# DM Entitlement...



## Scribble (Aug 19, 2008)

So I've seen a lot of posts (especially with some of the changes in the new edition) that have people saying things like:

"In my game there will be no (insert random thing to ban from campaign.)"

This seems pretty odd to me.  D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?

I understand that sometimes, yes, as a DM it falls on your shoulders to spot problematic rules, or things being used "inapropriately" but to outright say "X cannot be used in my game because I don't like it..." just seems way to bossy...

I don't like evil characters. I have a hard time coming up with adventures for evil characters, and feel they tend to cause more game problems then non-evil characters, so I make my feelings known to my players. Some of them, however, enjoy playing evil characters. I won't say no if they really really want to be evil. They're playing the game to, so it should be fun for them as well. They're not just there to facilitate my amusement.

Maybe it's because most of the games I run tend to be with  friends I've known since junior high or longer?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 19, 2008)

It's the DM's job to put together fun adventures, an interesting campaign world (or at least to _portray_ an interseting campaign world), and possibly to develop an intricate plot.

It's not only the DM's _right_, but his _responsibility_, to ban material that's going to make it harder for him to do the above. And yes, that includes sometimes banning races, classes, alignments, or what have you. I rarely allow evil characters, for instance, and I feel not one shred of guilt for doing so. If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.

This isn't about power, and it isn't about entitlement. It's about the DM creating the world and setting in which he wants to set his game, and _nothing_ ruins a game faster than a DM who's not enjoying it.

Is it possible to abuse this? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that it's _always_ an abuse, or that it's unreasonable. Frankly, I'd _rather_ a DM who has a strong enough sense of his intended aesthetic that he's willing to say "You know, X won't really work in this campaign" than a DM who allows _everything_, even if it won't work for the adventures or world he has in mind.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 19, 2008)

I'm not saying that as a DM anything should go... But I feel that it's a two way street.  I should, as a DM, understand when something helps make the game fun, just as the Players should understand when I tel them something will reduce my fun...

Like witht he evil characters, I've told them I don't like evil characters, and why. Most of the time they say, I can understand that, and play non evil characters... There are times, however, when a player will say- "Hey, I know you don't want evil but I had this idea of yada yada..." In these cases, I usually "allow" it, as it's obviously something thats exciting the player...


----------



## JDJblatherings (Aug 19, 2008)

wow it's hard to imagine the player that puts the most effort into the game  wold feel any degree of entitlement to authority.  You'd think the term DungeonMaster implied some degree of control and authority was implicit in the role. 

(notice the subtle sarcasm above?)


The DM most certainly is entitled to make decissions about what they are willing to deal with in the campaign and how the rules will be dealt with while running the game. If the DM is a jerk and does not present a fun campaign well then the players should move on or one should take the mantle of DM themselves and as such discover/experience the explicit control and authority over the game as they play it when they are DM.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 19, 2008)

To echo and expand upon Mouseferatu's post- unlike any other player of the game, the DM has to create an internally consistent play environment for everyone else.

If his world is inconsistent and flaw-riddled, it will detract from the enjoyment of others...and sometimes, the only way to ensure that something works is to remove a part.  Or several parts.

If this is required, though, it is also the DM's duty to inform the players ahead of time that he's excising something from the game.  A player who designed his dream paladin for a game only to find out "No Paladins Allowed" on the day he sits down at the table, dice in hand, is going to be quite put out.  That might not just ruin the day, but the game entire.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 19, 2008)

As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god. The DM creates the world, the adventures, the DM sometimes cheats to make the encounters more interesting or enjoyable. Without the DM there is no game. So if the DM says that X race or class does not appear in this campaign world, that's just the way it is. Players who push issues like that with me get ejected from the game, which is also my right. 

DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group.


----------



## JediSoth (Aug 19, 2008)

I tried an "anything goes" campaign once when I ran my World's Largest Dungeon campaign. In it, I saw some of the most broken PCs ever, at least in regards to how that adventure was written.

I think it's part of the DMs job to evaluate the types of adventures and scenarios in which he is going to place his players and ensure they can't break the scenario (whether intentionally or not) and make the game less than optimal for anyone involved.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 19, 2008)

I try to give my players as much say as they want.  They tend to only think of the game when we sit down and play though, so seeing as I'm putting the work into the game, I get most of the say in what goes into the game.  Just turns out that way, for the most part.


----------



## garyh (Aug 19, 2008)

The last game a ran I homebrewed this great world with all the races and classes I liked.  Then I invited the players to create their characters, and one of them wanted to play an elf.  I had not included elves, as I cut out what I'd considered all the "wimpy" races to better fit my "vision of the world."  The player ended up settling on playing a human with air-elemental blood (Unearthed Arcana in use), since she was looking for more of a fey sort of character.

Looking back, I feel bad about it, as it wouldn't have been that big a deal to include elves in the setting (no reason I would have even had to feature them prominently, after all), and then this player would have have that much more fun in the game.

I haven't DMed since that game but, since I still feel bad looking back at not allowing this player her elf, I know that if I do, I'll start off by asking the players what they're looking for in the game.  Yes, a happy DM helps make happy players, but simple things like this can make happy players, and happy players can help keep the DM motivated, too.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 19, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group.



I dunno.  I grew up when the only school in town was old-school, and was reared from an early age on the sweet milk of Gary's 1e DMG.

But with the game I run, I really tend to think of it as _our_ game, not _my_ game.  Sure, I more or less run the show.  I control the setting, the NPCs, and what I say goes.  But if I'm a petty tyrant about it, and don't listen to my players, I'll be awfully lonely on Wednesday nights, sitting with my books, dice, and the knowledge that I alone was right.

-O


----------



## Scribble (Aug 19, 2008)

Again, I'm not talking about an "anything goes" campaign...

I'm just saying it's a give and take process, and no one player (DM or not) should be considered "God."


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> This seems pretty odd to me.  D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?




Yes.  Everyone should have a say.  I think that in almost all groups, everyone does have a say.

Some people run with the idea that "the DM is God, whatever he says goes."  They end up playing with people who want that sort of game, and people who don't like that attitude just leave.  (I find that the people who like that sort of game are the ones who just want to show up to be entertained.)


----------



## Adrift (Aug 19, 2008)

IMO, DnD is a collaborative game.  Everyone should be allowed to input on houserules/banning since they are all there for the same reason.  Life is about give and take; playing this game shouldn't be any different.

Sure, the DM can drop a bunch of house rules and kill PC concepts, and those players have the right to tell the DM that they don't want to play in that game.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 19, 2008)

> D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?



Actually, I agree.

That's why I put banned classes/races up to a vote. And I offered the players the opportunity to propose things to ban. 

As a DM, I still feel entitled to ban things that are _broken_ or overtly ludicrous. 

As a player, I have asked every DM I have ever sat under "So, can I play a kobold?" and I have been told no. And I do not begrudge them for it.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Aug 19, 2008)

For myself I usually make a couple different settings/campaigns with all the restrictions/bans then the players decide which one to play. Afterwards if there is anything important they wish I will try to incorporate it into the setting,


----------



## vazanar (Aug 19, 2008)

Adrift said:


> IMO, DnD is a collaborative game. Everyone should be allowed to input on houserules/banning since they are all there for the same reason. Life is about give and take; playing this game shouldn't be any different.
> 
> Sure, the DM can drop a bunch of house rules and kill PC concepts, and those players have the right to tell the DM that they don't want to play in that game.




I think it all depends. A broken character should be discussed before hand and banned. Pretty much at that point its the player who is out of line, since it most likely will be bad for the game. For other things, I think the question is does the dm always disallow it. I mean if I have an Iron Kingdoms story in certain cities, I dont want you to play a gnoll or a drow. Id suggest Ogrun and Nyss. However, in the next campaign world it be more reasonable for a Gnoll. One reason I like more than one campaign at a time. Most players I think are reasonable and will understand. Of course you need to explain the basics of the campaign first so they have the oppurtunity to say they have problems.


----------



## Ktulu (Aug 19, 2008)

I second the above.  While the DM should have say in what's presented (he's a moderator, NOT a god), it's also a group activity.  If joe's favorite race is dwarf and he shows up to my new (dwarfless) game with a dwarf pc; he won't be happy.  Sure, he could change his character, but I think it's more responsible and mature to sit down with the group and find out what they want as well.

I don't put a campaign world together that I don't get some feedback on my proposed changes.  If I drop halflings due to them not making sense in world x, I do check and see if the players were intending on playing halflings.  If not, it's easy to drop them.

I can see the other side of things, too.  It's hard to give up too much freedom as many people see their campaign as a personal thing.  For my group, the campaign is fluid.  A player can mention a town he's from and a rough direction it's in and it can be added.  The same goes for NPC's and plot devices.  As GM, I fill in the details based on those things.

K


----------



## racoffin (Aug 19, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> It's the DM's job to put together fun adventures, an interesting campaign world (or at least to _portray_ an interseting campaign world), and possibly to develop an intricate plot.
> 
> It's not only the DM's _right_, but his _responsibility_, to ban material that's going to make it harder for him to do the above. And yes, that includes sometimes banning races, classes, alignments, or what have you. I rarely allow evil characters, for instance, and I feel not one shred of guilt for doing so. If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.
> 
> ...




This.

For my part, when I DM I have a handout of player information and rumours (not all true) as well as what is allowed and not allowed for the game. This is what I am prepared to DM. If the group decides they'd rather play something else, that's cool with me, as long as someone else is DMing.

As far as house rules go, we discuss things between campaigns or at lunch and so on, and come to a collaborative agreement. But once the game starts, the agreement is that the DM (whomever they may be) has the final say on things.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm just saying it's a give and take process, and no one player (DM or not) should be considered "God."



I sometimes --meaning: right now-- like to think of the DM as the democratically elected god of a constitutional republic, one that derives his or her power from the will and assent of the people...

In a related vein, it's always nice to remember who's doing most of the work. This is true in virtually all social situations, from dinner parties to D&D campaigns.)


----------



## garyh (Aug 19, 2008)

Rechan said:


> As a DM, I still feel entitled to ban things that are _broken_ or overtly ludicrous.
> 
> As a player, I have asked every DM I have ever sat under "So, can I play a kobold?" and I have been told no. And I do not begrudge them for it.




I can certainly understand a DM telling me "no" regarding a non-PHB option.  But with a case like my elf-loving player above, or the countless "No tieflings and/or dragonborn in MY 4e game!" threads, when a DM disallows core PB options, I think the player has some right to be disappointed.

Broken stuff is, of course, a separate and valid issue.


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 19, 2008)

The position of DM/GM is bound by a social contract of sorts. When you're running the game, it's your show, but only by the players' whim. If you want to run a game, and everything about the way you run it rubs your players the wrong way, you will _not_ run a good game, no matter _how_ much you love the game.

I've had an enlightening experience in this matter with a rotating GM game. Being able to discuss the world, the adventures, and the characters with the rest of the group, and sort of collaborate on what we _all_ want out of the game is, simply put, fantastic. Everyone is open with what they like about the game, what they don't like, where their preferences are, and things that they'd really enjoy seeing in the game.

Yes, it's the GM's job to have the final say on what is or what isn't appropriate for the game, but before it comes to that, a good GM should turn to the rest of the group and say, "What do _you_ think?" That doesn't mean that you should stop the game every time there's a rules despute, set up a house-rule committe with parliamentary procedure, and spend an hour figuring out what you all think is best. The GM should make a ruling, write it down, and continue with the game. After the game is over, or before the next one starts, is the time to decide what the best house-rule for something is with the _whole_ group.

A GM who doesn't show respect for his/her players with an extreme sort of "my way or the highway" attitude doesn't do much to earn any respect for him/herself.


----------



## Urbannen (Aug 19, 2008)

I think the real questions is: What game are you playing?  

Are you playing the DM's game, or are you playing the implied game from the PHB plus splats?  My experience starting a 3.5 campaign with people I didn't know was that everyone _expected_ to be able to use every splatbook.  The game that I was willing to run was core 3.5 plus core Forgotten Realms (FRCS and PGtF).  I eventually relented to allow most FR books.  After several months of high-level play, I think they're starting to understand why I wanted to limit the options a bit.  

When a new player joined, he already had a character planned out using, yes, multiple splats.  This was a character that he had planned before hearing anything about the campaign or my style.  I relented a bit because we needed another person and I wanted to be welcoming.  I've regretted it because his character has been made VERY powerful thanks to those extra options he was allowed.  It's hard to balance everything because he is also a much more effective player than the others.  

Frankly I don't like saying "No" as a DM.  What I want to say is, "Here are your parameters, you can choose anything here.  Everything is an automatic no.  This is the game that I am offering."  

The whole "Run option X by me first" seems unfair and messy, since the people you like and the peole who are more stubborn are going to end up with the best options, whether you mean it to happen or not.


----------



## grickherder (Aug 19, 2008)

It is entirely a social contract issue.

There is one thing though that gives a DM a severe advantage in the negotiation of that social contract though.  The ratio of DMs to players.  I've got a waiting list almost 20 gamers long and I get an email from another person every week or two from postings I put on message boards looking for new gamers back from 2006 (which I had completely forgotten about).

More people need to take up the noble art of Dungeon Mastering.  The 4E DMG is one of the best DMGs as far as actually guiding new people in their first foray into DMing, so that's atleast a plus.

The following things are banned from my campaign:  

Party infighting.
Drow.  

That is all.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 19, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> It's the DM's job to put together fun adventures, an interesting campaign world (or at least to _portray_ an interseting campaign world), and possibly to develop an intricate plot.
> 
> It's not only the DM's _right_, but his _responsibility_, to ban material that's going to make it harder for him to do the above. And yes, that includes sometimes banning races, classes, alignments, or what have you. I rarely allow evil characters, for instance, and I feel not one shred of guilt for doing so. If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.
> 
> ...




I wholly agree with the mouse here.

I've been gaming with a bunch of guys for over (blimey!) 27 years now. There is an implied social contract when someone agrees to DM a campaign - they are going to try to produce fun adventures and a fun setting for people (possibly within their comfort range) and the players will accept limitations or options which the DM wants to set up that are important for the campaign world flavour.

After all, if someone wanted to DM a 'Midnight' campaign, wouldn't it seem strange if someone came along and said "but I've _set my heart_ on playing a (class banned in midnight setting).

Some campaigns may be almost entirely core. One of our guys DMed a game which was "Core + psionics - prestige classes". My first 3e campaign had some campaign flavour rules that associated particular classes with particular nations and had only human starting characters. In addition, wizards could only be male and druids were called witches and could only be female. The players all accepted those as the parameters for the campaign world I'd created and if anybody was desperate to play a female elf wizard they didn't pout and feel put out because they knew that (a) there were plenty of fun options in this game and (b) another game would come along when they could play the female elf wizard.

Cheers


----------



## Spatula (Aug 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm not saying that as a DM anything should go... But I feel that it's a two way street.



Sure.  The DM does the work (running the type of game that everyone can find enjoyable, of course), and the players agree to meet the DM halfway within the parameters of that work.  If you want something different and one particular DM isn't interested, go ahead and DM it yourself (assuming the rest of the group is ok with it).  The DM isn't your slave and isn't slave to the books.  Frankly, doing the same thing over and over gets boring.  Probably moreso for DMs than for players, since DMs will generally spend more time thinking about the game world.


----------



## Hjorimir (Aug 19, 2008)

Yes, campaigns should be a give-and-take affair...and seeing how the DM gives about 20x more than the combination of all the players the DM gets to take away whenever he or she feels it is necessary for their creation.

Most DMs I know take their campaigns pretty seriously. They put a lot of creative effort into their respective homebrews. In return, the players respect that work (as they are expected to) and create a character that works within the creation of the DM.

It's the player's story, it's the DM's world and plot(s). Or, as I normally say it, "DMs write plot, players write stories."


----------



## garyh (Aug 19, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I wholly agree with the mouse here.
> 
> I've been gaming with a bunch of guys for over (blimey!) 27 years now. There is an implied social contract when someone agrees to DM a campaign - they are going to try to produce fun adventures and a fun setting for people (possibly within their comfort range) and the players will accept limitations or options which the DM wants to set up that are important for the campaign world flavour.
> 
> ...




If you say you're playing Midnight, then that establishes the baseline for the game, and I see no problem with sticking to the Midnight book.

I think it's a different issue when you say "We're playing D&D 4E...  but I don't like tielfings, dragonborn, halfling, eladrin, or half-elves.  So you can't play those."

That's another thing - many of the "I'm not allowing X" posts here are because the DM doesn't like X, not because there's some serious problem that X poses.  That seems a poor reason to me.   Some folks say they don't want to put new element X into an ongoing campaign, and I can respect that.  But for new campaigns, I've swung towards thinking it's bad form to disallow core options without a REALLY good reason.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 19, 2008)

garyh said:


> I can certainly understand a DM telling me "no" regarding a non-PHB option.  But with a case like my elf-loving player above, or the countless "No tieflings and/or dragonborn in MY 4e game!" threads, when a DM disallows core PB options, I think the player has some right to be disappointed.



I think it depends.

If for instance, DMs who want to run low magic "Only martial classes with access to ritual caster" games, ala Conan or LOTR. The other classes don't fit the tone of the campaign.

In those situations, you know what you're getting into ahead of time. Otherwise it's like deciding "I'm going to play a non-combatant social character!" in a dungeon-crawl campaign - you're going to be unhappy, and stick out.

If I wanted to run a "Lost World" campaign where everyone were primitives, I would feel justified in limiting the class options to "Sorcerer/Barbarian/bard/druid/ranger". In a Thieves Guild game, a player who went full fighter would be very unhappy since they don't have the skill points to do any, well, thiefy stuff like the _entire rest of the party_.

However, I'm of the mind that you negotiate with the player. For instance, in your example, the player wanted to play something fey-like. An elf was the easiest answer, but not the _only_ answer. You think elves are weak? Offer a satyr.


----------



## Imp (Aug 19, 2008)

First of all, I completely agree with & applaud Mouseferatu here.

Secondly I think where input from the players is really important & useful is where you run the kind of adventures they want to have. If they want to go exploring uncharted wildernesses, looting tombs, saving the kingdoms, fighting in arenas, whatever, this is the sort of thing you ought to ask them and comply with (to a point). Banning races/classes/feats is by comparison small potatoes, or ought to be.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 19, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> It's the DM's job to put together fun adventures, an interesting campaign world (or at least to _portray_ an interseting campaign world), and possibly to develop an intricate plot.
> 
> It's not only the DM's _right_, but his _responsibility_, to ban material that's going to make it harder for him to do the above. And yes, that includes sometimes banning races, classes, alignments, or what have you. I rarely allow evil characters, for instance, and I feel not one shred of guilt for doing so. If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.
> 
> ...




Great Post.


For me, I feel that the DM has a unique perk- the creator of worlds, which can be just as fun (and often is a labor of love) as the play experience. I'm all for the DM having that perk whether I'm a player or a DM. Playing D&D is easy, DMing can be a real chore  and I consider this perk as "compensation" of sorts for all that extra work the DM does.

And if you don't care for certain restrictions, take up the mantle of DM for the next campaign in your group and do things how *you* would like to see them! That's what the game is all about!

It's all good in the end as long as the game does not suffer because of the DM's creation.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 19, 2008)

garyh said:


> That's another thing - many of the "I'm not allowing X" posts here are because the DM doesn't like X, not because there's some serious problem that X poses.  That seems a poor reason to me.   Some folks say they don't want to put new element X into an ongoing campaign, and I can respect that.  But for new campaigns, I've swung towards thinking it's bad form to disallow core options without a REALLY good reason.




At least for me, taking something away means putting something in its place.

If I want to remove Elves, Dwarves and Halflings (I personally do), then I feel the need to put something in their place to fill their archetypes. So, we have a  swift, nature-venerating, somewhat fey race, a powerful, taciturn militaristic race, and a sneaky, mysterious and somewhat playful race.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 19, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Great Post.
> 
> 
> For me, I feel that the DM has a unique perk- the creator of worlds, which can be just as fun (and often is a labor of love) as the play experience. I'm all for the DM having that perk whether I'm a player or a DM. Playing D&D is easy, DMing can be a real chore  and I consider this perk as "compensation" of sorts for all that extra work the DM does.
> ...




As I said, I DM the majority of times I play the game... For me, the real reward is when everyone is having a good time, and enjoying the game. 

Like I said though, I don't mean this requires the DM be told what and how to do things, or that anything the player wants should be granted... But it also doesn't mean that he DM can simply be a dictator. 

I guess for me, I don't think the first response out of a DM's mouth should be no way it's MY game we do what I say...  I think a better overall game would be achieved by the DM explaining his concerns, and discussing a solution that meets what people want out of the game.


----------



## garyh (Aug 19, 2008)

Rechan said:


> At least for me, taking something away means putting something in its place.
> 
> If I want to remove Elves, Dwarves and Halflings (I personally do), then I feel the need to put something in their place to fill their archetypes. So, we have a  swift, nature-venerating, somewhat fey race, a powerful, taciturn militaristic race, and a sneaky, mysterious and somewhat playful race.




That's a fair approach, and I think that would generally work well.

My elf-free game had humans (PHB 3.5), dwarves (PHB 3.5), goblins (MM 3.5), orcs (Warcraft RPG), and giants (AU).  I didn't replace the fey/nature option, nor did goblins really fill the small folk role like halflings or gnomes (I like goblins, but they were the only unplayed race).  On the plus side, any one who liked half-orcs in core 3.5 would have been in luck, getting to play the full-blooded version.


----------



## fba827 (Aug 19, 2008)

Sometimes DMs ban things because they don't like the item ("I hate having to deal with the shiftiness of kobolds"), sometimes DMs ban things because they feel they are broken ("I don't want to include sunrods because it is way too broken"), sometimes DMs ban things because the players don't want it in ("Please no swordmages, we just want to stick to things in the PHB"), and sometimes a DM bans things because it isn't appropriate for the tone, style, or story he wants to run ("I'm sorry but no evil or kobolds or reluctant-heroes, it won't work well with the story you're about to take part in"), I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Personally, I agree with some of them, and I have occasionally done others of them.  But who am I to judge whether a DM in another campaign should or should not ban something?  What works for them (ie "fun") may be different than what works for me and my game group.  So if it works and it seems appropriate, ban something or don't ban something...  Some DMs may think of that as entitlement, and perhaps it is, but it's just as much entitlement from the power and responsibility they have to run the game as it is their own ego.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 19, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> After all, if someone wanted to DM a 'Midnight' campaign, wouldn't it seem strange if someone came along and said "but I've _set my heart_ on playing a (class banned in midnight setting).




But that's the thing... For me, the first part of that setup would be me, as the DM saying soemthing like: Hey guys, I want to run a midnight campaign, here's the general idea I'm thinking of: followed by listening to their input, or whether they're interested in the idea of a Midnight campaign in the first place.

The idea of a Midnight campaign has a conotation too... I know when I say "Midnight campaign" my players would have a general idea of what to expect, and can work things out with me from there.

That's (in my eyes at least) a world away from saying we''re playing Midnight. Roll up a character.

The first is more like: I feel like going out to eat tonight. Anyone want to come, or have any thoughts on what type of food? I'l drive.

The second is: I want to go to taco bell. Get in the car and buy some tacos to eat.


----------



## garyh (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> The idea of a Midnight campaign has a conotation too... I know when I say "Midnight campaign" my players would have a general idea of what to expect, and can work things out with me from there.
> 
> That's (in my eyes at least) a world away from saying we''re playing Midnight. Roll up a character.
> 
> ...




Food metaphors clarify everything.    Well put.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

garyh said:


> Food metaphors clarify everything.    Well put.




I'm hungry what can I say... You're going to have 4 tacos. With mild sauce.


----------



## Set (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> The second is: I want to go to taco bell. Get in the car and buy some tacos to eat.




Or, more accurately, *I'm* going to Taco Bell.  If anybody wants to come with me _in my car_ and have some of the Taco Bell food _that I'll be buying,_ they're welcome to do so, but I'm just going to Taco Bell.  If somebody wants Pizza Hut, they are more than welcome to take their own car and maybe I'll go with them and have pizza instead!

In non-food metaphors, the DM is doing the players a favor by running the game instead of playing (as most people prefer playing).  Like a good cook, he's best served to find out what his potential customers like to eat, rather than just plop a steaming plate of beef tongue and boiled cabbage in front of them, but it's his kitchen, and ultimately, nobody has to eat what he's cooking, when they could all get out of the player chairs and go cook up something more to their taste and let *him* sit down and sample their fare instead.


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 20, 2008)

Set said:


> In non-food metaphors, the DM is doing the players a favor by running the game instead of playing (as most people prefer playing).  Like a good cook, he's best served to find out what his potential customers like to eat, rather than just plop a steaming plate of beef tongue and boiled cabbage in front of them, but it's his kitchen, and ultimately, nobody has to eat what he's cooking, when they could all get out of the player chairs and go cook up something more to their taste and let *him* sit down and sample their fare instead.



... or he can just ask if one of the players could give him a hand in the kitchen.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god. The DM creates the world, the adventures, the DM sometimes cheats to make the encounters more interesting or enjoyable. Without the DM there is no game. So if the DM says that X race or class does not appear in this campaign world, that's just the way it is. Players who push issues like that with me get ejected from the game, which is also my right.
> 
> DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group.




I hope I missed the sarcasm tag somewhere...

I tend to find this attitude condescending, self-important, and downright rude. A DM's job is storyteller and rule-arbiter, not deity-who-is-always-right. While certainly most DMs do the lion's share of the work (game prep, etc) the game is a social, collaborative event of which the DM is but one participant. Remember, a DM without players is telling just stories to himself. 

Then again, I tend to play with my friends, so most of these arguments are moot; we tend to agree on most of the same rules of broken and not-broken, and few of us ever break the spirit of the rules, so little if anything is outright banned.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

Set said:


> Or, more accurately, *I'm* going to Taco Bell.  If anybody wants to come with me _in my car_ and have some of the Taco Bell food _that I'll be buying,_ they're welcome to do so, but I'm just going to Taco Bell.  If somebody wants Pizza Hut, they are more than welcome to take their own car and maybe I'll go with them and have pizza instead!




