so i wont allow it."
– darnok
3 hours ago
5
5
@darnok That sounds like it could serve as part of its own answer If you want to post an answer (perhaps with some clarification as to why you think that's a good response in your experience)
– David Coffron
3 hours ago
@darnok That sounds like it could serve as part of its own answer If you want to post an answer (perhaps with some clarification as to why you think that's a good response in your experience)
– David Coffron
3 hours ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit the answer.
– NautArch
11 mins ago
OP has clarified their question, you may want to revisit the answer.
– NautArch
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133330%2fwhat-is-a-generally-polite-and-succinct-response-to-player-requests-for-mechanic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
Why do you feel that "No" is impolite?
– Szega
3 hours ago
2
@Szega I don't think it is impolite. It has come to my attention that some people take a terse negative response as a rebuff.
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Are you going to essentially just reject all requests for mechanical changes? Or, do you intend to hear out requests and potentially accept some and not others and you just need a script for those that you decide to reject?
– Rubiksmoose
1 hour ago
@Rubiksmoose the circumstances that prompted this question are player specific mechanical changes. The general need is politer standard response to decline mechanical change requests.
– Grosscol
1 hour ago
1
For those answering, please consider applying Good Subjective. You can read more on that in this meta.
– NautArch
1 hour ago