See in this case, while I might be getting tacos, I'm now missing out on the fun of a night out with my friends.

I'd much rather compromise, go to Applebees and order a fajita... At least then, although it's not a taco, I'm stil getting Mexican AND a night out with my friends.

Thats really all I'm saying... Compromise on EVERYONE's part involved in the game can lead to a much more rewarding game.


----------



## Oni (Aug 20, 2008)

I don't really enjoy DMing (too much pressure to have everyone's fun on your shoulders for my taste) so anything I can do to make the job of the person that is DMing easier and more fun is pretty much fine by me.  That includes letting them make the world they want.  They have to do all the work to run things, so I don't see any reason to be more demanding on them than necessary, let them do it how they want.


----------



## Mark (Aug 20, 2008)

You seem to want to tell other people where to drive and what to eat.  If someone invites you to a dinner party do you suggest they call everyone being invited and make sure everyone has a say in what the host prepares?


----------



## Kzach (Aug 20, 2008)

I have a simple rule when DM'ing.

Either you agree to all my rules, or I don't DM.

If people don't like what I'm selling, then I'm happy to step down and play. I love rogues in 4e. My rogue did a 30 point crit last night, and slid someone down a well which killed him with falling damage. Rogues are cool.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So I've seen a lot of posts (especially with some of the changes in the new edition) that have people saying things like:
> 
> "In my game there will be no (insert random thing to ban from campaign.)"
> 
> ...




To extent I agree. To an extent.

When I started my Age of Worms game I pretty much laid down strict guidelines for character creation. PHB only. Stat buy only. No evil PC's. No Evil PC's Masquerading as CN PC's. If you want to play an evil PC, my game is not the game for you. If you want to use splatbooks, my game is not the game for you. I let them know up front what was to be expected. This was a group that was basically a bunch of strangers that met over a meetup message board. I didnt know who was a power-gamer, rules lawyer or whatever. As a DM I needed to gauge a them at the table under optimal conditions and see what they were like as players. 

Later on two players of the 5 players left. I'm pretty sure one of them left because of the "vanilla" nature of the game. The other left because of work obligations. Another player joined. after a while I started house ruling a few things. I'd tell them what I planned and asked i there was any opposition. No? Great. We'll test. After a while I started opening up options from different WOTC splats, feats, classes and PrC's. Every house rule that I proposed (from eliminating confirming crits, to use of Paizo's Critical Hit deck) I pitched to the players first. 

In short, Dm's do most of the leg work in prep, and putting together the baseline world that the PC's play in. The dynamic nature of that immediate world doesnt really work very well without in put from the players, true. Still, it's my experience that the players still rely on the DM to fill in a great number of the blanks and even if you use pre-written adventures you have to kind of personalize them for your group. The DM does most of the work. Yes it's a collaborative game, but unless everyone IS doing the leg work the bulk of the responsibility and the work is on the DM. So the DM should have a greater say than most. At my table, in my games if anyone has a real problem with that they're welcome to run their own game but if they don't like mine they can leave. I'd sooner NOT play or run than deal with obstinate players or players with a sense of entitlement. 

Note: If I exclude a class or a race from the core and a player can come up with a really good back story for that PC, I'll usually let it go. It shows that the player actually has a story concept and not JUST a mechanical motivation.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 20, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> I hope I missed the sarcasm tag somewhere...
> 
> I tend to find this attitude condescending, self-important, and downright rude. A DM's job is storyteller and rule-arbiter, not deity-who-is-always-right. While certainly most DMs do the lion's share of the work (game prep, etc) the game is a social, collaborative event of which the DM is but one participant. Remember, a DM without players is telling just stories to himself.




Nope, not sarcastic. But then I've never had a player who couldn't abide by my ground rules or want out of one of my games. I've had players I didn't want in the game, but that was simple to deal with by not inviting them back. Right now the two stable guys in our group have been friends of mine since highschool, so it isn't much of a problem. I ran a game for a couple years where I had six players and I only really knew one of them. A good time was had by all.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So I've seen a lot of posts (especially with some of the changes in the new edition) that have people saying things like:
> 
> "In my game there will be no (insert random thing to ban from campaign.)"
> 
> ...



Hence the term, *Dungeon Master*, not "Dungeon Accomodator."


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 20, 2008)

The DM has a unique role as world-builder and campaign anchor. The DM, unless allowing everything from every splatbook, has to restrict some things. I have never and will never run a generic "world of Dungeons and Dragons" game where most everything is a random pop-fantasy mish-mash and internal consistancy is an afterthought. I run games with distinct personalities such as:

Athas
Midnight
Ravenloft
Dragonlance
Dawnforge
Conan's Hyboria
The Diamond Throne
etc.

Even my Forgotten Realms was trimmed of some things that made it less like a giant Mos Eisly (sp?) spaceport since a lot of IMO crap was added to FR in the 3e era that IMO was unnecessary.

A setting is as defined by what you subtract as by what you add. A perfect forumla for dull, generic fantasy is making every setting the same in regards to race  and class options. I've been my group's DM for 23yrs and I have always decided the setting and the type of game. I wouldn't have it any other way because I have to do all the prep and have put many, many times more work into making sure I run a good campaign than my players have to in order to run their individual characters. I simply cannot put a lot of time into something I won't enjoy running, its as simple as that. If I lose my enjoyment, get bored or burned out there is no game....period.

I always help my players come up with setting appropriate character concepts and see no reason to change the way I do buisness since it has worked for nearly a quarter century. Anyone who has a problem with me running my game as a benign dictatorship can start up their own game.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 20, 2008)

There are a _lot_ more players then there are DMs.  Players are replacable.  DMs are not.  If you dislike the campaign rules, (try to) find another DM.

You can't tell the DM "I want this, you have to give it to me."  You are perfectly allowed to try and ask the DM to make/do something banned, and he's perfectly allowed to say "No."

If it rankles you THAT much...YOU could always start DMing.  But then, for most players, that's crazy talk ;p


----------



## Runestar (Aug 20, 2008)

I am inclined to say that just because a DM can do something does not necessarily mean that he should. It seems to defeat the purpose if he sets out to create a fun game for everyone based on his own (and only his own) definition of what fun entails, and ends up banning everything which his players find fun. I have always felt that the DM is there to serve the players as much as the players are there to accomodate him. 

I agree with the "try to compromise" part. If a player wants to play some unique race like a monster progression from savage species, I can't say that I will always be able to find a way of slotting it into my campaign world, but I can at least promise him that I will try. For my group, playing dnd is as much for the unique experience of trying out new game mechanics as it is for the rp factor.  



> You seem to want to tell other people where to drive and what to eat. If someone invites you to a dinner party do you suggest they call everyone being invited and make sure everyone has a say in what the host prepares?




No, but I would expect food to my liking/tastes. For instance, if I were the host, I would at least want to take note of any special dietary needs of my guests to beter cater to them, so I don't end up with fiascos like an all-meat buffet for a vegetarian guest, or pork dishes for muslims. As a host, it would be my responsbility to ensure that everyone is well taken care of, and not assume a "Either you eat my food or scram" attitude. 

Same analogy would apply here, IMO. You don't have to go out of your way to cater to your players' every whim and try to please them completely, but it would be folly to complete disregard their preferences and wants. It is their game as much as the DM's. 

In the end, it is really all about everyone having fun. So I don't really see the point of unnecessarily begrudging my players.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 20, 2008)

Mark said:


> You seem to want to tell other people where to drive and what to eat.  If someone invites you to a dinner party do you suggest they call everyone being invited and make sure everyone has a say in what the host prepares?



I host dinner parties about twice a week (I love to cook). I _always_ clear the dinner menu with the invitees first. Nothing is more disheartening to me than preparing a lavish meal only to have people turn up their noses at it, simply because it isn't in their taste. The dinner party is not a success unless someone other than myself enjoys the meal.

Now, as a player, I will always defer to the DM. Always. If a DM abuses that trust with fickle and senseless house rules, the DM is replaced. It's democracy in action.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Maybe it's because most of the games I run tend to be with  friends I've known since junior high or longer?



Probably. Viking Hat DMing seems to be more necessary among strangers or groups where the focus is more on the game than the socialising.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 20, 2008)

It's in most ways the DM's game.

In our crew, the first question a DM (and there's now 4 of us) gets asked now is "what edition are you running?".  If the answer is 3e, then more detailed questions come next, as 3e can represent a great many things - compare 3e Eberron to 3e FR, for example.  If the answer is "Victoria Rules 1e" there's not much more to ask unless you've never heard of the system...which means you don't already know us so why are you trying to get in the game anyway? 

The DM decides the edition.  And the setting.  And the rules.  And while players of course have every right to make suggestions, the DM has just a little bit more right to ignore 'em...

For Decast (my new game), in order to set a tone early I forced everyone to start with Human characters only, as they were setting off from deep in a classical-Greek-based Human land; non-Humans could drift in later (and have done so, now) once the party was far enough afield to logically meet such.  The players didn't know this until roll-up night, and there wasn't a hint of objection; I think they just took it as part of the "surprise" and went with it.

Oh, and party infighting is allowed. (I just had a player manage to pull off what I long thought was impossible: he ran a Paladin and an Assassin side by side as his two characters in the same party!  Neither realized what the other was (the Paladin wasn't the showy type) and both died against the enemy before the inevitable showdown could take place; but I'd have loved to have watched this player have to throw down against himself...)

Lanefan


----------



## Mark (Aug 20, 2008)

Halivar said:


> I host dinner parties about twice a week (I love to cook). I _always_ clear the dinner menu with the invitees first.





You deciding to clear your cooking plans with your guests is not the same thing as your guest telling you what you are going to cook.


----------



## Gundark (Aug 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> It's the DM's job to put together fun adventures, an interesting campaign world (or at least to _portray_ an interseting campaign world), and possibly to develop an intricate plot.
> 
> It's not only the DM's _right_, but his _responsibility_, to ban material that's going to make it harder for him to do the above. And yes, that includes sometimes banning races, classes, alignments, or what have you. I rarely allow evil characters, for instance, and I feel not one shred of guilt for doing so. If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.




Well I'd say the DM needs the support of his players first and foremost. If a DM wants to run a Conan style game and his players don't want to play that , it'll kill a game pretty damn fast too ( at least my group). It's also the DMs job to create a world that everybody enjoys and wants to play in.

What I think th OP means are the DMs who say hate Dragonborn and don't allow them merely on that basis. In that case I think it should be a group decision. As mentioned above the DMs job is to make the game enjoyable and if playing X race would make that so for the group then why not?

However I agree that if X race doesn't fit the setting then the DM is within his right to say no...or say no for some other reason which I'm not thinkng about right now.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2008)

> In non-food metaphors, the DM is doing the players a favor by running the game instead of playing (as most people prefer playing). Like a good cook, he's best served to find out what his potential customers like to eat, rather than just plop a steaming plate of beef tongue and boiled cabbage in front of them, but it's his kitchen, and ultimately, nobody has to eat what he's cooking, when they could all get out of the player chairs and go cook up something more to their taste and let *him* sit down and sample their fare instead.




Now this I 100% disagree with.  As a DM, I am not doing anyone any favors.  (heh, rereading that, that can go a lot of ways.   )  I DM because I want to.  If someone DM'd because of some sort of sense of obligation, that they HAD to DM, I'd never want to play with them.  DM because you want to, and for no other reason.

Funnily enough, this exact thing just came up in my game.  I'm starting a Savage Tide (3.5) game next week and everyone is making their characters.  Now, I had a rather lengthy list of races and classes that I wanted to see in the game.  I gave all sorts of bonuses for choosing from that list (I prefer a carrot approach).

One of the players wants a tiefling.  Not on the list.  On the list is Diaboli (from Dragon Magazine and Mystara fame) and I pointed him in that direction.  He turned up his nose and said that he really, really wanted to try tiefling.  I pointed out the great goodies he was giving up by taking tiefling instead of diaboli.  He stuck to his guns.  

Then I stepped back a second.  He REALLY wants to play a tiefling.  He's made this abundantly clear.  Plus, he's a good player who will really bring the character to life.  Tiefling and Diaboli aren't all that different at the end of the day.  So, I caved, let him have the tiefling with the extra goodies as well.

He's happy, he gets to play the character he has in his head.  I'm fairly content because there isn't a massive shift in the game between my idea and what's being played.

To me that's a win all the way around.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I believe that cutting material is one of the fastest and most efficient ways to make a coherent setting.  If you want to go into details about the relationship between, say, humans and elves, it helps to not have 15 other sentient humanoids mucking things up.  Simplify!  Eliminate the rest of them unless you have an actual reason to include them.

But on the other hand, I've certainly read posts from DMs who seem to have... the wrong motives, lets say, in banning material.  I've read LOTS of those posts.  And they annoy the crap out of me.

I generally keep quiet though.  Because the same DMs that seem to display ridiculous senses of entitlement also tend to post hysterical accusations of player entitlement.  And since its hard to really prove that sort of thing, and since those threads always devolve into comments like "You don't know me!  You can't say that!  But I'll say it about you without noticing the irony!  Just watch!" I just stay out of it.

There are certainly some DMs around here who absolutely suck.  They may not realize they suck.  But they suck.  And happily, I don't have to play with them.  So it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Mister Doug (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god. The DM creates the world, the adventures, the DM sometimes cheats to make the encounters more interesting or enjoyable. Without the DM there is no game. So if the DM says that X race or class does not appear in this campaign world, that's just the way it is. Players who push issues like that with me get ejected from the game, which is also my right.
> 
> DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group.




See, I was raised on old school and I just don't get this. No DM = no game. No players = no game. DMs are not god. At best they are elected officials, and as such they have responsibilities, and their powers arise from those responsibilities. They have a responsibility to make worlds, make decisions, and create opportunities for fun and entertainment. In pursuit of this, the players trust and grant them power to run the game and to make things happen.

This is a partnership. The DM has a right to make these decisions, but not because of his exalted place above "self-entitled" players. They have the right to do this because the trust and consent of players entitles them to these rights.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 20, 2008)

Mister Doug said:


> See, I was raised on old school and I just don't get this. No DM = no game. No players = no game. DMs are not god. At best they are elected officials, and as such they have responsibilities, and their powers arise from those responsibilities. They have a responsibility to make worlds, make decisions, and create opportunities for fun and entertainment. In pursuit of this, the players trust and grant them power to run the game and to make things happen.
> 
> This is a partnership. The DM has a right to make these decisions, but not because of his exalted place above "self-entitled" players. They have the right to do this because the trust and consent of players entitles them to these rights.




As I said, the player always has the option of not playing if they don't like the specific terms I put in front of them. As a DM, I tend to weigh arguments made by players fairly and take their point of view into consideration. I am a kind and benevolent god at my table, and that is the way the players like it. At the end of the day though, the tough decisions are mine to make. If I'm not sure about a rule (and yes, it does happen occasionally), I am willing to defer to the interpretation of one of my most experienced players, provided that he is being reasonable and not trying to break the game.

The point behind taking this attitude is so that the boundaries separating player from DM are clearly defined and there is no confusion. Some players always want to have their way about rules interpretations and character builds. By laying it down from day 1 that I am the final arbiter of such things, there is no gray area and any rules discussions are quickly and permanently resolved.


----------



## Mister Doug (Aug 20, 2008)

Set said:


> Or, more accurately, *I'm* going to Taco Bell.  If anybody wants to come with me _in my car_ and have some of the Taco Bell food _that I'll be buying,_ they're welcome to do so, but I'm just going to Taco Bell.  If somebody wants Pizza Hut, they are more than welcome to take their own car and maybe I'll go with them and have pizza instead!
> 
> In non-food metaphors, the DM is doing the players a favor by running the game instead of playing (as most people prefer playing).  Like a good cook, he's best served to find out what his potential customers like to eat, rather than just plop a steaming plate of beef tongue and boiled cabbage in front of them, but it's his kitchen, and ultimately, nobody has to eat what he's cooking, when they could all get out of the player chairs and go cook up something more to their taste and let *him* sit down and sample their fare instead.




See, that's where I don't quite see this the same way. I don't see DMing as doing anybody a favor. I enjoy running games, and that's why I run them. I change things as I play to keep the game dynamic strong and everyone (including me) happy. But when I cook, if someone isn't eating, I think that I need to think whether I'm cooking well or to the taste of my guests, too.


----------



## Draksila (Aug 20, 2008)

Rechan said:


> ....
> 
> As a player, I have asked every DM I have ever sat under "So, can I play a kobold?" and I have been told no. And I do not begrudge them for it.




That's a shame.  Some of the most interesting characters we've had in my group's campaigns over the years have been a kobold, a saurial, three minotaur sisters, and a goblin.  A well-thought out and designed character should be permitted regardless of prejudices, as long as the player is willing to work under the hardships inherent in being so very different.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 20, 2008)

I went through my "I am the DM, I am god, what I say goes, my way or the highway"-phase at one point.  What I learned from that experience was that, yes, there are players who will tolerate such a DM, but they were rarely players that I enjoyed running a game for.  The good players, with something positive to contribute to the game, will usually go and find a game run by a less totalitarian DM.  I've found I have a much better chance of getting together a game with people I actually enjoy running the game for if everyone at the table has a say in how the game is run.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> It's the DM's job to put together fun adventures, an interesting campaign world (or at least to _portray_ an interseting campaign world), and possibly to develop an intricate plot.
> 
> It's not only the DM's _right_, but his _responsibility_, to ban material that's going to make it harder for him to do the above. And yes, that includes sometimes banning races, classes, alignments, or what have you. I rarely allow evil characters, for instance, and I feel not one shred of guilt for doing so. If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.
> 
> ...




The Mouse has spoken well.

Additionally, part of what the DM is responsible for is what you might call the "mood" or "feel" of the game. So, if we're doing (as the Mouse mentioned) a Conan-esque game, certain things will be allowed and certain things will be disallowed. You're not bringing a saucy Kender to my Conan game. If you run a game, it can be called SaucyKenderLance if you want. But in the game I'm responsible for, the game I am blamed for if it sucks, I feel perfectly comfortable laying down reasonable parameters. And if you don't trust my parameters to be reasonable... you're daft for playing with me in the first place.

Another person mentioned dinner parties. The analogy is apt. I know a married couple... the fellow's wife cooks like nobody's business. When I'm lucky enough to get an invitation to their house for dinner, I would never dream of presuming to try to dictate what will be cooked. It's not my house, I'm not buying the food and I'm not cooking it and if I were cooking it the food would not turn out 1/1000th as good. So I'll trust the chef... and what's cool about that is that it actually works: I get a delicious meal! It would not work out half so well if I tried to arrogate authority to myself in the matter.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 20, 2008)

Halivar said:


> Nothing is more disheartening to me than preparing a lavish meal only to have people turn up their noses at it, simply because it isn't in their taste.



So... you go to all the effort and expense of creating a lovely meal, a nice setting and inviting people around for a good social night out, and some gobstopper turns his nose up at your food and _you're_ the one who feels bad?

I would so kick them out on their arse for being completely ungrateful, selfish gits. It's all well and good not to like something, but there are also such things as manners.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 20, 2008)

I think some people are reading too much into the "I am the dungeon *master*" comments.  If you're playing with friends, you all already know what kind of game that everyone enjoys.  It's not a matter of saying, "you're going to play in my hack-n-slash campaign or you're going home."  Because if you've been with a group for a while and they like hack-n-slash gaming, you probably do too, or you wouldn't still be playing with them.  Everyone is already on board with the choice of the dinner menu, so to speak.

So we're primarily talking about variations on the menu... to which I say, is this really a big deal that you can't play an elf (or whatever) for once?  "Elf" isn't a character concept.  D&D races are just collections of mechanical bonuses with some roleplaying hooks attached.

/scrubs self clean after using food metaphors


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

It's all about making sure everyone, the DM and the players, have fun. And just as there are things people require to have fun, there are things people need to be absent to have fun. When those two things overlap in a group, then a compromise is needed, or someone needs to give - or leave.

And given how much work a DM does, he or she usually has a bit more "clout" than a player when it comes to compromising.


----------



## Phaezen (Aug 20, 2008)

Kzach said:


> So... you go to all the effort and expense of creating a lovely meal, a nice setting and inviting people around for a good social night out, and some gobstopper turns his nose up at your food and _you're_ the one who feels bad?
> 
> I would so kick them out on their arse for being completely ungrateful, selfish gits. It's all well and good not to like something, but there are also such things as manners.





Granted, but as host it is also your duty to check with your guests what they enjoy eating and if there are any foods they don't or won't eat for health or other personal issues.

Same thing when I am proposing a campaign I check with myplayers what they would be interested in, system, setting, if they would accept certain limitations and houserules etc.  ON the flip side, I do ask to check character sheets and builds beforehand to try and cut down on the most blatant of the rules abuses and to check the characters will fit the campaign.

Phaezen


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

In my experiences, characters are best made together with the whole group. That way, players know what to expect.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 20, 2008)

While I cannot stand control freak DMs, I do like that 4th Ed has toned down a bit the _player pleasing/DMs go screw yourselves_ vibe that 3rd Ed had, IMO.


And I'm all for DMs restricting things based on flavour, such as "_Hey, guys, in this campaign setting there is no divine power source (no gods), so cleric and paladin are unavailable in this world._"

As long as there is a reason and everyone knows up front it should be fine


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Aug 20, 2008)

I think the DM has every right to mold his setting as he sees fit.  The funny thing is that this is totally accepted when the changes are printed in a campaign setting but some players cry "FOUL" when a DM does so for a homebrew setting.  I'll give you an example...

Midnight - In this setting the magic system is different from the 3E rules.  Magic in the setting is also treated differently.  As such almost every core PC magic using class from the PHB has been excluded and not all of them has been replaced with a non-magical equivalent.  There are no Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Monks, or Druids.  The have been replaced with Defenders, Channellers, and Wildlanders.  However, I've never had a problem with players picking up the book and creating their characters with the classes offered in the Midnight book.  Not one gripe.  Switch now to the DM who were to create a homebrew setting that was similar setting to Midnight but excludes the 7 PHB classes listed above and creates his own.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a group that didn't contain at least one player who would get ticked that the DM didn't allow their favorite class.  It seems that something being published grants "authority" to the decision to exclude certain races and classes even when the DM should have that authority all along.

What if a DM decides that they want to run a setting where the gods either don't get involved or don't even exist?  If the DM wanted to throw out all classes that use divine magic I think that they have every right to do so because it supports their setting.

What irks me the most is that all a Player really has to do is just show up and they expect to be entertained.  With the exception of Game Day they don't even have to think about the game all week.  It is the DM who brainstorms or pours through a modules to prep for the game.  I think everyone will agree that preparing for a game is "Work" even if it is a labor of love.  For crying out loud, make it easy on the DM by letting him/her do what they want with the game they are running.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 20, 2008)

I approach DMing as I would approach being the chairman of a board.

I execute the will of the players, I offer ideas, and I settle disputes. My goal is the same as everyone else's: maximize fun.

We vote on just about all decisions (from house rules to rule interpretations to what kind of adventure we're doing next)

I didn't always run games this way---but I've found its the style that works the best for me and my groups.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> In my experiences, characters are best made together with the whole group. That way, players know what to expect.



In 4e, I'd say doubly so.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So I've seen a lot of posts (especially with some of the changes in the new edition) that have people saying things like:
> 
> "In my game there will be no (insert random thing to ban from campaign.)"
> 
> ...




I had written something pretty long but the site ate my post!

I am confident someone will have posted along these lines but the gist of my post was that the game must be fun for EVERYONE and that includes the DM. If you bring some stupid character to the game and it wrecks my fun you aren't coming back. Why should I as DM put in so much time and effort only to have it wasted by you.

Show some courtesy and bring a character that will enhance the fun of everyone at the table.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Aug 20, 2008)

wyrmshadows said:


> i always help my players come up with setting appropriate character concepts and see no reason to change the way i do buisness since it has worked for nearly a quarter century. Anyone who has a problem with me running my game as a benign dictatorship can start up their own game.




amen brother!!!!


----------



## JediSoth (Aug 20, 2008)

I limit the options available to my players for several reasons:


I hate being surprised by class abilities I'm not familiar with because someone used a class out of a book I don't have
I host the games exclusively and have spent a lot of money on gaming regalia to make the experience better for everyone
Most of the time I ask someone else to step up and DM something, even for a few sessions, I have no takers
So, for the most part, I am the DM of the group and the ONLY DM. I put far more time into the game than any of the players do (and the proof of that comes when I expect them to know something I sent to them a week ago, or something in a player's guide I provided and I get blank stares back and admissions they didn't read it). Therefore, I feel a little justified putting restrictions on the types of characters they can play. Normally, I provide a document 3-4 weeks before the start of my campaigns that give an overview of the world (unless they're familiar with it, and then I just write-up some flavor text to convey the mood of the game), give a list of the races and classes available, any special character creation guidelines (which attribute generation method, any free starting equipment, etc.), and any house rules we'll be using. I also always include something like "If there's a class or race you want to play that isn't listed, discuss it with me and I'll probably allow it."

A few people have taken me up on it, hence the kobold beguiler (neither of which was on my list) and kobold unfettered (the kobold wasn't on the list, the unfettered was) in my last Ptolus campaign.

I've found if I don't give some hard and fast guidelines, I get things like parties comprised entirely of various melee classes with no casters whatsoever. And I can tell you, in the World's Largest Dungeon, that made things VERY difficult on them until some of the characters were swapped out.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 20, 2008)

It's not that the DM dictates every little bit of fluff.  The DM is responsible for the larger story arc, the setting, tone, and consistancy.

As a DM, I've swung from power trip to whatever you want.  IMO, the best place is somewhat to the authoratative side.  It's good to have bounds that define the "playing field".  If a player comes up with an exceptional concept, then it's probably a good idea to work with them and see if it can be included.  If they just have an idea that's "different" or want to avoid the mold just because, then I'd be dis-inclined to bend.

I DM largely because I enjoy trying to create a world with an interesting and compelling history for the players to interact.  There is some give-and-take regarding many things, including character concepts and making sure the PCs, rather than the world, shine.  Still, telling me that I am not able to include, exclude, or change various elements in a way I find compelling and internally consistent is a bit like telling a player that he isn't going to be able to choose the feats for his character (or, maybe even that he'll be handed a pre-gen).  I'd walk from a game in which the GM said that (without good reason).  I'd also walk from the DM role if the creative aspects were stripped and it was turned into little more than a referree.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 20, 2008)

There is something to the idea that humans assume automatically that if its written/published by some official source the DM has to use it.

For example, if in my homebrew setting I have certain races and classes with rich histories, background and themetically appropriate elements and then lets say a sourcebook written by Rich Baker, Monte Cook, or game designer dujour comes out with a bunch of new kewl stuff there was a time when my players would act as if I was supposed to add this stuff....because it was now official.

This is a part of human nature. There is a tendency to give particular validity to that which is in print or that which is given the "official" imprimatur of the gaming gods.

Well, not at my table. If what is published fits the type of game I am running I'll happily add it. If something doesn't fit, I don't care if Monte Cook thinks its the greatest thing evah it isn't seeing the light of day in my campaign...and I really like Monte's work.

IMO the worst of 3e's legacy was its (as someone else elegantly put it) its "screw the DM" attitude. Anyone with a lick of sense and a bit of knowledge about marketing can see why WoTC would want to dramatically "empower" players. The fact is that there are more players than DMs and if a company creates books that are offering "_options and not restrictions_" so as to give players the "_full D&D experience_" they are doing it for the money. Pander to every power-gamer on the market and you will make a lot of money.

Many 3e DMs drank the Kool-Aid and bought into a gaming meme designed not to improve their individual campaigns but to sell more books to the largest common denominator...the D&D player. DM's started parroting the party line and lost their control of the game and then cried foul saying "_OMG! 3e is sooooo broken!_" when in fact that the power creep THEY ALLOWED TO HAPPEN was to blame. I don't really blame DMs who only ever DMed 3e but the old guard who actually bought into this nonsense are certainly blameworthy.

I don't personally like 4e but if 4e helps some DMs regrow their cajones and act like DMs and not mere rule arbiting DMbots that's great.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

Kzach said:


> So... you go to all the effort and expense of creating a lovely meal, a nice setting and inviting people around for a good social night out, and some gobstopper turns his nose up at your food and _you're_ the one who feels bad?
> 
> I would so kick them out on their arse for being completely ungrateful, selfish gits. It's all well and good not to like something, but there are also such things as manners.



Responding to this as a literal statement rather than a metaphor, I HATE this attitude.

Nothing fills me with rage faster than someone giving me something I actively DO NOT WANT, refusing to allow me to politely decline, and then pressuring me to express gratitude for it.  It makes me want to do the same thing back to them.  You know, spend 15 hours painting their house bright pink, then getting SERIOUSLY ANGRY that they're not grateful.  What do they mean, they don't like pink?  What do they mean, they didn't want their house painted?  I DIDN'T WANT THE STUPID MEATLOAF EITHER!  Insisting that I not only choke it down, but also pretend that I liked it, thus ensuring that they make the same terrible meatloaf for me again?  Its like an act of culinary warfare!  It will be responded to in kind!

Rage!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2008)

The DM has the right to define what is included or excluded from a game he or she is running. With this right comes the responsibility of making sure prospective players are well informed of these things before characters are created. 

If the players do not like the game being offered then the option for one of them to run something else should be made available. It comes down to a simple case of putting your money where your mouth is. The amount of input about what gets included in a game is proportionate to the amount of time one is willing to run a game. 

Time spent preparing a game world and adventures should be shared as equally as any input regarding what gets included or excluded. If all the players want to work together developing a campaign world and take turns running adventures in that world then yes, all decisions should be made as a group.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm still confused.

Yeah, I put a lot of work into my game - but it's because I enjoy it, and I love running (and playing!) D&D.  It's not a chore for which I need to be rewarded.  A simple "Thanks!" is more than enough.  I thank my players, too, for making the experience enjoyable.


Pretty recently, in my last attempt at 3.5 for a while, I decided to run a Wilderlands game.  At first, I decided to try and hew as closely as possible to a swords & sorcery setting - sticking only to core books, using only races mentioned in the Wilderlands Players' Guide and so on.

I also decided that I'd run it sandbox-style, with adventure hooks scattered all around the place.  I even bought the Mother of All Encounter Tables off RPGNow for added oldschool-style goodness.

None of my goals really worked out.  It turned out that (1) my players, after months of playing non-3.5 games had all been thinking about characters they'd want to run; (2) they like being led around a bit more than is expected for sandbox play; and (3) sword & sorcery tropes don't resonate with them like they do with me.

I could have put my foot down, sure, but I elected not to.  Instead of a typical fantasy group I ended up with oddballs like a modron rogue and a goblinesque warlock.

I could have done a few things at this point.  I could have put my foot down.  I could have cancelled the game and run something else.  I decided to just roll with it - really, I want my gaming group to have a good time at the table.  I will have fun regardless, but I didn't want to try and force my long-term gaming group into having the exact kind of fun that I was imagining.  It just seemed counter-productive for me...  Which is more important - the integrity of a campaign style that exists only in my head, or my players' enjoyment of the game?  The latter wins out, for me, every single time.

-O


----------



## EATherrian (Aug 20, 2008)

I've DM'd for a long time so I figured I'd add my opinions here.  I mostly start from the setting and then decide if anything is out.  I didn't really have to excise much until 3.x, except psionics which I've disallowed since 1st edition.  My problem with 4th edition is that I've been able to play in my homebrew world for 2 decades now, but if I want to stay core I'd have to add Tieflings and Dragonborn.  I have no idea how to add them without making it look stupid, so for 4e I have to make a new world.  For games played in my old world then there are no tieflings or dragonborn and I explain that to players before I run a game there.  Mind you I've house-ruled the hell out of it, so those aren't the only excisions, just the most obvious in 4e.  Even in my 4e world I've had to change things, but it's mostly fluff to fix things I don't think were well thought through.  I think what I'm saying here is that if it is consistent and the DM explains in advance what he allows / disallows I have no problem with it.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 20, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> The DM has the right to define what is included or excluded from a game he or she is running. With this right comes the responsibility of making sure prospective players are well informed of these things before characters are created.
> 
> If the players do not like the game being offered then the option for one of them to run something else should be made available. It comes down to a simple case of putting your money where your mouth is. The amount of input about what gets included in a game is proportionate to the amount of time one is willing to run a game.




Too true.

IME, it is the DMs who buy the setting books and setting specific supplements. In fact, I always felt it was my responsibility to buy the materials I needed/wanted to run the game I wanted to run. I never thought of it as a burden and never thought to ask my players to pitch in because I'm the DM and its my responsibility.

I remember how much money I spent getting my Athas campaign going. I had everything and the campaign was great because I had the whole setting at my fingertips. Same for FR, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Midnight, etc.

In the 3e era, the only things I have seen players buy are splatbooks that they would  personally benefit from. I have yet to see a player who runs a fighter go out of his way to buy a book updating wizards for the sake of his buddy's mage. Maybe it does happen, but its rare.

If I shell out hundreds of dollars preparing for the game, making sure I have everything I need to create a vivid campaign that everyone will enjoy you can bet that if you want to play at my table you will accept my/the setting's rules and thematic elements.

Anyone who doesn't like it is free to spend the money to prep your own game, spend the time creating a setting, spend the time making sure the game is prepped between sessions when you work full time and have a kid. Feel free to do that and then you can make the rules. I'll happily rest on my laurels and play abiding by the rules you decide on.

I love DMing but with the numerous resposibilities of DMing comes great power within the game. I would never go all out for my players the way I do if I thought that I was going to be countermanded all the time. I am very fair and resonable with my rulings, but ultimately I am the boss at my table.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2008)

Wyrmshadows - the metric for DM authority should be the amount of money he's put into the game?

Yeesh, by that metric I've got about zero authority.  I buy very few books.  I buy maybe one or two books a year and have since 3.5 was released.  My players all have more books than I do.

Going by what you say, I should allow my players to have whatever they want.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> If I shell out hundreds of dollars preparing for the game, making sure I have everything I need to create a vivid campaign that everyone will enjoy you can bet that if you want to play at my table you will accept my/the setting's rules and thematic elements.



This right here is the attitude I really dislike.

If you don't enjoy buying new books, and don't enjoy doing the prep-work on its own merits, why are you DMing?  It seems like a joyless way to run a game.

-O


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Aug 20, 2008)

I would say that I am amazed at the amount of "if the DM isn't 110% in control of everything then the DM is 110% powerless" attitudes that some of the posts seem to carry in this thread...

but then again this the intertubes so I guess it is to be expected.

This is coming from a player:

Yes, the DM has the right to deny stuff - but the players has the right to question and offer alternatives. The objective is for everyone to have fun.

Everyone.

That means both the DM and the players.

The DM has the right to say "for this next campaign no Dragonborn." Maybe it's the tone of the setting, maybe the DM is planning on having dragonborn be the race of an invading army (and thus all of them be bad guys) and maybe the DM just doesn't like the race at all.

All of these are valid reasons. On the flip side I do think the player has the right to ask the DM why there are no dragonborn alowed. Hopefully the DM can give a satifactory answer (and "plot reasons that will become apparent in a few levels" is a valid answer if the DM wants to keep something hidden for a future surprise). 

Now the tricky part: I think the player has the right to offer up the "What if I play a dragonborn with this background/restriction" idea. I also think the DM does have the obligation (yes, I used the word obligation - I can hear the screams of Player Entitlment from here - stay with me for a minute) to concider said idea; but the DM is under no obligation what-so-ever to take the player up on the build. The DM has the right to continue saying "no".

Yes, this is coming from a player. Yes, I stated what I believe are some player rights - but taking control of the entire game from start to finish is NOT one of those rights. There is a middle ground. The DM has the right to choose. The players have the right to question.


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm seriously perplexed. I keep reading that "the DM does all the work and the players just show up, so the DM should get his way". "It's so hard being the DM, so the players should cut him some slack and let him be the boss." "If the players don't like it, tough. They're not doing any work."

If this is such a problem, why not, as I've already suggested twice, try _asking the players for help_? This has really made our round-robin Mutants & Masterminds game a lot of fun, and has opened up possibilities we'd never considered for the progression of the game, of the characters, and of the story. Ask the players to bring with them ideas for their home town, or maybe even home country, and then take a couple of minutes to hammer it in to fit in your vision of the world. Maybe a magical fae wonderland for a player's hometown doesn't fit in a very grim and gritty Conan-esque world, but maybe a hidden utopia which falls under attack during the course of the game and is destroyed by the world it hid from could be an interesting metaphor for the destruction of the innocent, or commentary on isolationism.

Or maybe, rather than being the only one coming up with NPCs, you could ask the players to come up with ideas for old friends or contacts or enemies who their characters might know. Maybe you can't use them exactly as your player presents them, but they might come up with an excellent character who will make your game better.

When I ran a game set during a stalled Age of Exploration, one of the players had a character who was a native from the steppes of a continent colonized in the relatively near past, and he devised an absolutely fascinating home territory for his character's tribe. They migrated around a huge, mineralized set of dragon bones half-exposed on the steppes. I had originally not intended dragons to be "monsters" in that sense... they were instead going to be what ammounted to deities for one of the two great empires of the world. But that got me thinking, and I started wondering if maybe one of these near-deific creatures had been slain in the past. What could've done it? Why? What happened to the people who had once worshipped it? Did it happen before the rise of mankind, or after? That one idea the player brought to me spurred a whole new realm of possibilities.

The art of running a game is being able to rip off ideas and make them into your own, and your players are immaginative, clever people who are full of them. I mean, nobody does the unexpected like an RPG player (and every DM in this thread can agree with that).

So rather than bemoaning how heavy the head is which wears the crown, I think it's much better to talk to the players and ask for help or contributions. Stop thinking of it as "your world" and start thinking of it as "our world".


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

Jedi_Solo said:


> The DM has the right to say "for this next campaign no Dragonborn." Maybe it's the tone of the setting, maybe the DM is planning on having dragonborn be the race of an invading army (and thus all of them be bad guys) and maybe the DM just doesn't like the race at all.
> 
> All of these are valid reasons.



See, I'd question the last one, "maybe the DM just doesn't like the race at all."  I'm not sure that's a valid reason.

I know "the DM has the right to enjoy the game too," and all that.  My objection is this- if a player having a dragonborn character meaningfully harms your enjoyment of the game simply because you dislike dragonborn that much, you may have a problem.

Its as if I made a rule that players in my game could not wear plaid.  And my justification for that rule was that I really, truly hate plaid.  In fact, if I have to hang out with someone wearing plaid, I have less fun than I would were they not wearing plaid.  Even if I am not lying or prevaricating about my reasons, even if this is completely true and the presence of plaid in the room really does reduce my enjoyment of the social event as a whole, the only thing it indicates is that I have a serious problem.

And maybe real friends would talk to me about that problem, and assist me in seeking help and attaining a sense of perspective.

*slippery slope arguments about giant purple wombat necromancers begin.... NOW!*


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Too true.
> 
> IME, it is the DMs who buy the setting books and setting specific supplements. In fact, I always felt it was my responsibility to buy the materials I needed/wanted to run the game I wanted to run. I never thought of it as a burden and never thought to ask my players to pitch in because I'm the DM and its my responsibility.
> 
> ...




Actually its not about money at all, its about effort. If I write my own world and adventures then I will spend almost no money for a campaign but tons of my time, which is more important to me. If I spend hundreds of dollars on campaign materials then hopefully the game will take little prep time ( or else why did I spend all that money!) As a player if I buy a book then its because I simply want to read it. I never assume having a book entitles me to use it in someone else's game.


----------



## Janx (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> But that's the thing... For me, the first part of that setup would be me, as the DM saying soemthing like: Hey guys, I want to run a midnight campaign, here's the general idea I'm thinking of: followed by listening to their input, or whether they're interested in the idea of a Midnight campaign in the first place.
> 
> The idea of a Midnight campaign has a conotation too... I know when I say "Midnight campaign" my players would have a general idea of what to expect, and can work things out with me from there.
> 
> ...




in a vein similar to your food analogy, I DM the same way I go to the movies.  I decide what movie I want to see.  I look up the show times, and decide that the 11AM showing is cheaper and easy for me.  I call up my friends and tell them, "I'm going to see batman at 11AM tomorrow, wanna come with?"  Some do, some can't, some suggest another time.  If I really want to see it with them and the time isn't as important, I'll move the time, otherwise, I stick to my plan, and they don't come.  Either way, I'm going to see batman, and most likely at the time I chose.  The question is, how many friends joined me.

DMing is the same way.  I set the house rules and the campaign parameters, and see who wants to play.  I get players, usually the same as always.  Sometimes my players state a preference or suggestion.  Sometimes I incorporate it, sometimes I don't.

I'm certain Joss Whedon and J. Strazynski do the same on their shows with their writers and actors.  If they have compelling visions, and are good to work with/for, they get actors and writers that want to do their show.  Otherwise they don't.  And they usually find the actors and writers bring in in takes on their original vision and they incorporate them.  But as producer, they get final say.

In short, a producer or GM is the same job.  They create a vision, and the parameters of the show or game.  They recruit people to join in building that vision.  They remain in charge to keep the direction consistent and the quality high.  They are not obligated to listen to their players.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't.  It doesn't mean they have to make any changes to their product.  They are in charge.  If they're skilled at it, they incorporate the best ideas from their staff.  If they aren't they turn them away.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 20, 2008)

Jackelope King said:


> If this is such a problem, why not, as I've already suggested twice, try _asking the players for help_?




Yeah.  I really like to develop campaigns as a group instead of from on high.  Maybe the DM will have a strong vision for the campaign: "We are all thieves in a big, dark, dirty city; we'll deal with the politics and backstabbing and find out if the old adage: there is no honour among thieves - is true."  Or maybe it'll be one of the players who has that idea.

This idea is presented to the group, and if everyone's on board, then they go with that.  Everyone brainstorms some stuff they want to see in the game.  The players make characters, and then the DM goes back and does some prep - making some obstacles for the PCs.

The DM doesn't have to worry about entertaining all the players by himself; the players have taken some of that responsibility.  This leads to less burnout.  The players are commited to the shared vision of the campaign, so there's less the DM has to veto or say no to.  Everyone's on the same page, and it's cool.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 20, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I'm still confused.
> 
> Yeah, I put a lot of work into my game - but it's because I enjoy it, and I love running (and playing!) D&D.  It's not a chore for which I need to be rewarded.  A simple "Thanks!" is more than enough.  I thank my players, too, for making the experience enjoyable.



Agreed.  I DM because I like to DM.  I enjoy the creativity that goes along with it.  But, just as the player has to be willing to compromise with the DM's setting, the DM has to be willing to compromise with the players' expectations.

My current group doesn't particularly care for the Byzantine political machinations I normally like to throw into my games.  So, I didn't do those.  I'm trying to focus on other things that they do like.

If I have a great idea for a campaign where the PCs are all knights and courtiers, but the players want to be mercenaries, then there will have to be a shift in someone's plans.

But, IME, most players come to the table saying "Let's play D&D," or "I want to play a brick."  For anything beyond that generality, there is usually an implied "Entertain us."  I'm cool with that.  Part of the DM's job is to provide the stage for the entertainment.  What I'm not cool with is the implied "entertain us" coupled with inflexibility and a lack of input for the larger campaign (e.g. "I want to play a blackguard, but Bob wants a knight.  Make both work.").  

The DM is not the players' lackey.  It's a cooperative effort and the more responsibility the DM is given for the players' entertainment, the more power must go with it.  

If the players (or even one player, seeking buy-in from the others) came to me asking me to run Age of Worms, I wouldn't feel much "entitlement".  If the group decided that it wanted to play that AP in Eberron, that's more responsibility and must include the authority to change encounters and miscellany to reflect Eberron, even denying character options.  When I'm running a home-brew setting with home-brew adventures (which is my norm), there is a lot of responsibility and a lot of "entitlement" goes with it.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 20, 2008)

In my games, I try to work with my players to see what they want and how that dovetails with my interests.  I'll set forward a couple of ideas about general campaign direction and parameters, and get feedback on what the players would like.  If it came down to it, though, I'd have no problem with saying "no I don't want to run that kind of game."  I aspire to be a benevolent dictator.

Last time I started a campaign, I presented my players with two options: A Hogwarts-ish campaigna starting out in and around a magical university, and a pirate-based game set on board a sea-going vessel.  They chose the Hogwarts-ish one, and I went with that (although oddly enough, the pirate thing has wormed its way into the game).  I'm still running that game.

For my next campaign - which is a long, long ways away - I've posted up some very basic campaign concepts to test interest and get feedback.

Keeping the communication going is a big part of this - I ask for feedback and ideas about what my players would like to do next all the time.  I ask players what their long-term goals are for their PC's.  They may not always get exactly what they want, but hopefully they get something close (and ideally, even better than what they thought they wanted).


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 20, 2008)

Even though I am an authoritarian DM, I also utilize my players strongly when it comes to the evolving story of the campaign. I take queues from how they play their characters, their character's interests and goals and weave them seamlessly into the campaign if at all possible thereby giving each of them plenty of opportunity to shine and making the campaign more compelling to the player.

Even though this collaboration is going on, its actually behind the scenes. The players don't know I am directly doing this but love it when they are surprised by how I wove their character into what they believed was a fixed plot. 

One thing I am particularly open to is when a player takes it upon himself to build up the setting by adding previously non-existant details. For example one of my players was playing a priest of a god whose ritual rites weren't really all that detailed. He had an idea for a rite that was really good so I told him that I was going to make that rite one of the primary modes of worship accepted by his god. IME players love that stuff because they feel that they are contributing and that makes them all the more invested in the setting and the campaign.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## mmu1 (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm strongly in favor of the DM having the control and the final say - but I actually care about that more when I'm the _player_, and not when I'm the DM.

When the DM is fully in control, pretty much the only issue is whether my taste in RPGs matches the DM's - which means I only need to worry about finding one person who's on the same exact page as me. Everything else get sorted out more or less automatically. I don't need to be best friends with the other players - we just need to get along socially, and they need to be willing to respect the DM's rules.

That way, I don't need to worry about someone deciding that - even though we're playing in a desert campaign in a world without known seas or fair-skinned human barbarians - their next character is going to be a Viking.

Naturally, that doesn't mean that the DM shouldn't pay attention to what the players want, or work together with them to make their characters feel like they have a life of their own within the setting - but that needs, IMO, to be done subtly and behind the scenes.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> See, I'd question the last one, "maybe the DM just doesn't like the race at all."  I'm not sure that's a valid reason.
> 
> I know "the DM has the right to enjoy the game too," and all that.  My objection is this- if a player having a dragonborn character meaningfully harms your enjoyment of the game simply because you dislike dragonborn that much, you may have a problem.
> 
> ...




Would you force a player to play a dragonborn, even if the player did not want to play a dragonborn? If you'd not do that, why expect the DM to play a world he doesn't like, i.e., one with Dragonborn?

To continue with food metaphors: If I dislike tabasco sauce, and the presence of tabasco sauce in my food means my enjoyment of a meal is diminished, then it doesn't mean I have a problem - it simply means I dislike tabasco sauce.

There's no sense of perspective needed at all. It's simply a matter of taste and playstyle. Some of us dislike some stuff, and its mere presence turns a game we like into something we dislike. That could be firearms, some 3PP pink elefant race, or some clown prestige class, evil characters, comic relief characters, dual wielding drows with scimitars, anything at all. I'd not presume that my personal preferences defined what's normal, and what's a mental problem.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes - I believe the fundamental disconnect here comes with how attached DM's are to their personal settings.  Some DM's have intricate settings that they spend hours on, detailing lovingly and lavishly.  Some DM's don't.  Some DM's focus their attention on other places.

I fall into the latter group.  So, for me, while I personally may not like a given race, it's not really an aesthetic issue for me to include it in my setting.  So long as it's not going to completely bypass the challenges in my campaign, I don't feel all that entitled to ban an element just because I don't personally like it. 

It's not my character after all.  The other person is the one who is going to be playing it.  I get to play with everything else in the campaign - NPC's, setting, plot, whatever.  I don't feel all that threatened by allowing players to have what they want.  Within limits of course.


----------



## garyh (Aug 20, 2008)

Spatula said:


> So we're primarily talking about variations on the menu... to which I say, is this really a big deal that you can't play an elf (or whatever) for once?  "Elf" isn't a character concept.  D&D races are just collections of mechanical bonuses with some roleplaying hooks attached.




The "for once" comment irks me.  I think there's an assumption in this thread that there's a group in place that meets weekly and rotates campaigns a lot and lots of different things get tried.

That's not always the case.  In the game I DM'ed with the elf-wanting player I didn't accomodate, we played every three weeks or so for about two years in that campaign, then stopped playing due to schedules.  There was never another chance for her to play her elf.

I also dispute that elf can't be a part of a character concept, but that's another discussion.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Would you force a player to play a dragonborn, even if the player did not want to play a dragonborn? If you'd not do that, why expect the DM to play a world he doesn't like, i.e., one with Dragonborn?
> 
> To continue with food metaphors: If I dislike tabasco sauce, and the presence of tabasco sauce in my food means my enjoyment of a meal is diminished, then it doesn't mean I have a problem - it simply means I dislike tabasco sauce.
> 
> There's no sense of perspective needed at all. It's simply a matter of taste and playstyle. Some of us dislike some stuff, and its mere presence turns a game we like into something we dislike. That could be firearms, some 3PP pink elefant race, or some clown prestige class, evil characters, comic relief characters, dual wielding drows with scimitars, anything at all. I'd not presume that my personal preferences defined what's normal, and what's a mental problem.



I'd say that, in this case, you should probably have a discussion with the player to try and find ways to make _something_ work.  Tossing out an otherwise good player because you can't agree on a single niggling detail is pretty control-freaky.

In your example, you should probably figure out what it is you can't stand about Dragonborn and nail that down.  Then, figure out what the player loves about Dragonborn and then see if there's a way to make it work that you're both happy.  Is it that you don't want anthropomorphic dragons, but he likes the stats and the honor code?  Well, reskin them and move on.

-O


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 20, 2008)

Obryn said:


> In your example, you should probably figure out what it is you can't stand about Dragonborn and nail that down. Then, figure out what the player loves about Dragonborn and then see if there's a way to make it work that you're both happy.





That's what I've done in my upcoming homebrew with a player – Nagaborn (mechanically identical to dragonborn, except for the breath weapon and a cosmetic change – lower body is serpentine).


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I'd say that, in this case, you should probably have a discussion with the player to try and find ways to make _something_ work.  Tossing out an otherwise good player because you can't agree on a single niggling detail is pretty control-freaky.
> 
> In your example, you should probably figure out what it is you can't stand about Dragonborn and nail that down.  Then, figure out what the player loves about Dragonborn and then see if there's a way to make it work that you're both happy.  Is it that you don't want anthropomorphic dragons, but he likes the stats and the honor code?  Well, reskin them and move on.
> 
> -O




Of course - I said a compromise is what people should strive for. But there are things that can ruin a game for me because they ruin the whole setting. Firearms in D&D is one thing. Dragonborn are another thing. I can handle lizardmen, half dragons, half-dragon lizardmen (provided the group is willing to deal with the consequences of travelling around with a freak who will attract as much attention and trouble as a drow, i.e. an attention hogging PC), but I do not have a place for an entire race of reptilian mercenaries that is accepted by default by the civilised countries. My setting is far too xenophobic for that.

It's the background of the race, and the assumptions it implies for the setting that are my main beef with them. That and I consider them a purely marketing gimmick with no appeal at all compared to the lizardmen, or half-dragons.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Would you force a player to play a dragonborn, even if the player did not want to play a dragonborn? If you'd not do that, why expect the DM to play a world he doesn't like, i.e., one with Dragonborn?



See, its all a question of boundaries.  You see "world with dragonborn in it" as a valid "world I don't like," which the DM can then reasonably avoid.  I see it more like my analogous "room with plaid shirts in it," where the plaid shirt isn't MY plaid shirt, isn't MY business, and if I have a problem with it I am indicating nothing other than my own psychosis.


> To continue with food metaphors: If I dislike tabasco sauce, and the presence of tabasco sauce in my food means my enjoyment of a meal is diminished, then it doesn't mean I have a problem - it simply means I dislike tabasco sauce.



I'd analogize it more to you having a problem with tabasco sauce in MY food, and using the fact that I'm eating it on YOUR dinner table to try to ban it.


> There's no sense of perspective needed at all. It's simply a matter of taste and playstyle. Some of us dislike some stuff, and its mere presence turns a game we like into something we dislike.



Right.  But the question is, how much does something you dislike have to directly involve you before you've got standing to complain about it?  As a DM, I've dealt with all kinds of PCs that I didn't particularly like.  Some were outright annoying.  I could have banned the aspects of them that I didn't like (half orcs, half elves, Thiefy-McStealsalot character types, etc), but at some point I have to concede at least some minimal ground to my players.  And I think their characters are a good line to draw.

Look, try to spin it around.

If the DM has the right to ban half orcs because he dislikes them so much that he actually doesn't like campaign worlds where half-orcs exist, what about a player that just plain doesn't like two handed mauls?  He thinks they're dumb.  Can he veto an NPC that wields one?

Of course we'd never think that he could.  But his interest, honestly, is exactly the same as that of the DM.  He just plain doesn't like them, and wants them gone.  He doesn't have a better reason than the DM.  He doesn't have a worse reason.  He just wants them to go away because that's how he feels and that's that.

Normally the reason we let DMs make these kinds of rulings, and we don't let players, is because the DM sees a bigger picture.  He may have plot reasons for a ruling, or genre reasons, or whatever.  _But in this case he doesn't have any of that_: he's got a hate-on for dragonborn or whatnot.  And his hate-on isn't any more or less legitimate than any other hate-on.  He just happens to have more power.  

And using that kind of power to make that kind of arbitrary ruling is a perfect example of what I'd call an illegitimate sense of entitlement.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

Whoa... This thread took off over night! 

I'm kind of amazed by the idea that it's either DM entitlement or Player entitlement- No one should have 100% power over the game. It's a group activity!  I think the I control everything attitude promotes games of everyone vrs the DM or the DM vrs everyone else... Instead of a group "we're in this to have fun" mentality.

I guess the disconnect for me is the I've made this game, and if you don't like it you can go home, or make your own game...  I just don't get that. If everyone goes home, you're not going to play "your game" anyway!

The dinner party thing brouight up earlier fits in.  People say you made the dinner so people should just come eat it. Huh?

Maybe it's because I don't just enjoy the game, but also the act of being with my friends? To me the dinner party would be-

Hey guys I'm thinking about throwing a dinner party... I'm thinking mexican, you guys interested?

Example- Just before 4e came out I was running a future sort of space-cyber punk campaign. One of my players wanted his character to have mutations. I wasn't really using the mutation stuff, so I said: 

"eh, mutations don't really fit into the vision I had of the world... I'm not really planning to include them."  His responce was: 

"Fair enough, but you did include genetic modification right? And a lot of genetics and cloning? Can we re-flavor some of the mutations to be more like genetic modifications?"

I let him roll with it. He had a definite vision of what he wanted to do with his character. We even worked out a "group" in the campaign world that had a religion based aroubnd the idea of bizarre genetic modifications... 

Compromise.  In my opinion it can make a good game great.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 20, 2008)

Over the past few years I've had nothing but smashing success opening up my campaign world --a collaboration to begin with-- to player input, handing out bushels of narrative control/authority, and basically taking the game in directions I never expected to. Sharing 'creative control' with your players just makes the game world _bigger_ and _richer_ than one cooked up by a single person.

That said, I'm going to make one, lone argument for campaigns run in a more "authoritarian DM' style. Not all settings are kitchen sinks. Sometimes the best parts of the play experience are rooted in a cohesive world. It's hard to play a good Arthurian Romance when Warforged ninja keep leaping from the shadows.

Sometimes keeping tight setting control isn't about the DM's unwillingness to share power. It's really about the DM playing to their strengths and trying to offer the best campaign they can. If the DM's strength is offering a specific theme and/or setting, I don't mind having my input restricted. 

Then again, with a game like D&D, which lends itself to broad kitchen-sinking play environments, that DM better be selling something really damn good before I give my god-given right to cheap puns and absurd characters...


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I'd analogize it more to you having a problem with tabasco sauce in MY food, and using the fact that I'm eating it on YOUR dinner table to try to ban it.
> 
> 
> If the DM has the right to ban half orcs because he dislikes them so much that he actually doesn't like campaign worlds where half-orcs exist, what about a player that just plain doesn't like two handed mauls?  He thinks they're dumb.  Can he veto an NPC that wields one?
> ...




If no one wants to have those mauls in game, then they'd be gone faster from my game than I can type the sentence to our house rules doc. Why would I insist on keeping something in game if no one wants it, but someone hates it? I'd have a mental problem if I'd acted like that.

As I have stated, main problem with Dragonborn is the implied asumption that they are in the world and I have to run them as npcs or react to their presence as pcs. That is trying to force tabasco sauce into my meal.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2008)

Jackelope King said:


> So rather than bemoaning how heavy the head is which wears the crown, I think it's much better to talk to the players and ask for help or contributions. Stop thinking of it as "your world" and start thinking of it as "our world".




I agree with this. The problem comes when there are players that do not want to put any effort into helping create a world and just want to whine when they can't use X Y and Z from splatbooks 1,2 and 3.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 20, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> The problem comes when there are players that do not want to put any effort into helping create a world and just want to whine when they can't use X Y and Z from splatbooks 1,2 and 3.



For these people I recommend spitting Mountain Dew in their faces.

(I mean, speaking with them openly and without rancor. Yeah, that's it.)


----------



## Hjorimir (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Normally the reason we let DMs make these kinds of rulings, and we don't let players, is because the DM sees a bigger picture.  He may have plot reasons for a ruling, or genre reasons, or whatever.  _But in this case he doesn't have any of that_: he's got a hate-on for dragonborn or whatnot.  And his hate-on isn't any more or less legitimate than any other hate-on.  He just happens to have more power.
> 
> And using that kind of power to make that kind of arbitrary ruling is a perfect example of what I'd call an illegitimate sense of entitlement.




There is no "sense of entitlement," the DM is entitled to make rulings (all rulings) in his or her campaign as they are simply in charge and without them there is no game. Conversely, the player is entitled to opt out of a campaign and take his or her dice elsewhere. It really is as simple as that.

Now, a good DM, who provides a great gaming experience and finds ways to please the players, will have the more dynamic campaign with a greater level of participation. So the temptation should already be there for the DM to work with the players. That said, if a DM, for example, hates dragonborn so much that it affects the quality of his or her participation, it is wise to not allow the race as its mere presence can adversely affect the entire campaign. While a player's dislike of the dreaded two-handed maul doesn't have as far reaching consequences. Simply, the two are not equal for that fact alone.

If a DM isn't enjoying a campaign, he or she may not put the requisite prep time in as the interest fades. This is going to bring the enjoyment down in a big hurry. I'm actually doing my players a service when I take steps to ensure the game is pleasing to me becuase its very survival depends on it. Seriously, how many of you have seen campaings you were enjoying die because the DM wasn't into it? I'm guessing this ranks amongst the very top in reasons why a campaign ends (probably right behind scheduling conflicts...but maybe even above).


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Of course - I said a compromise is what people should strive for. But there are things that can ruin a game for me because they ruin the whole setting. Firearms in D&D is one thing. Dragonborn are another thing. I can handle lizardmen, half dragons, half-dragon lizardmen (provided the group is willing to deal with the consequences of travelling around with a freak who will attract as much attention and trouble as a drow, i.e. an attention hogging PC), but I do not have a place for an entire race of reptilian mercenaries that is accepted by default by the civilised countries. My setting is far too xenophobic for that.
> 
> It's the background of the race, and the assumptions it implies for the setting that are my main beef with them. That and I consider them a purely marketing gimmick with no appeal at all compared to the lizardmen, or half-dragons.



So, um...  Why not call them a half-dragon, and let the player play it?

There's a difference between a player saying, "I'd really like to play X" and saying "X exists all over the place and we're everywhere!"  The former is a pretty reasonable request, assuming X isn't the Brokenmaster from the Broken Book of Brokenness.

-O


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Obryn said:


> So, um...  Why not call them a half-dragon, and let the player play it?
> 
> There's a difference between a player saying, "I'd really like to play X" and saying "X exists all over the place and we're everywhere!"  The former is a pretty reasonable request, assuming X isn't the Brokenmaster from the Broken Book of Brokenness.
> 
> -O




As I said, I'd let him run a half dragon or lizardman, or half-dragon lizardman (if no one else has a problem with that). But the dragonborn as presented in the 4E material (which I consider defined by their fluff, stats are just stats)? 

It simply does not fit my world. If a player wants to play a reptilian warrior, there's a number of options. But if a player expects me to add an entire race, and change my setting so much that the Dragonborn as presented by WotC can be played (as opposed to playing the lone freak reptilian "good exception" aka Drizzt)?

No. No place for their background in my setting. I don't have an old dragonborn empire, I don't have roving bands of dragonborn mercenaries, and I especially do not have large amounts of people who accept a dragonborn race as part of civilisation. And no one is going to tell me "you have to place that race and culture in this world!".


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2008)

Hjorimir said:


> There is no "sense of entitlement," the DM is entitled to make rulings (all rulings) in his or her campaign as they are simply in charge and without them there is no game. Conversely, the player is entitled to opt out of a campaign and take his or her dice elsewhere. It really is as simple as that.



Is it really as simple as that?

Even if it is, is this really ideal?

I mean, assuming a limitless pool of players and a limitless pool of DMs, I suppose it could be.  But in reality, when the people I game with are my actual friends and I keep a constant (but slowly shifting) group of players from one game to another, I think a little flexibility on both sides of the screen is called for.



> I'm actually doing my players a service when I take steps to ensure the game is pleasing to me becuase its very survival depends on it. Seriously, how many of you have seen campaings you were enjoying die because the DM wasn't into it? I'm guessing this ranks amongst the very top in reasons why a campaign ends (probably right behind scheduling conflicts...but maybe even above).



You know, I've ended campaigns before, but it has never, ever been because a player wanted to play a class or race that was out of synch with my carefully-crafted setting.

I'd say a sense of perspective would be warranted in this case...

-O


----------



## Mister Doug (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> As I said, the player always has the option of not playing if they don't like the specific terms I put in front of them. As a DM, I tend to weigh arguments made by players fairly and take their point of view into consideration. I am a kind and benevolent god at my table, and that is the way the players like it. At the end of the day though, the tough decisions are mine to make. If I'm not sure about a rule (and yes, it does happen occasionally), I am willing to defer to the interpretation of one of my most experienced players, provided that he is being reasonable and not trying to break the game.
> 
> The point behind taking this attitude is so that the boundaries separating player from DM are clearly defined and there is no confusion. Some players always want to have their way about rules interpretations and character builds. By laying it down from day 1 that I am the final arbiter of such things, there is no gray area and any rules discussions are quickly and permanently resolved.




In other words, there's a social contract that players can trust in you, but that part of that relationship is that you are final arbiter. That's less "I am God" and more "I'm the benevolent dictator" complete with some level of consultation with the community who understand that you have ultimate power.

That makes sense. Not the "I'm God and the players can go $#&@ themselves" attitude I read into your first post. Makes sense. Not the social contract at most games I run, but one that matches many I have played at happily.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Obryn said:


> You know, I've ended campaigns before, but it has never, ever been because a player wanted to play a class or race that was out of synch with my carefully-crafted setting.
> 
> I'd say a sense of perspective would be warranted in this case...




I think the sense of perspective is that not everyone has th same standards of what is appropriate. If someone comes with a WoD Vampire and wants to play in my D&D campaign, and expects me to add the whole background of Vampires running the world etc., I'd surely not do this.
If he simply wants to play a vampire, willing to make it fit the setting, that would be another thing (although the other players would have to ok it).


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 20, 2008)

Mister Doug said:


> In other words, there's a social contract that players can trust in you, but that part of that relationship is that you are final arbiter. That's less "I am God" and more "I'm the benevolent dictator" complete with some level of consultation with the community who understand that you have ultimate power.




Perfectly stated....couldn't have said it better myself. 


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 20, 2008)

Janx said:


> I'm certain Joss Whedon and J. Strazynski do the same on their shows with their writers and actors.




It's funny that you mention Straczynski, because here is a guy who has killed shows because he wasn't allowed by the powers that be to stay true to his original vision. Crusade and Jeremiah were both killed because of creative differences with the studio. That isn't to say that he didn't allow the actors their say. G'Kar, played by the late Andreas Katsulas, played G'Kar. Initially G'Kar was to pronounce the G as a hard G, so it was supposed to sound like Gukar. The actor introduced the character on film with a soft G sound, so it was more like jekar. When JMS asked Katsulas about it, Katsulas responded that he'd decided he was French. JMS liked it so much that all of the male narns had the je sound at the beginning of their names. That is an example where someone brings something interesting and makes it part of the larger universe, thereby adding some flavor and originality to the setting. Now if Katsulas would have come to the set dressed as a klingon and said that his character will be a klingon, he would have been told off for wasting a day of filming by making his makeup artist dress him up as a character that doesn't exist in that universe. 

But where JMS was fine with allowing a certain amount of improvisation with his actors, he doesn't tolerate studio interferance. With Crusade, the studio wanted him to amp up the sex and violence and turn it into some sort of stupid WWF in space. When he couldn't work out the show he wanted, he wrote and filmed a couple bad scripts that he knew would piss off the studio and killed the show. I can't say I blame him, frankly. In season 2 of Babylon 5, the studio wanted him to create a hotshot pilot character because they thought it would appeal to a certain demographic. He did so, but then he killed the character at the end of the season. After B5 was over, he killed Jeremiah after two seasons because he couldn't deal with the studio's demands. On the other hand, he hasn't had the same problem with Spiderman and the other comics he's been writing because they aren't his characters, and his stories are still secondary to the universe that he's been hired to write in.

How this relates to a DM is that if a DM has created a unique world and he already has a massive campaign that he created and is going to run, then he has the right to tell the players what does and does not exist in that world. It's his world, it's his story. Telling me, the DM, that I have to allow a tiefling character even though the world I created doesn't even have demons would be like Katsulas in the above example coming to the B5 set in a klingon outfit. It doesn't work and I don't have to allow it. On the other hand, if I'm running a Forgotten Realms game, where everything is intentionally present by the setting's designers, then the only reason I would veto a character race or class was if that race or class is overpowered and broken. In such a case, I would likely offer to redesign it for the player so that it wasn't broken. This would then bring into question whether the player wanted this character because playing that race is a cool roleplaying concept or if they were just being a power gaming munchkin.

Finally, knowing that there is a great deal of power creep in the splat books, I was always very reluctant to allow material from them into the game. I would always look at it first before approving it, and I would always retain the right to reject anything that I thought was too good. In fact I warn players from the beginning not to invest money into splat books if their expectation is that I will allow it into the game. I'm more of a stick to core, with certain exceptions, type of DM. If the players know that up front, before they even show up for the game, there isn't a problem.


----------



## Logos7 (Aug 20, 2008)

The moral of my story is that As a Dm I both use the rules more often, more of them and more liberally than the pc's. If i introduce a houserule, because i put in more effort than 9/10 of my players it sticks. If the players don't like it, they can leave, start their own game etc. 

Is this horrible of me, Not really, I don't use the Dm banhammer a whole lot because most thigns don't bother me, but I can if i want to, just like the players can not play if they don't want to. assymetirical rights for assymetrical effort seems okay with me. 

Logos


----------



## Voadam (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So I've seen a lot of posts (especially with some of the changes in the new edition) that have people saying things like:
> 
> "In my game there will be no (insert random thing to ban from campaign.)"
> 
> This seems pretty odd to me.  D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?



No, I'd say everyone can speak up about how they want the game to work, but the DM is the one with the final say.



> I understand that sometimes, yes, as a DM it falls on your shoulders to spot problematic rules, or things being used "inapropriately" but to outright say "X cannot be used in my game because I don't like it..." just seems way to bossy...



 A matter of taste, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. DMs make and run the world the players play in. They get to say what goes in or out and "I don't like it" is a valid reason to exclude things.

[/QUOTE]I don't like evil characters. I have a hard time coming up with adventures for evil characters, and feel they tend to cause more game problems then non-evil characters, so I make my feelings known to my players. Some of them, however, enjoy playing evil characters. I won't say no if they really really want to be evil. They're playing the game to, so it should be fun for them as well. They're not just there to facilitate my amusement.

Maybe it's because most of the games I run tend to be with  friends I've known since junior high or longer?[/QUOTE]

I don't think its because you are friends from way back. I think it is how you are comfortable interacting with your friends. You are willing to tolerate things you don't like, make it harder for yourself to come up with adventures as a DM for the group, and deal with more game problems if they really really want you to.

I game with friends I've known since preschool. We have no problem with any of us saying "These core bits are banned/changed in this game" or imposing character choice limitations such as "must be compatible with the party paladin" or "must be compatible with evil PCs" when one of us chooses to DM.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> How this relates to a DM is that if a DM has created a unique world and he already has a massive campaign that he created and is going to run, then he has the right to tell the players what does and does not exist in that world. It's his world, it's his story. Telling me, the DM, that I have to allow a tiefling character even though the world I created doesn't even have demons would be like Katsulas in the above example coming to the B5 set in a klingon outfit. It doesn't work and I don't have to allow it. On the other hand, if I'm running a Forgotten Realms game, where everything is intentionally present by the setting's designers, then the only reason I would veto a character race or class was if that race or class is overpowered and broken. In such a case, I would likely offer to redesign it for the player so that it wasn't broken. This would then bring into question whether the player wanted this character because playing that race is a cool roleplaying concept or if they were just being a power gaming munchkin.




Any time you DM it is your world. You can tweak published campaign settings to your taste and that is just as valid as creating a massive homebrew.

You can do a points of light one shot game and ban specified core game elements for taste and that is perfectly valid.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> How this relates to a DM is that if a DM has created a unique world and he already has a massive campaign that he created and is going to run, then he has the right to tell the players what does and does not exist in that world.



The question should be 'as DM, how is the game improved by the things I restrict?', not 'as DM do I have the right to restrict?'. 

(Flexibility is a good thing in a DM, and most settings are far from unique. In fact, cliche-ridden mess is usually a better descriptor. Most cliche-ridden messes aren't spoiled by the addition of further cliches.)



> It's his world, it's his story.



Right. Until the campaign starts. Then it's _their_ works and _their_ story. 

(Unless the game in question is nothing more than the DM masturbating with the aid of polyhedral dice...)


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Aug 20, 2008)

Trying to define the proper relationship between DMs and players is as doomed to failure as trying to define the "one true way" for any relationship to work.  What works for one group may not work for another.  At this point, I am only willing to commit to the observation that good communication improves the health of any relationship.

On a personal note, I am still new to DMing, and I have a strong desire to entertain my players (stronger than my desire to play out any particular campaign idea or vision).  Already one of my players, the one who has known me the longest, has urged me to be more decisive.  In bending over backwards to incorporate all of my players' ideas, I think I have failed so far to give the campaign much focus or direction.

I'm beginning to think these senses of focus and direction are key.  I now think of the role of DM as the role of leader (IRL, not the class role): someone who ideally accepts feedback from his or her followers, but whose role in the group is precisely to make the final decisions.

Anyway, to return to my original point, I suspect some DMs will announce to their friends, "Hey, I have a cool idea for a [RPG] game in [setting].  There are no [race/class] in this game, but here's my vision: [...].  Who wants in?"  Others will say, "Okay, I'll run the next game.  What kind of game did you guys want to play?"  And there's nothing wrong with either DM, or anyone in between, as long as everyone's having fun.

Finally, it's okay to have limitations.  Expecting any DM to be compatible with any player sounds like some kind of geek social fallacy to me.  If a DM wouldn't enjoy running a game with dragonborn and a player is eager to explore this new race, I would rather they have fun seeing other people than prolong the relationship and make one another miserable.  Of course, in practice, I would expect the root causes for most DM-player breakups to be deeper matters of game style.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> If no one wants to have those mauls in game, then they'd be gone faster from my game than I can type the sentence to our house rules doc. Why would I insist on keeping something in game if no one wants it, but someone hates it? I'd have a mental problem if I'd acted like that.



The example wasn't "no one wants it," it was "one player hates it."  Do you all kowtow to that player?  If not, why not?


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

Voadam said:


> They get to say what goes in or out and "I don't like it" is a valid reason to exclude things.



When dealing with something like a player character race, why is "I don't like it" a valid reason to exclude something?


----------



## Mister Doug (Aug 20, 2008)

Voadam said:


> No, I'd say everyone can speak up about how they want the game to work, but the DM is the one with the final say.
> 
> A matter of taste, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. DMs make and run the world the players play in. They get to say what goes in or out and "I don't like it" is a valid reason to exclude things.




That's still saying everyone has a say. It's just that some people have more power and authority. Which sounds reasonable. Everyone gets heard and considered, even if their input is eventually rejected. Which is different than just a "my way or the highway" approach to authority. Authoritative rather than authoritarian.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 20, 2008)

Mister Doug said:


> In other words, there's a social contract that players can trust in you, but that part of that relationship is that you are final arbiter. That's less "I am God" and more "I'm the benevolent dictator" complete with some level of consultation with the community who understand that you have ultimate power.
> 
> That makes sense. Not the "I'm God and the players can go $#&@ themselves" attitude I read into your first post. Makes sense. Not the social contract at most games I run, but one that matches many I have played at happily.




You have to understand that the origin of this type of thread (not this particular thread per se, but threads like this in general) is a player dissatisfied with the fact that their DM told them no on something and they're looking for some sort of validation for being angry with the DM or trying to strongarm the DM into allowing them something that the DM doesn't want. How many people wrote in to WotC rules support for the explicit purpose of getting a clarification in writing so that they can overrule their DM? I used to work in WotC rules support, and frankly, if someone were to pull that stunt on me, I'd be tempted to bounce them from the game. An unresolved question is one thing, and is a perfectly acceptable use of WotC CS, but as most of these issues require a level of interpretation, attempting to usurp control is entirely unacceptable (the only exception to that, of course, is if they dig up something I had written to a customer back in the day, which had gotten posted online in a vain attempt to settle a messageboard debate, in which case I'd kick myself for agreeing with such munchkinism in the first place).


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> No. No place for their background in my setting. I don't have an old dragonborn empire, I don't have roving bands of dragonborn mercenaries, and I especially do not have large amounts of people who accept a dragonborn race as part of civilisation. And no one is going to tell me "you have to place that race and culture in this world!".



Are you referring to a pre existing campaign setting that pre-dates 4e?  Or a new one?

I'll repeat it for the record.

I'm only objecting to the idea that "I hate X" is a good reason for a DM to ban X.  Its the most problematic of all the possible reasons to ban something, and it becomes more and more tenuous the more it touches on player characters.

"This setting has existed for some time and I'm not changing it" is not the same as "I hate dragonborn and won't put them in this new setting I'm writing, even if my players want them."


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> The example wasn't "no one wants it," it was "one player hates it."  Do you all kowtow to that player?  If not, why not?




As I posted: If no one wants it, and one player hates it, it'll be gone in a second. Why wouldn't we "kowtow" to that player if no one else cares about the maul?

If someone really cares about it, then we'll try to find a compromise. But if that's not possible - though cookies, someone will have to give.

But I am long past the point where I think something should be in the game just because WotC wrote it so, so the maul doesn't have some "default it is in" protection.


----------



## Mister Doug (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Responding to this as a literal statement rather than a metaphor, I HATE this attitude.
> 
> Nothing fills me with rage faster than someone giving me something I actively DO NOT WANT, refusing to allow me to politely decline, and then pressuring me to express gratitude for it.  It makes me want to do the same thing back to them.  You know, spend 15 hours painting their house bright pink, then getting SERIOUSLY ANGRY that they're not grateful.  What do they mean, they don't like pink?  What do they mean, they didn't want their house painted?  I DIDN'T WANT THE STUPID MEATLOAF EITHER!  Insisting that I not only choke it down, but also pretend that I liked it, thus ensuring that they make the same terrible meatloaf for me again?  Its like an act of culinary warfare!  It will be responded to in kind!
> 
> Rage!




Man, that must have been some terrible meatloaf.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Are you referring to a pre existing campaign setting that pre-dates 4e?  Or a new one?
> 
> I'll repeat it for the record.
> 
> ...




It's the setting I am running my games in since over 15 years - a heavily modified Forgotten Realms with a mixture of 2E and 3E elements.

But even if I would be writing a new setting, I would not write Dragonborn in because I'd hate to DM them. Just as I'd not force a player to play something he'd hate, no one can force me to play something I hate.

And anyone who tells me that I have to play something I hate for the players can go and look up "hypocrite".


----------



## buzz (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god.



The DM is a person, just like everyone else at the table. Claiming the DM is anything other than that is a recipe for disaster.



Mouseferatu said:


> If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.



If you're running a Conan game, I'm hoping that you're doing so because you suggested the idea to your gaming group, and they expressed interest, encouraging you to make whatever changes were necessary to accommodate the setting. Unless you're prepping a one-shot for a con or something.



Mark said:


> You seem to want to tell other people where to drive and what to eat.  If someone invites you to a dinner party do you suggest they call everyone being invited and make sure everyone has a say in what the host prepares?



If someone invites me to a dinner party, I'd assume they are not going to wait until I show up to tell me that it's a costume ball, or a wine-tasting, or something kinky. Not to mention, not cop some sort of "The Party-Planner is God" attitude if I then decide to leave, or refrain from, say, drinking because I'm an alcoholic/allergic/religious/whatever.

I think it's evident that this whole attitude looks rightfully ridiculous when applied outside of gaming. Good hosts don't demand; they accommodate and inform.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> It's in most ways the DM's game.



Then they should have fun playing by themselves.

This discussion seems to come up a lot on ENWorld, and, every time, irrational extremes are painted of the two supposed sides of the debate. I.e., it's a choice between either tyrannical, "love it or leave it" dictator DMs, or abusive players demanding that the DM be a doormat/puppet for their amusement.

I'm sorry, but real life isn't like that. 

(If yours is, I hope you get out of that group, pronto.)

Gaming is a social activity. Different RPGs may divvy up their roles and responsibilities in different ways, doling out more donkey work to some players over others, but this doesn't change the fact that playing an RPG is a collaborative and creative act shared among a group of human beings. The idea that one player's in-game role gives them some sort of privileged meta-game/social position is utterly ludicrous. Healthy social interaction does not involve people being either subservient or autocratic.

In D&D, the DMs job is to create adventures, adjudicate rules, and run the opposition. The players' jobs are to create (typically) and run their PCs in reaction to the opposition and color presented by the DM. They (DM and players alike) don't do this because they are required to do so; they do this because they want to do so. It's a game, and hopefully they are all participating because they want to be there and play it with each other.

Claim that any participant has a right to make meta-game/social demands, and we're not talking about gaming anymore; we're talking about unhealthy social BS.

No person in the DM role has a _right_ to unilaterally ban rules or demand players do X or Y. Similarly, no person in a player role has a _right_ to demand that the DM run a specific game or allow rule options they want.

However, hopefully everyone in the group has _respect_ for themselves and their fellows. And respect means being willing to consider, e.g., the DM's idea about banning halflings from the upcoming campaign, or one player's interest in playing an artificer even thought it's still in beta-test. It's _not_ about never being able to say "no." It's about saying it in a healthy social context.

I dunno. Painting the question in absolutes is fruitless, IMO. I read various posts here and shudder to think what being in some of these game groups must be like.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> You have to understand that the origin of this type of thread (not this particular thread per se, but threads like this in general) is a player dissatisfied with the fact that their DM told them no on something and they're looking for some sort of validation for being angry with the DM or trying to strongarm the DM into allowing them something that the DM doesn't want.




I know you said "not this particular thread," but still. I'm almost always the DM for my group. My Games generally run the longest in our group. This thread in particular was in NO WAY styarted because a DM told me no...

It was started because as a DM, it seems almost alien to me to see posts by DMs feeling they can ban things, and care not one whit about player input.

It just seems really really odd to me. It's a game I'm playing with my friends. Yes, as the DM in game I'm expected to be the ultimate arbiter of the rules, and yes when designing a campaign there will be some details that I will include based on my own tastes and likes sure... But the idea that if those ideas bother my players they should have no say- it's MY story , and if they don't like it they can take their dice and go... WOW... 

The idea that it's MY game, and players should feel lucky to be a part of it... Also seems WAY odd to me.

It's a game... Something I do with my friends in order to have fun. I don't DM as a burden to my fellow players so that they might not have to suffer the rigerous role of DM... I do so because it's fun. I enjoy creating the adventures, and seeing everyone have fun playing through them.

Working together with your players to ensure everyone enjoys the game as much as possible does not mean you're "giving in" to your players, or giving them "control."

it just means you're playing a game together. Expecting one part to have (to quote E.T.) Ultimate power, in my opinion seems silly, and somewhat petty.

If it works for you though great. Who am I to say how you should or shouldn't play.  I was just trying to offer advice that seems to make better games for me... Collaberation, communication, and compimise. (Works with other relationships too!)


----------



## Voadam (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> When dealing with something like a player character race, why is "I don't like it" a valid reason to exclude something?




I see this as self evident. 

"I don't like vancian magic" is a reason not to include vancian magic in your campaign. 

"I hate dragon men" is a reason to not include dragonborn as an element that will show up in every game the PC is there.

It is the same as any other player option. Are psionics in or out? If the DM hates psionics he can validly choose to exclude them from the player options available in the game he is running.

The DM has to deal with the player chosen options every game making banning player options you don't like dealing with even more reasonable to me than NPC only things that might show up only once or twice at a DM's discretion.

Choices need to be made about what is included or excluded. I do not see any reason to say a DM who chooses to exclude something he hates is making an invalid choice.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

Voadam said:


> The DM has to deal with the player chosen options every game making banning player options you don't like dealing with even more reasonable to me than NPC only things that might show up only once or twice at a DM's discretion.
> 
> Choices need to be made about what is included or excluded. I do not see any reason to say a DM who chooses to exclude something he hates is making an invalid choice.




For me it's not the act of saying: "I don't want X because I don't like it" that is problematic.

It's the idea of: "If you don't like it you can leave." that I have an issue with.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It's the setting I am running my games in since over 15 years - a heavily modified Forgotten Realms with a mixture of 2E and 3E elements.
> 
> But even if I would be writing a new setting, I would not write Dragonborn in because I'd hate to DM them. Just as I'd not force a player to play something he'd hate, no one can force me to play something I hate.
> 
> And anyone who tells me that I have to play something I hate for the players can go and look up "hypocrite".



I think you're eliding on the meaning of "play."  A DM does not "play" every single aspect of the entire setting in the same sense that a player "plays" one character.  A DM permitting a dragonborn PC is in no way giving as much ground as a player who wants to play a dragonborn PC loses when the DM bans it as a pet peeve.

I really do think that half-orcs are about the dumbest thing D&D has ever included.  The motivations behind designing them, the history of them in the game, the internal logic of generically separate species procreating, none of it works for me.  But my interest in not having half-orcs is dramatically less than the interest of a player who likes them in having half orcs.  From my perspective as a DM, they're one small facet of an overall campaign setting I designed.  

For the player, well, he only gets one character.  The least I can do is not fiddle with it.


----------



## Mark (Aug 20, 2008)

buzz said:


> The DM is a person, just like everyone else at the table. Claiming the DM is anything other than that is a (. . .)





. . . matter of fact.  The DM is the group facilitator, often the organizer, and has the most work to do to make the game sessions happen.  To not recognize that is absurd.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> But even if I would be writing a new setting, I would not write Dragonborn in because I'd hate to DM them.



Examine the reasons for your hated you should before ban you do, young padawan.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I'd analogize it more to you having a problem with tabasco sauce in MY food, and using the fact that I'm eating it on YOUR dinner table to try to ban it.



Seriously? 

If we really want to pursue the food metaphor, how about us getting together for dinner.  You, as a player, bring a side dish.  I, as DM, will act as host and coordinate everyone's dishes to ensure they compliment each other, as best I can.  I'll also provide the entree.  

Now, you could bring whatever you want.  But, I'm going to ask that you don't bring dragonborn and dip because the smell really bugs me and I'm afraid it's going to ruin the taste of the other dishes.  Also, the other players are a bit skeptical of it.

And, unlike food, I don't have the option of not taking a taste of whatever you bring.  Nor do the other players.

As I've indicated before, if the rest of the players are looking for a Mexican themed meal and I was thinking Chinese, then it'd probably be best for me to reconsider and do the Mexican if I think I'd still enjoy it and can pull off the entree.  

On the other hand (and closer to my experience), you may want Mexican, Susie wants Italian, Jim want Indian, and Jackie wants burgers and chips.  In that case, nothing is going to compliment anything else.  Unless someone has a massive objection to Chinese or wants to host it themselves, it's going to be Chinese because I'm the one willing to take on the extra burden and organize stuff.  

But, that gets back to what I said before about the relationship between the responsibility demanded of the DM and authority that must be granted to him.  I get handed enough responsibility (i.e. your butt is the one getting chewed if something goes wrong) without authority (i.e. it's entirely dependent on some other team in a remote site) at work.  The mind boggles at the notion that someone would volunteer for it in their recreation time.  Then again, I have heard there's a dearth of GMs out there.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 20, 2008)

Mister Doug said:


> That's still saying everyone has a say. It's just that some people have more power and authority. Which sounds reasonable. Everyone gets heard and considered, even if their input is eventually rejected. Which is different than just a "my way or the highway" approach to authority. Authoritative rather than authoritarian.




I don't see a difference. 

The player in my game gets heard, I listen to their request, consider it but usually say something like "I understand you want X, but as I said before I'm not allowing X in my game for Y reasons and I'm sticking by that." The player can then decide whether he wants to play in my game without X or choose not to play in my game. He ultimately has the choice of my way or the highway.

Am I authoritative or authoritarian?


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I think you're eliding on the meaning of "play."  A DM does not "play" every single aspect of the entire setting in the same sense that a player "plays" one character.  A DM permitting a dragonborn PC is in no way giving as much ground as a player who wants to play a dragonborn PC loses when the DM bans it as a pet peeve.
> 
> I really do think that half-orcs are about the dumbest thing D&D has ever included.  The motivations behind designing them, the history of them in the game, the internal logic of generically separate species procreating, none of it works for me.  But my interest in not having half-orcs is dramatically less than the interest of a player who likes them in having half orcs.  From my perspective as a DM, they're one small facet of an overall campaign setting I designed.
> 
> For the player, well, he only gets one character.  The least I can do is not fiddle with it.




By that logic, no DM should ever refuse a character, even if it is a cybernetic combat droid with 4 lightsabers and the DM is running a Dragonlance campaign.

And no, that's not a strawman - you don't get to tell me what is ok, and what's not ok for me to play and DM. If you say I have no right to veto something that hurts my fun, just because it is a PC, then every player has the right to play every character in every campaign according to you.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 20, 2008)

Mark said:


> . . . matter of fact.  The DM is the group facilitator, often the organizer, and has the most work to do to make the game sessions happen.  To not recognize that is absurd.




That's probably usually true, but it doesn't have to be.

I could have been asked by a real social networking guy to run a game.  My work is just picking up a module, reading through the first few pages, and telling the players what level PCs they should make.  

Hell, maybe the organizer buys the module, tells all the players what we're playing, and gives it to me to run.  My work here is probably less than what the players are putting in.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Examine the reasons for your hated you should before ban you do, young padawan.




As I explained in another post, I did. I find Dragonborn to be stupid, lacking any sense, not fitting any camapign I'd like to play, and a sad excuse for lizardfolk or half-dragons. 

Why don't you can the attitude and don't try to tell me that I am having badwrongfun just because I dislike something?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Aug 20, 2008)

I think the important thing is how the player handles it.

If the player demands or even thinks that he has some kind of right to impinge upon my setting, then I'm going to be a lot more irked and a lot more prone to telling him "no." You don't get to tell me what goes into my setting.

However, if the player asks, and has at least a decent reason as to why this character would exist, then I'll think about it; if the character doesn't destroy setting consistency, I'll usually let it go. Players who want things "just because" and don't have a good reason are usually told "no," because if they're not willing to put the work into figuring it out, then neither am I.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 20, 2008)

We gotta quit with the food analogies. I'm totally getting hungry.

Mmmm.... dragonborn and dip. Tastey...


----------



## CountPopeula (Aug 20, 2008)

If one player playing something like a dragonborn or an elf is going to totally ruin the game for every other player at the table, I'd say that some people at the table have deep deep issues that go well beyond the gaming table. And I'd further say that being so caught up in not liking something that it ruins your entire night that someone else doesn't like it is obsessive behavior.

I'd also like to point out the DM is just another person at the table in the end, and while he can ask players not to come back, the players can also ask him not to come back if the game is only fun to him.

It's one thing to say "No, this is degenerate and ruins the fun of the game, I don't think I'm going to allow it." It is far different to say "No, you can't be a Fighter, I hate Fighters."

And disallowing Fighters is no more absurd than disallowing any other race or class the player may have his heart set on.


----------



## buzz (Aug 20, 2008)

Mark said:


> . . . matter of fact.  The DM is the group facilitator, often the organizer, and has the most work to do to make the game sessions happen.  To not recognize that is absurd.



LostSoul beat me to it.

Whether the person serving as DM is facilitating or organizing things for the group is irrelevant. Their role in the game gives them absolutely no special privilege outside of the game. Not in any sane universe, anyway. They need to be communicative and respectful, just like everyone else, and just like they would in any other social situation in which they didn't want to get kicked in the nards.

"The DM is god" is dysfunctional BS. Period.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> As I explained in another post, I did. I find Dragonborn to be stupid, lacking any sense, not fitting any campaign I'd like to play, and a sad excuse for lizardfolk or half-dragons.



You could improve on their flavortext. My group made them into something pretty interesting for our new homebrew (sort-of steampunk neo-Victorians complete with high collars, walking sticks that transform into spindly clockwork butlers and a lost empire called the Magna Publica Machina, the Great Machine of State). 



> Why don't you can the attitude and don't try to tell me that I am having badwrongfun just because I dislike something?



I'm not telling you anything. I'm suggesting that you think about why you dislike something. This is a nice skill for a DM to have. Creating and maintaining a good campaign setting takes a bit of reflection, it should be more than  just cataloging your arbitrary likes and dislikes.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 20, 2008)

Fenes said:


> As I explained in another post, I did. I find Dragonborn to be stupid, lacking any sense, not fitting any camapign I'd like to play, and a sad excuse for lizardfolk or half-dragons.
> 
> Why don't you can the attitude and don't try to tell me that I am having badwrongfun just because I dislike something?



Technically, you're having badwrongUNfun, if someone plays a dragonborn and you are driven into a frenzy of hate.  I'd never criticize someone for having fun with D&D- but if something is stopping them from having fun, and that something is trivial and of nowhere near the amount of importance they've assigned to it, well... they just might be playing wrong.  Playing D&D wrong is hard to do, but if you're miserable unless your demands are met, you just might have achieved it.

I'm not criticizing the fact that you dislike dragonborn. _ I'm criticizing the idea that disliking a player character race is a carte blanche reason to ban it, sans any other motivation for doing so._  I don't have to like every single thing my players like.  I don't even have to like every single decision they make about including things in our game.  And I think that disliking dragonborn so much that you can't tolerate being in a game with one is an awfully extreme position to take- so extreme, in fact, that I question whether that position itself is a reasonable one.


			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> By that logic, no DM should ever refuse a character, even if it is a cybernetic combat droid with 4 lightsabers and the DM is running a Dragonlance campaign.
> 
> And no, that's not a strawman - you don't get to tell me what is ok, and what's not ok for me to play and DM. If you say I have no right to veto something that hurts my fun, just because it is a PC, then every player has the right to play every character in every campaign according to you.



Oh, its most certainly a straw man, and one we've dismissed pages back in this thread, as a matter of fact.  If there's a genre concern, that's at least a semi-objective matter.  The question is, as has been clear to absolutely everyone in this conversation,

"If X is typically a player character matter, is the fact that a DM does not like X a valid and sufficient reason to ban X, where a player does like X and wants to include it?"

You can't bolster your argument by bringing in _other reasons_ a DM might ban something.  That's explicitly not the point.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> For me it's not the act of saying: "I don't want X because I don't like it" that is problematic.
> 
> It's the idea of: "If you don't like it you can leave." that I have an issue with.




You always have the option of leaving if you don't like it.

I chose not to play when a friend wanted to do some Ars Magica to try out the troupe roleplaying aspect of the game. The troupe roleplaying aspect does not appeal to me so I declined.

Its a game, not an obligation.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

buzz said:


> LostSoul beat me to it.
> 
> Whether the person serving as DM is facilitating or organizing things for the group is irrelevant. Their role in the game gives them absolutely no special privilege outside of the game. Not in any sane universe, anyway. They need to be communicative and respectful, just like everyone else, and just like they would in any other social situation in which they didn't want to get kicked in the nards.
> 
> "The DM is god" is dysfunctional BS. Period.




I agree with everything you said. Both posts.


----------



## Mark (Aug 20, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> That's probably usually true, but it doesn't have to be.





Of course, there are always exceptions but I was posting in general terms and without that assumption we really limit the ability to have a meaningful discussion.  If every point someone makes is refuted and discounted based on exceptions we would get nowhere.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 20, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> If the player demands or even thinks that he has some kind of right to impinge upon my setting, then I'm going to be a lot more irked and a lot more prone to telling him "no." You don't get to tell me what goes into my setting.



The best way to keep players from impinging upon your setting is pretty simple. Don't invite them to play, and write yourself a big ol' novel instead. A good player in a good game (with a good DM) will strike indelible changes into the game setting. A DM that resists this doesn't want to play a game; they just want to storytell with a predefined narrative. Such DM's find players like me a huge frustration.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> You have to understand that the origin of this type of thread (not this particular thread per se, but threads like this in general) is a player dissatisfied with the fact that their DM told them no on something and they're looking for some sort of validation for being angry with the DM or trying to strongarm the DM into allowing them something that the DM doesn't want.



So, this discussion is nothing more than a person seeking validation for his statement?


----------



## Mallus (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I'm not criticizing the fact that you dislike dragonborn. _ I'm criticizing the idea that disliking a player character race is a carte blanche reason to ban it, sans any other motivation for doing so._



I'm going to quote you Cad because I think you're saying what I want to better than me. 

When players and DM's come into conflict over setting elements, the DM should think long and hard about denying the players input. They really need to ask themselves 'does my banning X this make the game better?'. 'Does the inclusion of X really make the game difficult/unpalatable to run?' 

DM's should try, as much as possible, to avoid enshrining their arbitrary likes and dislikes into setting law.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

Voadam said:


> You always have the option of leaving if you don't like it.
> 
> I chose not to play when a friend wanted to do some Ars Magica to try out the troupe roleplaying aspect of the game. The troupe roleplaying aspect does not appeal to me so I declined.
> 
> Its a game, not an obligation.




Umm that's not what I'm saying.

Of course a player can opt out. So can the DM. It's a fun past time, not something you HAVE to do. What I'm objecting to is the idea that the only answer is if you don't ike it go away.

Opting out is a lot different then being told do it or leave.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> _I'm criticizing the idea that disliking a player character race is a carte blanche reason to ban it, sans any other motivation for doing so._



Even kender?


----------



## Mister Doug (Aug 20, 2008)

Voadam said:


> I don't see a difference.
> 
> The player in my game gets heard, I listen to their request, consider it but usually say something like "I understand you want X, but as I said before I'm not allowing X in my game for Y reasons and I'm sticking by that." The player can then decide whether he wants to play in my game without X or choose not to play in my game. He ultimately has the choice of my way or the highway.
> 
> Am I authoritative or authoritarian?




To me, the authoritarian DM is one who says that the way he runs the game is the way it is, and there will be no discussion. There is no hearing out of players, no desire for their input, and no recourse for them but to accept your decree or leave. "You want to play a dragonborn? Bite me."

The authoritative voice is one that has reasons, but a final say. "I understand you want to play a dragonborn, and I get why. But ultimately, I still don't see it working in my game. Let's talk about another way of approximating the things you said you wanted."

I work as an academic advisor at a large public research university. Part of my job is to enforce regulations and requirements (even when I think they aren't particularly reasonable.) I know others in my profession who are authoritarian: "you must do this because it's the rule, and because it's a rule and we made the information public to all students, I don't need to do anything to accommodate you. You need to accomodate us!" While this is technically correct and a possible approach, my experience is that it just makes everyone defensive, intractable, and irrational. Listening, explaining reasons, and explaining where limits of flexibility exist (and why) works much better, even with students, staff, and faculty who are notoriously difficult. Giving reasons and listening people offers some level of choice, even when the degree of choice is largely illusory. That allows people to feel heard, feel as if they can make meaningful decisions, and thus that they can accept those things they cannot change.


----------



## Mark (Aug 20, 2008)

buzz said:


> Whether the person serving as DM is facilitating or organizing things for the group is irrelevant.





We disagree as you already understand so we'll have to leave it at that on this point.




buzz said:


> Their role in the game gives them absolutely no special privilege outside of the game.





The way you word this seems strange.  My point is that the added effort the DM takes on as responsibility allows for the DM to make more decisions in regard to the meta-gaming situation. As an example, if the DM prefers to game from their own home, it is certainly their right to wait to run their game until they have players that agree to play at the home of the DM.  The DM is not under any obligation to run the game somewhere else because of some odd sense of democracy among the players.  In-game, if the DM does not feel that they would have a good time running a game with some aspect, let's say they want to run a game with no human PCs, then they are within their right to wait until they can gather players who are willing to play under this restriction.  I am really not sure how it is that anybody who is a player is going to force a DM to run a game they prefer not to run.




buzz said:


> They need to be communicative and respectful, just like everyone else, and just like they would in any other social situation in which they didn't want to get kicked in the nards.





While everyone here agrees with the first part of that weird and threatening statement, I think the last portion fails to uphold the promising beginning on which you embarked.  (_Edit - One might even contend that any situation that might so readily lead to a nard-kicking is not based on mutual respect._)




buzz said:


> "The DM is god" is dysfunctional BS. Period.





I do not believe that "The DM is god" is anyone's contention in this thread so your point is moot as far as I am concerned.  Why the hyperbole?


----------



## Halivar (Aug 20, 2008)

Mark said:


> I do not believe that "The DM is god" is anyone's contention in this thread so your point is moot as far as I am concerned.  Why the hyperbole?



I'm not trying to stoke any fires here, but I think those exact words were, in fact, used earlier in the thread.


----------



## Mark (Aug 20, 2008)

Halivar said:


> I'm not trying to stoke any fires here, but I think those exact words were, in fact, used earlier in the thread.





People often bring it up as a strawman.


*edit* I stand corrected.  Apparently Darrin Drader believes it is the case.  Okie doke, Buzz.  Go get him!


----------



## Mister Doug (Aug 20, 2008)

Halivar said:


> I'm not trying to stoke any fires here, but I think those exact words were, in fact, used earlier in the thread.




Yes, but I think that it's become clear on reading Darrin's follow-ups that the meaning of those words wasn't quite as harsh as they seemed on first read.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

Mark said:


> I do not believe that "The DM is god" is anyone's contention in this thread so your point is moot as far as I am concerned.  Why the hyperbole?





Mark:



			
				 Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god. The DM creates the world, the adventures, the DM sometimes cheats to make the encounters more interesting or enjoyable. Without the DM there is no game. So if the DM says that X race or class does not appear in this campaign world, that's just the way it is. Players who push issues like that with me get ejected from the game, which is also my right.
> 
> DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group


----------



## Fenes (Aug 20, 2008)

For me it is quite simple: I have a range of games I play. Some genres I do not play. "The kind of world where Dragonborn as described in 4E are in is not a genre I want to play - I dislike the "and all are happy neighbors, reptilian warrors and humans and elves".

I am willing to accomodate people wanting to play a specific character quite a bit, but not to the point in playing in a setting where Dragonborn as WotC wrote exist.

There are lizardman, there are halfdragons, there are halfdragon lizardmen, but they are not common, not wildly accepted among civilised countries.

Trying to tell me I have a problem just because, for me, dragonborn break my genre, is the same as telling me I have a problem just because Spelljammer doesn't really jive with my Sword and Sorcery genre. Both bring with them assumptions and rulings that I dislike.

And I really have better things to do than play a game I dislike. I am a bit too old to spend my spare time on things I do not like.


----------



## Mark (Aug 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Mark:





Already edited above.  Please, do not take this the wrong way but do you prefer CRPGs, btw, Scribble?  Seems to me you like a lot more control over the game as a player than I have ever noted from any single player except those who primarily played CRPGs alone rather than tabletop games with other people.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Aug 20, 2008)

Halivar said:


> The best way to keep players from impinging upon your setting is pretty simple. Don't invite them to play, and write yourself a big ol' novel instead. A good player in a good game (with a good DM) will strike indelible changes into the game setting. A DM that resists this doesn't want to play a game; they just want to storytell with a predefined narrative. Such DM's find players like me a huge frustration.




For one, you didn't read the rest of my post. It's the attitude that's important, and the approach.

It seems to me that you're missing some grey area. It isn't a case of "either you let players do whatever the hell they want, or you should go write a novel because you have a predefined narrative in mind."

Changes in the setting are good, which is why my first response to a player coming to me with something that isn't already in the setting is to tell them "no," *unless they have a good reason for it*. Why is it so much to expect players to have some amount of explanation for why they want to do something outside of what I have given as the presumed stuff, when I have poured hours of my life into my setting?


----------



## Halivar (Aug 20, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Why is it so much to expect players to have some amount of explanation for why they want to do something outside of what I have given as the presumed stuff, when I have poured hours of my life into my setting?



You're implying here that players are more likely to get their way in your game if they put as much work into their characters as you put into the setting. If this is the case, I applaud you. That's exactly the way I think it ought to be.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 20, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> If one player playing something like a dragonborn or an elf is going to totally ruin the game for every other player at the table, I'd say that some people at the table have deep deep issues that go well beyond the gaming table.



If one player has to play a dragonborn or an elf or his game is totally ruined, I'd say that person has deep deep issues that go well beyond the gaming table.  Goes both ways, eh?  Which is why the DM saying "in this campaign world there are no X" is _not a big deal_, as most people do not have deep deep problems that go well beyond the gaming table.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Aug 20, 2008)

Halivar said:


> You're implying here that players are more likely to get their way in your game if they put as much work into their characters as you put into the setting. If this is the case, I applaud you. That's exactly the way I think it ought to be.




The more effort a player goes through to attempt to ground their character in the setting, to give a solid in-world explanation for how this character came to be, the more likely I am to give them the go-ahead.

So - yep, that is what I'm saying.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2008)

Mark said:


> Already edited above.  Please, do not take this the wrong way but do you prefer CRPGs, btw, Scribble?  Seems to me you like a lot more control over the game as a player than I have ever noted from any single player except those who primarily played CRPGs alone rather than tabletop games with other people.




ARRRRRG! Curse my apparent inability to type!?!? 

Control? Hrmmm I'll try typing it again.

I'm a DM (currently) I mainly DM. 

This post was made from my DM point of view. 

My point of view is that no one player (DM or Player) should have "total control" over the game. It's a game I play with my friends. The enjoyment comes from the game, playing the game with my friends, and all of us having fun doing so.

Yep, sometimes my idea of fun can be at ods with some of my players. I don't however, feel that means I should tell them to change or leave. I'd much rather give them my input, and listen to theirs and see if we can compromise, because ultimately, I want to have fun with my friends!

As my friends I also know that, yes, they probably do for the most part, take their cue from the setting I'm creating, or the ideas I'm presenting, but if there is something they're really itching to include, they also know they can talk to me about it, and we'll work it out. 

I don't believe the DM has any All powerful control because he's the DM, and I don't believe the Players have any all powerful total control because a rule says they can do X.

It's a compromise. If something leads to greater fun, it's in. If not, it's out. 

Yep, as the DM I do have the lions share of responsability. But I do this work because well, it's fun. I like being the DM. It gives me a sense of satisfaction seeing everyone have a good time (I also like to throw parties!) and it's a fun outlet for my creative side.... I don't do it because it gives me some weird power, or control. Just like I wouldn't throw a party because it forced people to be nice to me or soemthing... That just seems silly, and childish to me... 

To answer your question, no I don't play computer games.  I'll play them occasionaly, (usually at a friends place or something) but never with any regularity.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 20, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> If one player playing something like a dragonborn or an elf is going to totally ruin the game for every other player at the table, I'd say that some people at the table have deep deep issues that go well beyond the gaming table. And I'd further say that being so caught up in not liking something that it ruins your entire night that someone else doesn't like it is obsessive behavior.




What about the flip side? A player who needs to play a dragonborn or an elf in a game where the DM has banned them?



> I'd also like to point out the DM is just another person at the table in the end, and while he can ask players not to come back, the players can also ask him not to come back if the game is only fun to him.



 Yes a DM is a person. I don't see your point though. 

A DM can ask individual players to leave and still have an ongoing game with the remaining players. A group of players that asks a DM to leave needs a new DM. The leverage does not seem as equal here as you seem to be implying.



> It's one thing to say "No, this is degenerate and ruins the fun of the game, I don't think I'm going to allow it." It is far different to say "No, you can't be a Fighter, I hate Fighters."



 Yep. 

The first is a wishy washy passive voice way of denying a request while calling the choice requested objectively degenerate and counter to the fun of the game in general. 

The second manfully owns up to the denial and makes clear it is a matter of the DM's hatred of the class. 



> And disallowing Fighters is no more absurd than disallowing any other race or class the player may have his heart set on.



Nothing wrong with disallowing a core class. Easy enough to play D&D and have fun without fighters. I would advocate DMs who hate fighters to feel free to not include them in their games.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Oh, its most certainly a straw man, and one we've dismissed pages back in this thread, as a matter of fact.  If there's a genre concern, that's at least a semi-objective matter.



You're drawing a false distinction between personal likes/dislikes and genre conventions.  Dragonborn, or psionics, or a million other things you can find in D&D, don't fit some particular views of fantasy gaming.  People who dislike those bits dislike them because they don't fit that person's genre expectations.  And why does someone like or dislike a genre?  It all comes down to personal taste.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 20, 2008)

buzz said:


> LostSoul beat me to it.
> 
> Whether the person serving as DM is facilitating or organizing things for the group is irrelevant. Their role in the game gives them absolutely no special privilege *outside of the game*. Not in any sane universe, anyway. They need to be communicative and respectful, just like everyone else, and just like they would in any other social situation in which they didn't want to get kicked in the nards.
> 
> "The DM is god" is dysfunctional BS. Period.




Who said anything about the "DM is god" applying to anything outside the game? I sure as heck didn't and I haven't seen any posts here that have. If someone else is running the game, I defer to their decisions. If I'm running the game, they defer to mine. That's the number one rule we follow in our group.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 20, 2008)

Mark said:


> Of course, there are always exceptions but I was posting in general terms and without that assumption we really limit the ability to have a meaningful discussion.  If every point someone makes is refuted and discounted based on exceptions we would get nowhere.




Starting off with the assumption that the DM is the one who performs all these different roles doesn't allow us to have a meaningful discussion.  

If, by necessity, the DM is the one who puts in all the hard work and therefore has a sense of ownership of the game that the players don't share, then you're going to get the attitude of "It's my game, and if you don't like it, too bad" that Scribble is talking about.  (Not always, but it's a big part of the hobby.)

But if we point out that the DM doesn't have to do all the work - one person can organize, another can host, each player can add to the setting, another can deal with the rules, etc. - and you can still play D&D (and have fun doing so!), then the claim that "I am the DM, that makes this game not ours but mine" can vanish if the group wants it to.

My point is that if the group wants to give the DM all that authority and responsibility, that's cool, but that's not the only way to have a functional game of D&D.  Then we can discuss ways for each group to divvy up that responsibility and authority between the players to get what they want.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 21, 2008)

quick note - don't let tempers fray or anyone get under your skin, and make sure that the discussion continues in a civil manner.

Thanks!


----------



## jensun (Aug 21, 2008)

Mark said:


> Already edited above.  Please, do not take this the wrong way but do you prefer CRPGs, btw, Scribble?  Seems to me you like a lot more control over the game as a player than I have ever noted from any single player except those who primarily played CRPGs alone rather than tabletop games with other people.



You may want to try something other than D&D or trad games.

There are a huge number of indie games out there that do exactly this.  Giving players direct input into the setting, the history, the story, their opposition and other elements of the game is not just encouraged but explicit within the mechanics in a great many games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 21, 2008)

Hjorimir said:


> There is no "sense of entitlement," the DM is entitled to make rulings (all rulings) in his or her campaign as they are simply in charge and without them there is no game. Conversely, the player is entitled to opt out of a campaign and take his or her dice elsewhere. It really is as simple as that.




Everything boils down to this.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 21, 2008)

Hjorimir said:


> There is no "sense of entitlement," the DM is entitled to make rulings (all rulings) in his or her campaign as they are simply in charge and without them there is no game. Conversely, the player is entitled to opt out of a campaign and take his or her dice elsewhere. It really is as simple as that.





In the final analysis, this is where the buck always stops.

RC


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In the final analysis, this is where the buck always stops.



Then let's end the discussion already.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> The first is a wishy washy passive voice way of denying a request while calling the choice requested objectively degenerate and counter to the fun of the game in general.




/incredibly pedantic - That's actually not passive voice.  It's perfectly active.

To be honest, I fall on the other side of things.  As a DM, I get to control 99.9% of the game.  The .1% that I don't control belongs to the players.  I'm pretty willing to relax the grip on that .1% in order to let someone have their way so long as I don't have any reasons beyond my personal taste.

In other words, just because I don't care for a particular race/class doesn't, IMO, give me enough justification to ban it.


----------



## Mark (Aug 21, 2008)

jensun said:


> You may want to try something other than D&D





Naw.  No time for too many systems of RPGs.  My hobby gaming has spanned the last 35 or so years and covers board games, RPGs, minatures wargames and traditional wargames.  I'm not someone who has played with a single group for all that time but rather have played with hundreds (probably thousands, actually) of other people at cons, gamedays, groups I've organized and run and groups others have organized and run.  I can only speak from my experience and from the anecdotal evidence I have read or heard from others but it seems to me that the vast majority of gaming experiences usually fall to one person setting up and running the game and others needing to defer to their authority in that situation mostly.  Others get their turn when they want to step up and shoulder the load, often being the one to have made the primary purchases to allow a game to happen, as well as set the schedule for play and arrange for the space, as well as corral the requisite number of players.  Sure, the players often bear the expense and responsibility of having some equipment, such as player's guides, dice, etc, and might also wind up with the snack and drink duties, but usually the bulk of knowing the rules and running things meta- and in-game fall to one central person because that's how it is more likely to happen.  YMMV.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 21, 2008)

People seem not to be reading my earlier post, so I'll say it again.

When it all comes down to it, in the end, when all debating and argument is done...the player is replaceable.  There are a _lot_ of players, and there are _not_ a lot of DMs.  Should you get really, really upset about not being able to play a character, you have three choices.  Suck it up.  Join a different game.  or _become a DM yourself_.

Footnote: That last "choice" is really a joke because _it never happens_.

It's the DM's game.  I'm not sure if saying "The DM is GOD" gives off the right message, but, in terms of the game, it's flat out true.  Factually correct.  The DM is the giver and the take, the one who created the world and all living things in it, and the one who ultimately guides your destiny, though how STRONGLY he guides that is up to him.  if you and the DM don't see eye to eye, yes, he SHOULD listen to you and to what you have to say.  *Nobody* is questioning that.

But after he's listened, if he still says no?  For WHATEVER reason?  _You can't force him to do otherwise_.


Perhaps I should bold that.

*You can't force him to do otherwise*.

And again, if it REALLY gets under your skin that much, _you can always DM your own game_*.


*Hahahahaha, not bloody likely.


----------



## Mark (Aug 21, 2008)

I would say that the majority of people I DM in my home games over the years also DM sometimes.  I cannot speak to those from cons and gamedays.  I tend to feel that people who have at least tried DMing make better players.  I've heard others say the opposite, often about themselves as players if they primarily DM.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 21, 2008)

In the 25 years I've played as a DM, the _single_ concession I've made to my players in generating a game world is in my most recent creation, a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting.

At one point, I had considered eliminating ALL of the core races.  The surprise to me was that while most of the players felt they could find something else to play besides a halfling, Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Elf or Dwarf, every last one of them insisted that playing a straight Human had to remain at least an option, even if ultimately nobody decided to play one.

I listened to them and felt that they brought up valid points.

Every other world-design decision I've made in the past quarter century I've stuck to.  After all, I'm the one taking the time to build and populate the wonderland in which everyone else plays but a single PC.

Those who didn't like them were, as ProfessorCirno pointed out, free to play despite my decision or walk away, perhaps to run their own game.

And in some cases, I couldn't find anyone willing to play a particular campaign.  I didn't take it personally- instead, I said OK, that means I get to be a player.  No more months of planning.  No more designing adventures and populating them with realistic NPCs.

Simply the joy of role-playing.

And in my 30 years as a player, I've NEVER questioned a DM on what they choose to use to populate their world.  Sometimes I've rolled my eyes, sure, but if I wasn't allowed to play a Paladin or a Halfling, I found something else to run.  No worries.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2008)

Maybe that's also a big difference.  I've never, ever played in a game where only one person was the DM.  Every group I've ever played with has included at least one other DM, and quite often the entire group DM'd at some point.  

My current group, as a standard example, has 6 players (including myself).  Of those 6, I believe that only 1 has never DM'd and all 5 of us who have DM'd are concurrently playing and DM'ing in various other games.  I'd actually say, for the first time in years, I have been a player only for the past year and that's has been a rare thing for me.

So, for me to come down with the "Well, I'm the DM, so play my way or the highway" would get me laughed off the table.  We're all DM's.  Every group I play with is full of DM's.  If I pulled this sort of authoritative stuff on my guys, I'd never get to DM at all.

I DM because I like to, because I enjoy it.  Because I have particular stories I'd like to tell with the cooperation of the group.  Heck, when I gave up the DMing spot in my regular group, I wound up not getting it back until much, much later than I had originally intended because the other DM wanted to finish up his campaign.

I really wonder about DM's out there who feel some sort of obligation to run a game and then figure that that obligation somehow entitles them to special treatment.  If I said, "No, you absolutely can't have that.  You don't like it?  Get out.", that would be the last session I had with most of my groups.  I'd be giving up the good seat the next session.

That's how I view DMing - the good seat.  I cannot fathom DMing for any other reason.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 21, 2008)

In my main group of 10+, fully half of them have run at least a short campaign in the past decade.

Its still "My way or the Highway"- play by the campaign HRs or run your own game.

As an example, we recently wrapped up going through RttToEE, and we were trying to decide who was going to run the next game.

I still haven't completed designing my aforementioned homebrew that won't have any PHB race except Humans...and I just recieved an email from one of the other guys in the group offering to run _his_ homebrew...  It reads (in part):

"The only source books we will be 
using are the PHB, the Complete Adventurer, the Complete Arcane , the Complete Divine, and the Complete Warrior. The only class from those book I'm allowing is the Favored Soul. We will not use any prestige classes also. "

He's one of the more conservative types.  I'll probably make one suggestion to him- that we use the Reserve Feats from Complete Mage.  I think they're right up there with French Toast. (IOW, just slightly below sliced bread, and miles above a kick to my happy place.)

At least one other guy in the group besides me and the guy above has publicly contemplated running a game as well.  Based on his track record, I fully expect him to excise Paladins and Psionics as well as some other things.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 21, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Maybe that's also a big difference.  I've never, ever played in a game where only one person was the DM.  Every group I've ever played with has included at least one other DM, and quite often the entire group DM'd at some point.
> 
> My current group, as a standard example, has 6 players (including myself).  Of those 6, I believe that only 1 has never DM'd and all 5 of us who have DM'd are concurrently playing and DM'ing in various other games.  I'd actually say, for the first time in years, I have been a player only for the past year and that's has been a rare thing for me.
> 
> So, for me to come down with the "Well, I'm the DM, so play my way or the highway" would get me laughed off the table.  We're all DM's.  Every group I play with is full of DM's.  If I pulled this sort of authoritative stuff on my guys, I'd never get to DM at all.



That sort of 'authoritative stuff' (though personally, I think communication is key here, as in many things, and the way things are expressed matters a lot) is the default, but I'm otherwise in the same situation - most gamers I know (and have known) are DM/players, myself included.

It's just seen as one of the DM's primary responsibilities, deciding details for the campaign setting, such as (for example) available PC races, and so on.

And it's never been the case, over the course of quite a few years, with many DMs in several groups, that that's caused any negative issues. Everyone understands and accepts these particular [versions of the] roles of DM and player, as being distinct from one another in certain ways.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 21, 2008)

Scribble said:


> For me it's not the act of saying: "I don't want X because I don't like it" that is problematic.
> 
> It's the idea of: "If you don't like it you can leave." that I have an issue with.




Interestingly enough, without that second statement (implied or otherwise), the first has little weight.

In a perfect world, when the DM says "I don't want X because I don't like it," the players say, "OK", and that is the end of it.  However, people seldom find themselves in a perfect world, and often one has to make a decision between having the thing one doesn't like (or not having the thing one does like), and playing in a given game.

If, in a given group, four people love X and won't play a game without it, and three people hate X and won't play a game with it, there is simply no way that those seven people are going to sit down and have a game they enjoy.  If X is included, the X-haters will drag the game down because they are not having fun.  If X is not included, the X-lovers will similarly drag the game down because they are not having fun.  The best thing they can do is split into two gaming groups and save their "friendship time" for activities they all enjoy together.

(And, for the record, while I would play in a game with dragonborn, I would never _*run*_ a game with dragonborn....unless it were a game I didn't expect to "matter", like when I opened the floodgates in the WLD.  In that game, I had a PC who was an animated LEGO man.  Would you normally allow such a character in your game?  If not, why not?)

If you don't run games with elves, or psionics, or what-have-you, I would respect that, and expect that any other players at the table respect that.  Sometimes there is wiggle room; sometimes there is not.  And that's okay.



RC


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 21, 2008)

In 23yrs of DMing I have only had to ask one person to leave my table because of outright, in your face, "_I'm not playing by your rules_", insubordination (for lack of a better word) though I recall not asking a few to return because my style and their styles were not compatible.

For the most part "Play by my rules or leave the table" works well on those rare occasions it needs to be invoked. IME most players seem to come to the table with that understanding already in place....thank god.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you don't run games with elves, or psionics, or what-have-you, I would respect that, and expect that any other players at the table respect that.





Apparently not, I'm seeing a lot of player pleasing/entitlement 3rd Ed rubbish on this thread – wah wah, you should accommodate anything I want!


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:


> Apparently not, I'm seeing a lot of player pleasing/entitlement 3rd Ed rubbish on this thread – wah wah, you should accommodate anything I want!




Definately a 3e meme and one that hopefully dies a terribly painful though blessedly rapid death soon. I have been seeing less and less of this attitude probably because it was yanked from WoTC's Meme Life Support System.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 21, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Definately a 3e meme and one that hopefully dies a terribly painful though blessedly rapid death soon.





From your mouth to _you-know-whose_ ears.

Maybe 1st and 2nd Ed gave the DM a bit too much control, but 3rd took too much away, and had a bit of a player pleasing/DMs go screw yourselves vibe, sometimes, IMO.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

I don't think the idea that players should be accomodated and pleased is wrong - but I take offense at the statement that a player's fun is worth more than a DM's fun. Both have the same rights. Claiming that since the DM has so much more work to cover, handling all NPCs and areas, he has somehow less rights to veto stuff and should just shut up and DM what the players want, even if he hates it, is wrong. And expecting a DM to simply run the game the players want, even if it not fun for himself, is not just wrong but arrogant to boot.

Players should be pleased and catered to, but not at the expense of the DM.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I don't think the idea that players should be accomodated and pleased is wrong




Absolutely, no one likes a control-freak DM, but that is a big difference to a DM who simply does not have hobbits in his particular campaign world – tough noogies.

I may let you use the mechanics to play a "little person", but the fluff is gone.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I don't think the idea that players should be accomodated and pleased is wrong - but I take offense at the statement that a player's fun is worth more than a DM's fun. Both have the same rights. Claiming that since the DM has so much more work to cover, handling all NPCs and areas, he has somehow less rights to veto stuff and should just shut up and DM what the players want, even if he hates it, is wrong. And expecting a DM to simply run the game the players want, even if it not fun for himself, is not just wrong but arrogant to boot.
> 
> Players should be pleased and catered to, but not at the expense of the DM.




Well put.

And, may I note, I will not game, either as DM or as player, with people who do not respect the DM's right to set ground rules/run the game.  If I am a player, and I don't want to game under those ground rules, I don't assume that I am more important than the DM or everyone else at the table.  I let them enjoy their game, and find/make another.

Ought to be simple, IMHO.

(And, to Lost Soul & Hussar, none of this means that the DM cannot divide responsibilities/rights with the players to whatever degree he is comfortable doing so.  Indeed, it is a declaration that the DM has an absolute right to do so!)


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 21, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I really wonder about DM's out there who feel some sort of obligation to run a game and then figure that that obligation somehow entitles them to special treatment.




No one is saying this.

DMing is not (and should not be) an obligation.  DMing a game you do not enjoy would be an obligation.  Ergo, you should not DM a game that you do not enjoy.

DMs have special rights within the structure of the game because they have special responsibilities.  The more a given group distributes those responsibilities, the more it makes sense to distribute those rights.



> So, for me to come down with the "Well, I'm the DM, so play my way or the highway" would get me laughed off the table.  We're all DM's.  Every group I play with is full of DM's.  If I pulled this sort of authoritative stuff on my guys, I'd never get to DM at all.




Are you honestly telling me that if you said "I'd like to run the WLD, but without dragonborn PCs....who's in?" that your group would laugh you off the table?!?

IME, the restrictions a DM can place without player rancor is directly related to the amount of entertainment that DM brings to the group.  IOW, it is still _very much worth it_ to play in a game with the DM's restrictions, if the DM is good enough.  And, for a restriction like "no dragonborn PCs" that DM doesn't have to be very good at all....merely competent.

We don't always see eye to eye, but I would be very, very surprised if "I'd like to run the WLD, but without dragonborn PCs....who's in?" would get you laughed off the table.  


RC


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 21, 2008)

It's not about players running rough-shod over everything else. It's not about the DM always getting his way. It's about _working together_ and accepting that, guess what? Players can provide really great ideas that could make the game so much better if the DM asked for that sort of assistance and just got over the whole "It's my world, not yours" mindset. Dividing up the workload shouldn't be a last resort for the DM at his wit's end: it should be the first thing a DM does every game. Challenge the players to create and help fill in your world, and they won't let you down. A friend of mine, DMing for the first time with 4e with a group of entirely new players, made the same requests of his players. One of them essentially built him an eldarin society for the first game. Brand new to RPGs, and she basically gift-wrapped the DM this entire society to plop down into his game.

The social contract is that it's the DM's show, but only by the players' whim, and nothing draws the players in like knowing that the world belongs to them too.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> No one is saying this.




I think a lot of people are saying this actually.  Some people are even going so far as to point fingers at edition for this.  Like we never saw this in any other edition.  Complete Humanoids ring any bells?  Unearthed Arcana Drow perhaps?  Yeah, those things were added to the game because no one ever asked to play them.  



> DMing is not (and should not be) an obligation.  DMing a game you do not enjoy would be an obligation.  Ergo, you should not DM a game that you do not enjoy.




I guess I'm just easier to please.  The idea that someone playing a race or a class that I personally don't like would somehow destroy the game for me is beyond my sphere of experience.  I loathe elves.  Hate them.  Always have.  Yet, I know lots of people who like to play elves.  Should I carte blanche ban them from my game, knowing that I'm pissing all over someone else's shoes, or should I simply step back, realize that someone is playing their own character and I can keep my greedy fingers to myself?



> DMs have special rights within the structure of the game because they have special responsibilities.  The more a given group distributes those responsibilities, the more it makes sense to distribute those rights.




Partially agreed.  Sure, I have special responsiblities as the DM.  I have to create the campaign and adventures after all.  However, I choose to take on those responsibilities.  No one is forcing me.  I am under no obligation to do so.  So, just because I do more work, I get to enforce my personal aesthetics on everyone else?

I don't think so.  Like I said, as DM, I get to control 99% of the game.  I have no real issues letting players have that other 1%.



> Are you honestly telling me that if you said "I'd like to run the WLD, but without dragonborn PCs....who's in?" that your group would laugh you off the table?!?
> 
> IME, the restrictions a DM can place without player rancor is directly related to the amount of entertainment that DM brings to the group.  IOW, it is still _very much worth it_ to play in a game with the DM's restrictions, if the DM is good enough.  And, for a restriction like "no dragonborn PCs" that DM doesn't have to be very good at all....merely competent.
> 
> ...




Sure, I could say, "No dragonborn PC's".  No problem.  However, when one of the players says, "Hey, I really, really want to try this dragonborn, I have this idea for how he can fit into the setting and this backstory to explain his existence.  I really want to play this." and I say, "Nope, no dragonborn, you either play something else or leave" I'd get laughed off the table.  Instant player revolt.

And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me.  If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.


----------



## EATherrian (Aug 21, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Sure, I could say, "No dragonborn PC's".  No problem.  However, when one of the players says, "Hey, I really, really want to try this dragonborn, I have this idea for how he can fit into the setting and this backstory to explain his existence.  I really want to play this." and I say, "Nope, no dragonborn, you either play something else or leave" I'd get laughed off the table.  Instant player revolt.
> 
> And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me.  If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.




I agree with that.  If they can explain to me how to fit their idea into my setting I'll agree with them.  On the second point, I hate drow and therefore in my world there usually aren't any drow.  I do have fallen or 'dark' elves that look like other elves except for their eyes.  I had someone want to play a Drizz't clone and I let him as much as I could, but I explained that there wasn't perfect correlation between the drow and my dark elves, and he'd have to expect that most civilized people would treat him badly if not attack him on sight.  He still insisted, and it turned out to be an interesting role-playing exercise.  I think he was upset that he couldn't be a pure Drizz't clone and that the rules of the world were consistent in that evil races aren't treated well by the normals.  They don't have time to find out if your an angsty outcast.  You're a threat until you prove yourself, if you can.  So maybe I see both sides of the issue.  Heck when I play I don't even make a character until I know what the DM is looking for, so I'd never go in with a character that didn't sync with their vision.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2008)

jackelope king said:


> it's not about players running rough-shod over everything else. It's not about the dm always getting his way. It's about _working together_ and accepting that, guess what? Players can provide really great ideas that could make the game so much better if the dm asked for that sort of assistance and just got over the whole "it's my world, not yours" mindset. Dividing up the workload shouldn't be a last resort for the dm at his wit's end: It should be the first thing a dm does every game. Challenge the players to create and help fill in your world, and they won't let you down. A friend of mine, dming for the first time with 4e with a group of entirely new players, made the same requests of his players. One of them essentially built him an eldarin society for the first game. Brand new to rpgs, and she basically gift-wrapped the dm this entire society to plop down into his game.
> 
> The social contract is that it's the dm's show, but only by the players' whim, and nothing draws the players in like knowing that the world belongs to them too.




qfmft


----------



## Whisper72 (Aug 21, 2008)

Well let me add my voice to the chorus. I am of a mind that, naturally, if a DM is to have any fun, s/he needs to have players who are also having fun. So off the bat, any really asinine behaviour is out of the question in any case.

That said, in the end, the DM is god, judge and jury of the game. S/he is (and I am speaking generalities here) the one who has invested the most in the game in terms of time, money and thought. It is the ideas of the DM that form the driving force behind the game at the end, whether this is with player input or not.

So, does this mean that a DM is primus inter parus, yes certainly it does, with great responsibility comes great power so to say, and this gives the DM certain entitlements. All within the limits of accepted human behaviour and with the understanding that if the DM is an idiot, the players can simply sack the DM. However, once the position of DM is awarded and accepted, then it should be understood by the players that from that moment on, the DM is the boss of what does and does not go in the campaign.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well put.
> 
> And, may I note, I will not game, either as DM or as player, with people who do not respect the DM's right to set ground rules/run the game.  If I am a player, and I don't want to game under those ground rules, I don't assume that I am more important than the DM or everyone else at the table.  I let them enjoy their game, and find/make another.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I agree with you - though I'd say that it's not just the DM's right; everyone in the group has the same rights to work out the rules just by virtue of being peers.

It's like...
Adam: I am going to run WLD but I don't want dragonborn - they just rub me the wrong way.
Bob: Damn, I was hoping to play a dragonborn warlord.
Colin: I could run the new Dungeon AP with dragonborn, if that's cool.
Adam: Yeah, I don't have a problem playing in a game with dragonborn.  Though I would really like to run WLD.
Bob: Well, maybe we can alternate nights - WLD one week, Dungeon AP the next week.
Colin: I'm cool with that.
Adam: Me too.

and not...
Adam: I am going to run WLD but I don't want dragonborn - they just rub me the wrong way.
Bob: Damn, I was hoping to play a dragonborn warlord.
Colin: I could run the new Dungeon AP with dragonborn, if that's cool.
Adam: Hey, I'm the DM here!  What I say goes.  We're playing WLD without dragonborn.  If you don't like it, leave.

edit: or this either...
Adam: I am going to run WLD but I don't want dragonborn - they just rub me the wrong way.
Bob: No dragonborn?  You can't just do that - look, they're in the book.  You have to run WLD with dragonborn even if you don't want to.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 21, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I'd get laughed off the table.





There seems to be a lot of laughing off the table around your parts.

Hey, I do know what you're saying – I detest dragonborn with every fibre of my soul (starting with the way they look), but in my upcoming homebrew, one of my players is dying to play one, so we have worked at a compromise – Nagaborn (there are no dragons in this world), so, slight cosmetic change, and swapped out the breath weapon with another racial power, done.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

If you go over the views in this thread, it's more like:

DM: I don't want Dragonborn in my world, I consider their background silly, trite, and unfit for the genre I prefer. But you can play a reptilian or halfdragon or half-dragon reptilian character. You can even make up your society as you want. But I do not want to have the Dragonborn background (Old Empire, accepted civilised race) since I do not like the "all player character species are accepted in this utopia" setting it presumes. If you're gonna play a reptilian PC you'll have to deal with hostility from most humans and other civilised races because lizards are simply not trusted as peaceful, civilised beings. You know, like in most fantasy books we've read, and in most settings of this very game we played.
Player: Screw you, you've got a mental problem! I want to play Dragonborn like they are in the holy writ of WotC, and you should be glad to run that!

I am biased, but I do not think in this example the DM is at any fault, or has any mental problem, or shows any intolerance or unwillingness to compromise.

I'd even go as far as to say that any player who is unwilling to accept this compromise - which basically offers Dragonborn in all but name and part of the background - is not a player whose presence will enhance the game.


----------



## buzz (Aug 21, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Who said anything about the "DM is god" applying to anything outside the game?



You did, Darrin (among others). Seriously, when you talk about ejecting people from the game, refusing to consider the interests of other people in the group, or it being "their game", you're talking about meta-issues that involve the social dynamic of the group. A group could certainly have an existing agreement to take what the current DM dishes out, no questions asked (i.e., they're happy with that setup), but assuming that being in the role of DM in a D&D _entitles_ a person to this agreement is ridiculous.



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> As an example, if the DM prefers to game from their own home, it is certainly their right to wait to run their game until they have players that agree to play at the home of the DM.  The DM is not under any obligation to run the game somewhere else because of some odd sense of democracy among the players.



Obviously, no one is required to do anything they don't want to do, save for death and taxes. But assuming you're part of a regular group, and care in any way about the other people in that group, the guy who's DMing that night has no _right_ to anything you state above.

In my current group, I DM a lot lately. It would be totally unreasonable for me to demand that we play at my house. I'm one of the furthest away from everyone else, which makes it harder on everyone than playing at one other guy's place, especially for the guys who have kids. I don't have kids, and I don't have, say, the collection minis that the other guys do, so I play where it's most convenient for everyone. 

Being DM that night gives me no _right_ to do otherwise. Were I do act that way, the group would collapse pretty quickly.

Now, none of this isn't to say that courtesy is out the window. If someone is going to greater effort to make the game happen (and it's not always the DM, by far), we're going to be appreciative of that. 

We're also considerate of everyone's schedules and tastes. E.g., if it's feasible to move a session a few hours early and to our buddy's place so that he can participate while he's taking care of his daughter, we do that. If a player wants to use a variant rule for their PC, I'm going to hear them out, even if the ultimate answer is no. And I'm going to explain why I'm saying no.

Again, I find it strange that people see the D&D group dynamic as so black-and-white. It's not a choice between that night's DM being either a tyrant or a doormat. It's about collaborating with people who are invested in each other's fun. A healthy social dynamic cannot exist if one person's fun is prioritized over everyone else's.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> If you go over the views in this thread, it's more like:
> 
> DM: I don't want Dragonborn in my world, I consider their background silly, trite, and unfit for the genre I prefer. But you can play a reptilian or halfdragon or half-dragon reptilian character. You can even make up your society as you want. But I do not want to have the Dragonborn background (Old Empire, accepted civilised race) since I do not like the "all player character species are accepted in this utopia" setting it presumes. If you're gonna play a reptilian PC you'll have to deal with hostility from most humans and other civilised races because lizards are simply not trusted as peaceful, civilised beings. You know, like in most fantasy books we've read, and in most settings of this very game we played.
> Player: Screw you, you've got a mental problem! I want to play Dragonborn like they are in the holy writ of WotC, and you should be glad to run that!
> ...




Now, I'd agree with that.  Using your specific example, yes, the player is being entirely unreasonable.  The DM has allowed for the race, although he has changed some of the flavor of the race to fit with his setting and the player does not accept that whatsoever.  Yes, that's a bad player.

But, that's not what's being discussed here.  A closer situation would be:

DM:  I am banning dragonborn.
Player:  Well, how about I come up with a reptilian warrior with a breath weapon with a background that fits in your campaign.
DM:  No.  Absolutely not.  I hate dragonborn and if anyone plays one, I will NOT DM.  I cannot possibly run a game with a dragonborn in it, regardless of any other factors.

Do you think this is an example of a DM exercising his prerogatives in a positive fashion?


----------



## Mallus (Aug 21, 2008)

Jackelope King said:


> It's about _working together_ and accepting that, guess what? Players can provide really great ideas that could make the game so much better if the DM asked for that sort of assistance and just got over the whole "It's my world, not yours" mindset. Dividing up the workload shouldn't be a last resort for the DM at his wit's end: it should be the first thing a DM does every game.



Well put. I tried to stress this earlier, but did it less clearly, less, umm, well.

The focus shouldn't be on _rights_, it should be on what works to make the campaign better. My gradual evolution into a DM that ran 'open' settings that welcomed player input had nothing to do with a change of thinking about player rights, edition, or a decrease in my interest or attachment to my homebrews. It was all about what _worked_ better. Now I welcome the challenge of a player that wants to introduce something I don't particularly like. My experience has taught me that the compromise (and creative effort inherent in that) will make the game better. Bigger and richer.



> Brand new to RPGs, and she basically gift-wrapped the DM this entire society to plop down into his game.



It's great when that happens, isn't it?

In my current 3.5/AE campaign, I got a new nation, it's culture, and the whole end-game --with attendant expansion of the setting's base cosmology-- from a single new player (not to mention all the terrifically entertaining play), whose character pretty much ran contrary to the setting's original PC design specs (specifically, a broadly-talented mage in a world of specialized magicians). Briefly, I considered banning the concept. Then I decided to trust the player. I'm happy I did... 

re: the whole 'I hate X' thing...

I have trouble understanding how a single (or a few) game element can ruin the D&D experience for some people. I can't but read that as hyperbole. I mean, I have my preferences, some strong, some odd, but I can't imagine the presence of a few game elements I don't like (kender, Dragonborn, psionics, the occasional foray into powergaming) spoiling a campaign I play in. I know this is tantamount to arguing taste, but it seems to me some tastes are needless, even counter-productively, particular... 

The hallmark of D&D play for me is the variety of pleasures it offers, from the ridiculous to the sublime, frequently simultaneously, so when balanced against that, a small set of unpalatable in-game elements, mechanical and otherwise seem easy to overlook. Entertainment-wise, I'm still coming out ahead.

I mean, there are plenty of reasons not to enjoy a campaign, and roughly all of them are the other people you're playing with...


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Now, I'd agree with that.  Using your specific example, yes, the player is being entirely unreasonable.  The DM has allowed for the race, although he has changed some of the flavor of the race to fit with his setting and the player does not accept that whatsoever.  Yes, that's a bad player.
> 
> But, that's not what's being discussed here.  A closer situation would be:
> 
> ...




No, that wouldn't be one - assuming that not just the background, but the character itself fits the campaign.

But as should be clear now - my hatred for Dragonborn comes from the way their background turns the setting into a "all us PC races are happy friends, even the scaly ones cause the book says so"-setting. A setting where humans have no problems with reptilians simply is not a setting I want to run since it implies a lot of changes to their society that I do not want. I like a grittier setting, with more xenophobia, and more conflicts and prejudice with other races.

I also think that the background of the Dragonborn is their defining characteristic, since they're just lizardmen without a breath weapon instead of a tail stat wise.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> But as should be clear now - my hatred for Dragonborn comes from the way their background turns the setting into a "all us PC races are happy friends, even the scaly ones cause the book says so"-setting.



Instead of hatin' on them, why not just change their background story? DIY... 

In our new setting the Dragonborn are co-responsible for ending the world and a particularly unsavory Non-Governmental Organization wants to commit genocide against them.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I have trouble understanding how a single (or a few) game element can ruin the D&D experience for some people. I can't but read that as hyperbole. I mean, I have my preferences, some strong, some odd, but I can't imagine the presence of a few game elements I don't like (kender, Dragonborn, psionics, the occasional foray into powergaming) spoiling a campaign I play in. I know this is tantamount to arguing taste, but it seems to me some tastes are needless, even counter-productively, particular...




Because sometimes, that single thing causes wide changes to the whole setting, which in turn make it not fun anymore.

Consider as an example a player wanting to play a jedi in a Forgotten Realms campaign. The DM offers a modified psywar class or class/PrC combo and a background that fits in the Realms. But the player doesn't want that, He wants to play a jedi, from Star Wars, crashed with a spaceship.

Now, while the mechanics would be not that much of a problem, and the lightsaber itself not that odd, for me, the assumption that "somewhere out there, there is the galaxy, full of space ships, and the force, and hyperspace", and the conclusion that the force also works on the realms, and technology such as spaceships would work, would ruin the setting - especially if the player also expects to use class abilities that "summon" other star wars friends, i.e. wants his background to show up in game.

Or another example:
Consider a player who wants to play a christian priest in the Realms. He doesn't want to play a cleric following a realms god, he wants to play a cleric following God. The one true god. He expects the DM to change the setting so that his god is the one god, and the rest are false gods, since his background demands it. And he expects to be able to convert the masses and start a church.

Can you see where I come from? I am not talking or ranting about a player wanting to play an exotic character, I am talking about a player demanding massive changes to the setting and genre just so he can play his concept perfectly.

Some may not consider those changes significant enough, but for me, and I assume for many others, such changes are significant enough to turn a fun setting into something one does not want to run.

As I explained, I don't have a problem with lizard warriors with breath weapons. I have a problem when I should be DMing a campaign where such folk is part of the established civilised society, happily mingling with humans and dwarves and elves and halflings, and not some alien race from the fringe.


----------



## buzz (Aug 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I am biased, but I do not think in this example the DM is at any fault, or has any mental problem, or shows any intolerance or unwillingness to compromise.



You're painting the hypothetical player in your example as an irrational jerkwad, though, so I'm not sure how useful this is to the discussion.

Is it such a hurdle to accept that it's a two-way street?

Do we really think this "god" dynamic would be acceptable in any other social context? Are gamers really this maladroit?


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Instead of hatin' on them, why not just change their background story? DIY...
> 
> In our new setting the Dragonborn are co-responsible for ending the world and a particularly unsavory Non-Governmental Organization wants to commit genocide against them.




As I said, I am not opposed to that - although, as I said and honestly believe, the background is all that makes a Dragonborn a Dragonborn, and not a lizardman with some halfdragon ability.

So, by changing the background of the dragonborn, I am actually banning them, and replacing them with a lizardman variant.


----------



## Mister Doug (Aug 21, 2008)

Jackelope King said:


> The social contract is that it's the DM's show, but only by the players' whim, and nothing draws the players in like knowing that the world belongs to them too.




Bingo.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> When it all comes down to it, in the end, when all debating and argument is done...the player is replaceable.  There are a _lot_ of players, and there are _not_ a lot of DMs.



There may be a larger pool of players than DMs, but IME, the pool of good players is rather limited.  A DM who takes sitting behind the DM screen as an excuse to become a dictatorial jerk will likely not end up with the cream of the crop, but the dregs of the barrel.  Some people might not have a problem with running a game for the dregs as long as they are appropriately submissive, but, as D&D is a social activity, I personally prefer to run games for people I like and get along with.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

buzz said:


> You're painting the hypothetical player in your example as an irrational jerkwad, though, so I'm not sure how useful this is to the discussion.
> 
> Is it such a hurdle to accept that it's a two-way street?
> 
> Do we really think this "god" dynamic would be acceptable in any other social context? Are gamers really this maladroit?




Some people in this very thread told me that I have a mental problem if I disallow Dragonborns, but allow lizardmen, half-dragons, and half-dragon lizardmen.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 21, 2008)

Ourph said:


> There may be a larger pool of players than DMs, but IME, the pool of good players is rather limited.



You're not alone in thinking this.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Some people in this very thread told me that I have a mental problem if I disallow Dragonborns, but allow lizardmen, half-dragons, and half-dragon lizardmen.



Technically, I said that hating dragonborn so much that including them in a campaign would ruin your enjoyment of DMing the campaign might be an indication of a personal problem you should sort out on your own rather than inflict upon your friends.  You added a lot of the rest.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Technically, I said that hating dragonborn so much that including them in a campaign would ruin your enjoyment of DMing the campaign might be an indication of a personal problem you should sort out on your own rather than inflict upon your friends.  You added a lot of the rest.




You made it very clear that for you, there is no excuse at all, no reason at all to disallow Dragonborn if they "just" ruin a DM's fun since the DM should bend to the player. The bit about personal problems was just adding insults.


----------



## buzz (Aug 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Technically, I said that hating dragonborn so much that including them in a campaign would ruin your enjoyment of DMing the campaign might be an indication of a personal problem you should sort out on your own rather than inflict upon your friends.  You added a lot of the rest.



I dunno about it being a "personal problem" that needs sorting out, but I agree that the above exchange does not really correspond to Fenes' example. The example was exaggerated to a point where we're obviously not looking at a rational exchange you'd see IRL.

You don't need supposed "rights" granted to you by an RPG rulebook in order to make a gaming session work. The idea that you would is just crazy to me. Any human beings with even basic social skills should be able to arrive at some mutual fun, or at least recognize when a compromise won't work and then make the decision to participate or not.

A gaming group that cannot function this way is, IMO, a gaming group that should not exist.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

buzz said:


> I dunno about it being a "personal problem" that needs sorting out, but I agree that the above exchange does not really correspond to Fenes' example. The example was exaggerated to a point where we're obviously not looking at a rational exchange you'd see IRL.
> 
> You don't need supposed "rights" granted to you by an RPG rulebook in order to make a gaming session work. The idea that you would is just crazy to me. Any human beings with even basic social skills should be able to arrive at some mutual fun, or at least recognize when a compromise won't work and then make the decision to participate or not.
> 
> A gaming group that cannot function this way is, IMO, a gaming group that should not exist.




The problem is that for some people, a DM's fun is not enough of a reason to cause a player to compromise if said player wants to play a Dragonborn exactly as written in the book, no matter how muhc a DM is willing to compromise.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2008)

buzz said:


> Obviously, no one is required to do anything they don't want to do, save for death and taxes. But assuming you're part of a regular group, and care in any way about the other people in that group, the guy who's DMing that night has no _right_ to anything you state above.
> 
> Again, I find it strange that people see the D&D group dynamic as so black-and-white. It's not a choice between that night's DM being either a tyrant or a doormat. It's about collaborating with people who are invested in each other's fun. A healthy social dynamic cannot exist if one person's fun is prioritized over everyone else's.





Once again Buzz, I agree with everything you've said...

And again I'm forced to wonder if it's a difference between people who game with their peers, and social group, vs. people who game just with a random group. (Random as in they've gotten together only for the sake of gaming, and not because they are friends outside of gaming...)


----------



## Spatula (Aug 21, 2008)

buzz said:


> Do we really think this "god" dynamic would be acceptable in any other social context?



Start making demands on how your boss runs the business and see what happens.

The DM-player dynamic really isn't all that unusual.  Just about any hobby organization will function along similar lines, including real-world group but also online stuff like MMO guilds.  Someone will rise to the leadership position.  If the others like that person's decisions, they will be happy.  If they don't, they will agitate to give someone else power, or go elsewhere.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The problem is that for some people, a DM's fun is not enough of a reason to cause a player to compromise if said player wants to play a Dragonborn exactly as written in the book, no matter how muhc a DM is willing to compromise.



Oh, no, not at all.  Again, this is all stuff you've added to the conversation.

I do think, however, that some degree of deference should be given to the player when it comes to his own character.  Again, we're dealing with my "sense of proportion" critique here- while having dragonborn in the setting might annoy a DM who doesn't like dragonborn, its unlikely that most people would have enough rage against dragonborn in them that merely DMing a setting that includes dragonborn would bother them to the same extent that a player would typically be bothered by being denied the ability to play the character he wants, especially when the reasoning for that denial is sheer hate-on from the DM, _rather than anything about making the game better._

In your case, you've got an established campaign setting and you don't want to retcon it.  That's fine.  Even without your hatred of dragonborn, I would accept that if I were a player in your game.

But as for banning things simply because you do not like them, then using the elaborate apologetics found in this thread to justify it?  It doesn't... it doesn't ring true or sincere.  I have genuine difficulty believing that someone could hate dragonborn so much that they can't envision the idea of compromising and permitting a dragonborn pc in their campaign.  Wouldn't such a person also be incapable of playing in a campaign where someone else was playing a dragonborn?  Shouldn't we be seeing threads where players express similar sentiments?

But of course we don't.  Because players have _less of a sense of entitlement_ about their pet peeves being accommodated, even in contexts where they, not the DMs, are the ones interacting directly with the disliked subject matter.  Contexts like character creation, for example.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2008)

Spatula said:


> Start making demands on how your boss runs the business and see what happens.




Ok, first: There is a huge difference between a job, and a leisuretime activity with one's friends...

Second: Any good boss knows to listen to his/her employees concerns. Failure to do so leads to, loosing good employees, and making terrible descisions based on a superiority complex. 

Third: NO ONE should be making "demands" of anyone in a game. Player or DM.

Players have no right to "demand" something be done, just like the DM has no right to "demand"something be so.



> The DM-player dynamic really isn't all that unusual.  Just about any hobby organization will function along similar lines, including real-world group but also online stuff like MMO guilds.  Someone will rise to the leadership position.  If the others like that person's decisions, they will be happy.  If they don't, they will agitate to give someone else power, or go elsewhere.




This is very odd to me... I have a group of friends. We do things together. Sometimes we come up with an idea "Let's go skiing!" We then talk about our options. "let's go to Colorado!" "How about Whistler?" "Well... Taho would be better on my wallet..."  etc... We eventually come up with the best idea that allows our group of friends to do a fun activity together...

Never once would we ever consider one of our group saying something like: "Tomorrow we ski. We will go to Whistler. Anyone who objects can go elsewhere...."

That's just odd.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Technically, I said that hating dragonborn so much that including them in a campaign would ruin your enjoyment of DMing the campaign might be an indication of a personal problem you should sort out on your own rather than inflict upon your friends.  You added a lot of the rest.



How about this:  Aside from the fact that I have an established setting that really doesn't have anywhere the dragonborn could have been hiding for the last 2000 years, I don't like PCs with breath weapons.

If a player can come up with a suitable replacement ability, I'd consider finding a place for a dragonborn character.  I might also recommend playing a hobgoblin, as one nation of hobgoblins IMC has a very similar back story (honorable, collapsed empire; desert-dwelling; warriors) to the dragonborn.

I also don't allow dragon shamans (from 3.5 PHB2) because I don't like PCs with breath weapons.  I might, if I were running Eberron, but they don't fit the flavor of my home brew setting (which, oddly enough, reflects my general preferences in fantasy).

Am I a nutter or not?


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Oh, no, not at all.  Again, this is all stuff you've added to the conversation.
> 
> I do think, however, that some degree of deference should be given to the player when it comes to his own character.  Again, we're dealing with my "sense of proportion" critique here- while having dragonborn in the setting might annoy a DM who doesn't like dragonborn, its unlikely that most people would have enough rage against dragonborn in them that merely DMing a setting that includes dragonborn would bother them to the same extent that a player would typically be bothered by being denied the ability to play the character he wants, especially when the reasoning for that denial is sheer hate-on from the DM, _rather than anything about making the game better._
> 
> ...




Your hint that 3 am lieing aside, Character generation is an activity where my group gets into as a group - including veto rights. Part of our social contract is avoiding to create a PC that ruins the fun of the others. So, yes, a player is entitled not to suffer akender in the party too, if push comes to the shove and no compromise can be reached.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Interestingly enough, without that second statement (implied or otherwise), the first has little weight.
> 
> In a perfect world, when the DM says "I don't want X because I don't like it," the players say, "OK", and that is the end of it.  However, people seldom find themselves in a perfect world, and often one has to make a decision between having the thing one doesn't like (or not having the thing one does like), and playing in a given game.




Do you honestly feel the only way to achieve a particular objective is through threats or ultimatums? 

This again seems alien to me. An example from one of my longest running campaigns after a play'er character had died. It was an "epic story" style campaign so we rarely if ever brought people back from the dead the player was makign a new character.

"Hey, I'm thinking I want to go with something different this time... I want to make a  1/2 demon."

"Eh... I'd rather you didn't. The places you're in right now a 1/2 demon would kind of stick out... I'm not really feeling the idea of having to account for that all the time."

"Ah, that's cool, I can do something else."

No ultimatums, no threats, no demands... Just two people sharing their thoughts on what's best for the game.

A year or so later in the same campaign, higher level. The group had "split" into two... The evil characters and the good, (asame group two sets of characters alternating on a semi weekly basis.) Another character a cleric of vangal had died... But now he had a resurection cast on him by the paryy druid:

"Hey J, instead of the random roll, can I make a centaur?"

"Probably not. "

"Here's my thoughts: Ok, so I'm getting to the point where I want to challenge Vangal's high priest to the right to lead his church, and I thought what if when sending me back, Vangal saw somethign in me, and "blessed" me with a new form... His church are the mad horsemen right? I'd litterally be a "Horse man..."  and I'm hight enough level to account for the LA anyway..."

"Actually that sounds pretty cool... Let's roll with it."


Again... no ultimatums, threats or demands... Two people, with the goal of having fun rationally discussing their thoughts.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> In your case, you've got an established campaign setting and you don't want to retcon it. That's fine. Even without your hatred of dragonborn, I would accept that if I were a player in your game.
> 
> But as for banning things simply because you do not like them, then using the elaborate apologetics found in this thread to justify it? It doesn't... it doesn't ring true or sincere.




As a DM I only tend to ban those things that do not, for whatever reason, thematically fit the setting. However, there are times when I simply have not liked a race concept. In fact, in most instances the races found in books like Frostburn and the Book of Vile Darkness never saw the light of day in my campaign. Just didn't like them. They just felt wrong somehow.

None of these bizarre new races are potent archetypes within fantasy, none have the resonance of myth surrounding them. In fact most of the races figuring in WoTC splatbooks were added because the writer liked the concept. I would never expect the author of a book to have my campaign's best interests at heart but by the same token, I, as DM, should not be expected to include a race just because it was created by James Wyatt, Bruce Cordell, Rich Baker, Monte Cook, etc. because my taste is different from theirs as yours is from mine.

I think if we look at races as batches of numbers that exist prior to the fluff that is added to them we can see that in most instances any not overly specialized character concept can work with any race. There is nothing you can't do with a lizardman that you can with a dragonborn unless one is fixated on the math. IME it is the player wanting a mechanical advantage that wants a "unique" character concept that will fit with no other pre-existing race.

Despite their popularity I have always loathed half-dragons and wanted no part of 3e's "_dragons will do anything anytime anywhere_" theme. Dragons in my game have always mated with dragons and though there are some magical dragon hybrids they are more rare than dragons themselves. IMC, sorcerers aren't dragonblooded but either blessed or tainted by the blood of celestials or infernal races respectively. Too much of anything cheapens it.

Here's a viceral loathing of mine....the name tiefling....gods do I detest it. IMO you cannot get a name that fits less with a concept (yeah I know there is some German root to it, but it still sounds awful IMO). I just call them something else. I don't play 4e but I wouldn't ever let those straight out of hell central casting abominations in my game not without a 2e makeover.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Mallus (Aug 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Because sometimes, that single thing causes wide changes to the whole setting...



Well, only if you let it.



> Consider as an example a player wanting to play a jedi in a Forgotten Realms campaign.



Ouch. I supposed I asked for this. 



> ...the assumption that "somewhere out there, there is the galaxy, full of space ships, and the force, and hyperspace", and the conclusion that the force also works on the realms, and technology such as spaceships would work, would ruin the setting...



Hong has a law for this. It's a good one. 



> - especially if the player also expects to use class abilities that "summon" other star wars friends, i.e. wants his background to show up in game.



At this point we're no longer talking about the same thing. A lone Jedi in the Realms, as groan-inducing as that may be, is a far cry from running a full-on merged FR/Stars Wars mash-up. It's a matter of degree.  



> Consider a player who wants to play a christian priest in the Realms.



Now this is a more interesting example. 



> He doesn't want to play a cleric following a realms god, he wants to play a cleric following God. The one true god.



Personally, I'd be fine with this (so long as it didn't offend a member of my group, which, considering my group, is patently impossible). 



> He expects the DM to change the setting so that his god is the one god, and the rest are false gods, since his background demands it. And he expects to be able to convert the masses and start a church.



My problem with this is that the player wants the outcome to be a foregone conclusion. That's wouldn't be interesting for me to run, I'd have nothing to work with. A player that wants to introduce troubling cosmological questions via their PC --say like the falsehood of my established pantheon-- and is willing to play out the answering of those questions would always welcome in one of my games.

In fact, I'd guarantee them the eventual church and following, seeing it ups the stakes, makes things more interesting. Hell, I might retcon the whole cosmology, depending on how the in-game events unfold... 

I think a situation like that would lead to some interesting, exciting play. Which is my primary goal (and I say this as an inveterate world-builder. Would you like me to pimp my new homebrew? I _think_ I've managed not to do that this thread... oops... damn). 




> Can you see where I come from? I am not talking or ranting about a player wanting to play an exotic character, I am talking about a player demanding massive changes to the setting and genre just so he can play his concept perfectly.



Yes. I do. But I think you're inventing the 'perfectly unreasonable' player in your examples. I couldn't work with that chap either, and I try to be the very soul of compromise behind the screen.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 21, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Ok, first: There is a huge difference between a job, and a leisuretime activity with one's friends...



The boss-employee relationship does not fall under "any other social context"?  There are lots of social contexts...



Scribble said:


> This is very odd to me... I have a group of friends. We do things together. Sometimes we come up with an idea "Let's go skiing!" We then talk about our options. "let's go to Colorado!" "How about Whistler?" "Well... Taho would be better on my wallet..."  etc... We eventually come up with the best idea that allows our group of friends to do a fun activity together...
> 
> Never once would we ever consider one of our group saying something like: "Tomorrow we ski. We will go to Whistler. Anyone who objects can go elsewhere...."
> 
> That's just odd.



You keep repeating this strange rude situation, which completely ignores the context. 

Everyone is already friends.  Or at least everyone is engaged in an activity that they all enjoy together.  I'm going to dispense with the stupid metaphors, but everyone is already on-board with what the group is doing, whether it be playing D&D as a hack-n-slash game, skiiing, or whatever.  No one is dictating what everyone else is doing.  Your tastes are already mostly aligned.  No one is threatening, "if you don't like it, do something else."  There is no need to - it's all implied and understood.  There are unconscious currents in all social situations that are rarely if ever vocalized - giving voice to them is often considered rude, even.

This changes when a new person enters the group.  That person is either on board with the group's style, in which they will probably hang around; or he's not, and he will leave.  No one needs to tell him to leave.  No one says, "If you don't like it, get out."  It's already understood by everyone that if the new person doesn't fit it, he or she won't stay.

The other situation is a group of strangers meet for the first time.  One or more people are going to step forward and attempt to assert leadership to better direct the group's actions.  People who have a problem with the subsequent decision making will leave, those that don't will be inclined to stick around.  Without actually ever talking about it explicitly.


----------



## grickherder (Aug 21, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me.  If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.




That's disgusting behaviour.  A thousand times worse than a DM not wanting something in his game and not giving reasons that satisfy you.  Breaking up a group?  Trying to convince people not to play with that guy and play with you instead?  That is truly immature behavior of a magnitude far greater than what the DM did by not satisfying your demands for a decision being more than an aestheic issue.

Just think what you are saying.  That you'd try to disrupt play and bring a game to an end just because the DMs reasons didn't satisfy _you_.  Why is your desire to have a satisfying reason or a DM that changes his mind more important than the desires of the other players or the DM?  To the point where you'd intentionally try to bring the game to an end and "gank" the players to play in your own group?  Truly selfish.  Worse than a DM who won't budge out of selfishness.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 21, 2008)

In Yoda Voice: *"I'm the Dungeon Master.  I have absolute power!"* - from _E.T.: The Extraterrestrial_ 

Spielberg said it, therefore it's true.          End of arguments?!


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Aug 21, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Do you honestly feel the only way to achieve a particular objective is through threats or ultimatums?



I don't understand, the portion of RC's post that you quoted nowhere mentions threats or ultimatums.  It acknowledges that players have the option not to play, and so does the DM.  Yes, in a perfect world, every collection of gamers would find some compromise that would make everybody happy.  But if a DM is faced with a player whose preferences are intolerable (dual wielding Drow ranger?), he or she is not obligated to accommodate that player.  Yes, ideally the DM doesn't respond immediately with an ultimatum or threat, but if no common ground can be found (with, for example, an intended urban Eberron campaign featuring more investigation than hack-and-slash), it's perfectly reasonable for the DM to say, "This may not be the campaign for you."  I would say that this DM is entirely reasonable, even though in the end the response boils down to: "I don't like drow PCs, and if my ruling is unacceptable to you, you are free to find another game."

Do you honestly feel that this exchange is unreasonable?

Yes, we all realize that DMs should not be jerks, but it's possible to say no without being a jerk.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 21, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> As a DM I only tend to ban those things that do not, for whatever reason, thematically fit the setting. However, there are times when I simply have not liked a race concept. In fact, in most instances the races found in books like Frostburn and the Book of Vile Darkness never saw the light of day in my campaign. Just didn't like them. They just felt wrong somehow.



This triggered a thought.  How many races would a world have to have before it became overwhelming?  Three+ races of dwarves, six+ of elves, orcs, three goblinoids, goliaths, kobolds, gnomes, tieflings, dragonborn, elan, genasi, yuan-ti, shades, half-giants, thri-kreen, githyanki, githzerai, dromites, gnolls, and a host of others.

I really don't want to play in a setting where all of those exist as significant entities.  Just like any other story form, a D&D setting needs to pick a scope and theme and focus on it.  I can see the peace, harmony, and equality between races as an aspect of a given campaign, but that needs an even tighter focus.  Really, when elves act just like humans, there's no need for elves.

Anyway, that meandered a bit.  The point is that DMs need to be able to limit choices some just to avoid clutter.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 21, 2008)

It amuses me in a dark, cynical way, that the people calling foul saying "Stop giving such extreme examples of rude players!" are then painting the DM as some horrifying tyrannical dictator with an iron fist over his poor, whimpering, good natured characters straight out of a Disney film.

Look, nobody is saying the DM gets to be some terrible fearless leader straight from Soviet Russia.  What IS being said is "When everything is said and done, the DM makes the decision, not the player."  We're not saying that the DM shouldn't have to listen to the player, and nobody is suggesting that the DM should go out of his way to spite the player.  But when both sides have made their argument, the DM makes the call, and if the player doesn't like it, he can either play it anyways, or...not.  Seriously, those are the two options.  If you can think of a third option, I would LOVE to hear it.  But PLEASE don't say "The DM and player should come together and discuss...!" because _they already did that_.

Christ, do I need to post this a thousand times?  *The player cannot force the DM to do anything*.  This has gone from "DM Entitlement" to "Player Entitlement."

Also:



Hussar said:


> And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me. If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.




The DM shouldn't be a jerk, but should a DM ever ban a race you like, you'll purposefully destroy the group?  

This is _exactly_ what I'm talking about.  The DM isn't feeling entitled, YOU are.  You feel that you, as a player, should be the one making all the decisions in the group or campaign, otherwise you'll DESTROY it.  And you say the DM is the one with a god complex?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 21, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I think a lot of people are saying this actually.





Does anyone in this thread feel obligated to run a game?  Show of hands please.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Aug 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Hong has a law for this. It's a good one.




...

It is one thing entirely to invoke that stupidity when talking about a game system, though it is annoying enough there. It is quite another to invoke it at another person talking about their own personal game, or their own particular style.

Considering the ramifications of in-game choices and events is not some kind of _disease_ that needs to be purged. Some of us actually like consistency and sensibility in our settings; I'm sorry if you don't, but that doesn't mean you need to throw cryptic and idiotic sayings at us that are clearly going to be declared worthless by the likes of us, since the saying is clearly anathema to the very way we play the game.

I don't care if you don't like consistency, but don't act like your way is the "most awesomest" or that it is somehow superior to actually caring about consistency and the idea that your actions have reasonable repercussions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 21, 2008)

buzz said:


> You're painting the hypothetical player in your example as an irrational jerkwad, though, so I'm not sure how useful this is to the discussion.





If wanting to play a Jedi in the Realms makes one an irrational jerkwad, because of the flavour and setting implications involved, how does that vary from wanting to play a dragonborn in a world without them?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2008)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Do you honestly feel that this exchange is unreasonable?
> 
> Yes, we all realize that DMs should not be jerks, but it's possible to say no without being a jerk.





I guess I should have quoted what he quoted from me... neverending quotes...

I said I don't object to saying: "I'm not a fan of X therefore I don't want to use it in this campaign."

I DO object to saying "If you don't like it tough, you can leave."

he responded that without the second part the first part is pointless.

Yes, I agree with you, you can say no without being a jerk or making "you can leave" threats. (See the example of my campaign where the ultimate answer was no.)

Neither party (Player or DM) has the right to give threats or ultimatums to the other to get their way. It's a two way street with everyone doing what's best for the game, and the enjoyment of everyone involved.

Sometimes that should mean the players not getting everything they want, sometimes that should mean the dm not getting everything he wants. 

Comprimise.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 21, 2008)

Mercule said:


> This triggered a thought. How many races would a world have to have before it became overwhelming? Three+ races of dwarves, six+ of elves, orcs, three goblinoids, goliaths, kobolds, gnomes, tieflings, dragonborn, elan, genasi, yuan-ti, shades, half-giants, thri-kreen, githyanki, githzerai, dromites, gnolls, and a host of others.
> 
> I really don't want to play in a setting where all of those exist as significant entities. Just like any other story form, a D&D setting needs to pick a scope and theme and focus on it. I can see the peace, harmony, and equality between races as an aspect of a given campaign, but that needs an even tighter focus. Really, when elves act just like humans, there's no need for elves.
> 
> Anyway, that meandered a bit. The point is that DMs need to be able to limit choices some just to avoid clutter.




IMO this is a good point and one that is all too often ignored.

Any setting needs to decide what and who belongs where. Fantasy and laziness aren't synonymous therefore a DM has to decide what races are the power players in the setting. If too many races have powerful presences then the world is going to have a certain feel....like a Star Wars spaceport or Planescape where everyone has seen it all and nothing can possibly surprise anyone. Everything is one, homogenized, cosmopolitan, dull mixture. If demon-people can walk around in a town with impunity, there is literally nothing that is going to cause the citizens of that town to bat an eye....except maybe Demogorgon walking down the street.

Also, every sentient, civilization building race needs resources and the more that are added the less there is for others. This may not be a problem for new campaigns without established realities. Longstanding campaigns with established settings simply will not have room for every new race and shouldn't be expected to make room. Every single race I have seen come down the pipe in various sourcebooks is nothing more than the pet creation of the writer. Why on earth should a DM feel obligated to add these things? If I thought that something like Goliaths were a goood idea for my setting I probably would have, in the last 12yrs, came up with the concept myself.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 21, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> In fact, in most instances the races found in books like Frostburn and the Book of Vile Darkness never saw the light of day in my campaign. Just didn't like them. They just felt wrong somehow.



Did you ever have a player come to you and ask to create a character of one of the races in Frostburn or Book of Vile Darkness?

I don't like gnomes.  I can't remember the last time I used a gnome npc.  I've also never had a gnome player character in one of my games.

But I really haven't "banned" gnomes.

Is your situation similar?


			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> The point is that DMs need to be able to limit choices some just to avoid clutter.



I agree about 90%.  I totally agree that too many sentient humanoid species at once will mess with verisimilitude.  But that doesn't mean that the DM has to "limit choices."  One easy way to decide what sentient humanoid races to keep or to cut is to simply ask your players what they want to play, add any sentient humanoid races you need for plot reasons, then cut the dead wood.  Same effect on cutting down the clutter, but no loss in choices.

Its not as easy if someone's character dies and now they want to be a drow in a campaign that never previously had drow, but that's back to the "established campaign setting" issue, which I think is a fair reason to deny someone a particular choice.



			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> That's disgusting behaviour. A thousand times worse than a DM not wanting something in his game and not giving reasons that satisfy you. Breaking up a group? Trying to convince people not to play with that guy and play with you instead? That is truly immature behavior of a magnitude far greater than what the DM did by not satisfying your demands for a decision being more than an aestheic issue.
> 
> Just think what you are saying. That you'd try to disrupt play and bring a game to an end just because the DMs reasons didn't satisfy _you_. Why is your desire to have a satisfying reason or a DM that changes his mind more important than the desires of the other players or the DM? To the point where you'd intentionally try to bring the game to an end and "gank" the players to play in your own group? Truly selfish. Worse than a DM who won't budge out of selfishness.



Dude, what?  He didn't threaten to forcibly kidnap the players, or threaten to murder their families if they didn't switch games.  He meant that he'd offer them an alternative game with a better DM.  The other players aren't the current DM's property.  They can leave if they want.

You make it sound like he's threatening to seduce the DM's wife.


			
				mercule said:
			
		

> Am I a nutter or not?



You might be.  Why don't you like pcs with breath weapons?  If a player specifically asked you if he could play a dragon shaman, what would you say?  Would you say, "No, because I don't like breath weapons."?  How would you expect your player to respond to that?


			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> Your hint that 3 am lieing aside, Character generation is an activity where my group gets into as a group - including veto rights. Part of our social contract is avoiding to create a PC that ruins the fun of the others. So, yes, a player is entitled not to suffer akender in the party too, if push comes to the shove and no compromise can be reached.



Ah, but Fenes- what undergirds that is undoubtedly some degree of shared expectations about what validly "ruins the fun of others."

If I showed up in your group and declared that dwarves ruin my fun, because dwarves are stupid and that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, but one of your other players wanted to play a dwarf, how would your group react?  Would you tell the character that he couldn't play a dwarf anymore?  That my hatred of dwarves, even when they're played by other players, is more important than his desire to personally play a dwarf?

Or would you tell me to get over it, create my own non-dwarf character, and move on?

(Also note that this scenario would NEVER HAPPEN, because players don't generally feel this sort of sense of entitlement... a player asking that another player's character be disallowed would undoubtedly come up with some explanation for WHY it should be disallowed, other than "because I hate it.")


----------



## CountPopeula (Aug 21, 2008)

grickherder said:


> That's disgusting behaviour.  A thousand times worse than a DM not wanting something in his game and not giving reasons that satisfy you.  Breaking up a group?  Trying to convince people not to play with that guy and play with you instead?  That is truly immature behavior of a magnitude far greater than what the DM did by not satisfying your demands for a decision being more than an aestheic issue.
> 
> Just think what you are saying.  That you'd try to disrupt play and bring a game to an end just because the DMs reasons didn't satisfy _you_.  Why is your desire to have a satisfying reason or a DM that changes his mind more important than the desires of the other players or the DM?  To the point where you'd intentionally try to bring the game to an end and "gank" the players to play in your own group?  Truly selfish.  Worse than a DM who won't budge out of selfishness.




So then, it's okay for a DM to remove players, but not for players to remove a DM?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 21, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> So then, it's okay for a DM to remove players, but not for players to remove a DM?




Hussar is the one who said he would "gank" the players - and that's not a positive term. It's typically considered underhanded. So I think you and Cadfan should cool your jets about grickherder's indignation. If Hussar really did mean "gank" and not something more innocuous like "woo away", the indignation is correctly placed.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 21, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> IIf too many races have powerful presences then the world is going to have a certain feel....like a Star Wars spaceport or Planescape where everyone has seen it all and nothing can possibly surprise anyone. Everything is one, homogenized, cosmopolitan, dull mixture.



Note that both Star Wars and Planescape have their fans...

Really, it's not hard to run an exciting cosmopolitan setting (and there are all sorts of ways to provide setting cohesion/unified theme). I've be doing it for almost 5 years now in my current campaign. If cosmopolitan is boring you're doing it wrong. Trust me, I live in a city. 



> If demon-people can walk around in a town with impunity, there is literally nothing that is going to cause the citizens of that town to bat an eye...



No, all it means is the people in that town will be accustomed to demon-folk. A cross dressing were-dog priest would get their attention. Trust me, cross dressing were-dog priests _always_ raise a few eyebrows. 



> If I thought that something like Goliaths were a goood idea for my setting I probably would have, in the last 12yrs, came up with the concept myself.



So your imagination is informed only by... your imagination? What ever happen to stealing every idea that wasn't nailed down? That's how I build D&D setting back in the old days... well, actually, it's how I build them now, too.


----------



## CountPopeula (Aug 21, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Hussar is the one who said he would "gank" the players - and that's not a positive term. It's typically considered underhanded. So I think you and Cadfan should cool your jets about grickherder's indignation. If Hussar really did mean "gank" and not something more innocuous like "woo away", the indignation is correctly placed.




Semantics and terminology aside, I fail to see the difference between a player talking to the group about removing the DM and the DM talking to the group about removing a player. Provided the DM does talk to the group and doesn't act unilaterally.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Did you ever have a player come to you and ask to create a character of one of the races in Frostburn or Book of Vile Darkness?
> 
> I don't like gnomes. I can't remember the last time I used a gnome npc. I've also never had a gnome player character in one of my games.
> 
> ...




Very similar actually.

I have a listr of available races and its a damn open-minded list including half-orcs, orcs, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, vitharr (a setting specific race), a couple races of elves (no aquatic elves....bleecch), humans, halflings, gnomes, deurgar, dwarves, night elves (setting specific drow), etc. Now all of these cannot possibly work for every campaign, but I am reasonable.

Because I have a broad list, my players never demontrated anything more than a passing interest in a race I didn't like. In every case I never had to be draconian, instead I recommended alternatives and ultimately the alternative worked out well. However, if I met resistance, ban I would because ban I must. 


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 21, 2008)

double post


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Note that both Star Wars and Planescape have their fans...




Note that my campaign is neither nor do I wish it to have the feel of either setting. They have their place, but I have no desire to have my campaign share their feel.



> Really, it's not hard to run an exciting cosmopolitan setting (and there are all sorts of ways to provide setting cohesion/unified theme). I've be doing it for almost 5 years now in my current campaign. If cosmopolitan is boring you're doing it wrong. Trust me, I live in a city.




Cosmopolitan, is fine and fits in my campaign....Mos Eisley Spaceport is too much for my taste or my setting. 



> No, all it means is the people in that town will be accustomed to demon-folk. A cross dressing were-dog priest would get their attention. Trust me, cross dressing were-dog priests _always_ raise a few eyebrows.




Demon-folk....that's the problem. They are the offspring of humans mating with creatures of absolute and irredeemable corruption and evil. I don't do a medieval campaign with post-modern sensibilities. Devils, demons, and their spawn represent the worst of the worst in the multiverse and no one IMC ever accepts demon-folk. There's no "_Oh that's Bob, he's part demon, but he's a nice guy._" If you want to play a redeemable monster play an orc, gnoll, night elf, etc. It'll be tough, but it'll give lots of unique role-playing opportunities. 




> So your imagination is informed only by... your imagination? What ever happen to stealing every idea that wasn't nailed down? That's how I build D&D setting back in the old days... well, actually, it's how I build them now, too.




No, but I am pretty solidly aware of the races I want in my setting after 12+yrs. I don't have any room for dragonborn, warforged, goliaths, half-giants, half-dragons, thri-kreen (I loved them on Athas) or whatnot. Why do I need to add a race a month if I have a working setting with a lot of options for the players?



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> So your imagination is informed only by... your imagination? What ever happen to stealing every idea that wasn't nailed down? That's how I build D&D setting back in the old days... well, actually, it's how I build them now, too.




Not everything is good enough to steal, and not everything is fun for everyone. I think you should try to understand that not everyone thinks like you, and enjoys the same campaigns.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me.  If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.




Of course, try that and you could find yourself kicked out by the other players and, depending upon the group, find yourself blacklisted from several groups in the area (gaming networks can be such a nice thing- especially, when players are involved with multiple groups).

And, as someone that plays in a group with multiple DMs, we respect the right of the DM to place limits based upon their view of the setting.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 22, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Then again, with a game like D&D, which lends itself to broad kitchen-sinking play environments, that DM better be selling something really damn good before I give my god-given right to cheap puns and absurd characters...




As someone who despises broad kitchen-sink play environments, cheap puns and absurd characters, neither of us would want to play in the same game.  Thankfully, initial discussions prior to playing would reveal that our styles are incompatible and we would never sit at the same game table.


----------



## racoffin (Aug 22, 2008)

The problem I've had over the years (although not so much anymore) is that there are players who can and are willing to write elaborate backstories and pitch their idea with the fervor of a used car salesman. That energy and enthusiasm is wonderful, but (and there is always a but) it doesn't mean that I should toss the equally (if not moreso) elaborate setting notes and player documents just because Bob came up with a new idea this week.

And that is the thing: I've had (and I am sure some of you have too) players who want to change characters every time the wind blows to a new fad. Be it a new movie, novel, commercial, splatbook, whatever, they have this *awesome* idea they just HAVE to try out or they will just die.

I feel no shame in saying "No." I'm glad they like the idea of an evil PC, but that isn't what we are playing. I'm sure that the Dragonborn are a lovely race with many great qualities, but they do not exist on this world. No, you may not have a +5 Holy Avenger to start with, even though you did a wonderful background with full color illustrations about how your great grandfather left it to you after the Great War.

The things that are disallowed in my campaign come in for various reasons. Some are balance reasons, some are thematic reasons, and some are, yes, just because I do not care for them. I don't like evil PCs, for example, because that isn't what I feel the story is about in the world we are in. Evil PCs and campaigns are a lot of fun, and many people enjoy them. I've played in them myself. I do not feel obliged to run them, however, no matter the really cool explaination I get from a player on how they can make the idea work.

I don't care for Dragonborn. They don't work on my world, I don't plan to shoehorn them in. I, like a previous person, do not care for dragon-like humaniod being player characters, half-dragon whatever, etc. There are many and varied races to pick from in our campaign. If a player just HAS to have Dragonborn or they won't be happy and won't play, then .. they won't be happy and won't play. I'm not going to give in "just this once" so the pouting will stop, because it is NEVER just once. Once you establish the precedent, it gets harder to say No the next time, and then you have a game full of characters, Prestige Classes, and so forth that you already didn't want.

The DMs job, in the end, is to sometimes be the Bad Guy and say No. No, we aren't having Drow PCs. No, you can't play a half-balrog half-Legoman cleric of the God of Tapioca. No, you can't play a gnome in a wagon-sized wheelchair with a catapult. No, stop trying to be weird. No, stop trying to minimax with every splatbook to make the build you saw online. 

The DM has a responsiblity to the players. *All* the players. The time I have to spend arguing with Bob about his Build Of The Week takes away from the Happy Fun Time the rest of the players are going to have. Frankly, I seldom have to say No anymore. My other players deal with the problem and let the Bobs of the world know where the line is, what is permissible, and what *they* don't want to see.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 22, 2008)

Greg K said:


> Of course, try that and you could find yourself kicked out by the other players and, depending upon the group, find yourself blacklisted from several groups in the area (gaming networks can be such a nice thing- especially, when players are involved with multiple groups).
> 
> And, as someone that plays in a group with multiple DMs, we respect the right of the DM to place limits based upon their view of the setting.




Maybe the gaming around MI is poor, but I've successfully poached players from other games by, oh, simply running a better game than the jeckwad DMs they used to play under.

No blacklist for me!


----------



## Imp (Aug 22, 2008)

Mercule said:


> This triggered a thought.  How many races would a world have to have before it became overwhelming?  Three+ races of dwarves, six+ of elves, orcs, three goblinoids, goliaths, kobolds, gnomes, tieflings, dragonborn, elan, genasi, yuan-ti, shades, half-giants, thri-kreen, githyanki, githzerai, dromites, gnolls, and a host of others.
> 
> I really don't want to play in a setting where all of those exist as significant entities.  Just like any other story form, a D&D setting needs to pick a scope and theme and focus on it.



I do this, because yeah, way too many races. But one thing you can do to open things up a bit is to demote some monster types from "race" to "clan", "accursed (or blessed) family", or "unique" – basically, the lens of evolutionary biology, which so many of the monster descriptions take for granted, is not necessarily your friend in making a fantasy setting.

Now, wrt PCs, it still winds up being effectively a ban on some outlandish races because it means they'll be outcasts, but it might be possible to work some things out. Still, it might be a way for a player to play, say, a "warforged" (a wizard's escaped homonculous of sorts, maybe) without the GM having to write the bleepers into their setting. Or not, which is fine.

There's some conceptual space between bannination and capitulation.

Now back to your regularly scheduled "you're entitled!" "no, you're entitled!"


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 22, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> ...no aquatic elves....bleecch...




   And then there's my game, where aquatic elves, locathah, and merfolk are the "core" races.  PCs must have a natural swim speed and be able to breathe underwater without the use of magic. 

   I would allow a player to choose a core race from the PH, though. Their character can be played... for as long as they can hold their breath. Then they can play their character as an undead.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 22, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Maybe the gaming around MI is poor, but I've successfully poached players from other games by, oh, simply running a better game than the jeckwad DMs they used to play under.
> 
> No blacklist for me!




It all depends on the circumstances.  For instance, if you are in a group and a player (or players) are not enjoying their DM's game, it is one thing to offer to run.  It's also ok to run a game to give the DM a break and have people to decide they like your game better.

However, to complain that you don't like the restrictions, call the DM a jerkwad, and try to steal players is not going to go over well if the other players are enjoying the game.  Such behavior is probably going to get you labeled a problem player. And, if the members of the group, are pretty well connected with the local gaming community via cons, the largest larp groups (comprised of many table top players from various local cities and suburbs), and players that play in multiple rpg groups, word can spread quickly among a decent segment of the local gaming community.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2008)

Ladies & Gentlemen...really, its a spectrum of  behavior.

The DM is the ultimate arbiter of the rules in a given game, and lets be honest, its because he's the one who has the responsibility of running a campaign that is both enjoyable and internally consistent.

If including elves and dwarves would mean the campaign's history or structure is somehow disrupted, the DM is perfectly right to exclude them.

If including Paladins makes certain elements of the campaign fall apart, again, exclusion is warranted.

These aren't arbitrary, jerkish decisions.  They are the result of a DM taking his responsibility seriously.

If the DM eliminates Paladins because he doesn't like them, it may seem arbitrary.  But making him run a campaign in which you've "forced" him into letting him run a Paladin is ultimately futile.  Its probably going to suck, and he's probably going to stop running the campaign.

If the DM prohibits Paladins because of the way YOU run Paladins, there may be all kinds of issues on both sides.

If, OTOH, a DM lets you play whatever, but mysteriously kills every Paladin in the campaign?  THAT is being a jerk.  At least the person who barred them during the initial stages was being honest with you.

Again, if you don't like the strictures the DM places upon the game, run your own game (heck, he might thank you for giving him a break) or find another DM.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 22, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me.  If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.




So you'd try to destroy an entire campaign just because it's not all about you? Well, that tells me what I needed to know. Fortunately, any of my players who would associate with such a scheme would not deserve to be my players.

You and Cadfan can hang out in the No Personal Problems wing of the gamer retirement home someday and re-kill all the gods in the Deities and Demigods book with your Dragonborn Ninja Bladesingers. 

Meanwhile, I'll happily ban Dragonborn from all my campaigns. Why? The same reason Tinker Gnomes and Kender and Gully Dwarfs are banned from my campaigns. Because they're stupid.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 22, 2008)

buzz said:


> You did, Darrin (among others). Seriously, when you talk about ejecting people from the game, refusing to consider the interests of other people in the group, or it being "their game", you're talking about meta-issues that involve the social dynamic of the group. A group could certainly have an existing agreement to take what the current DM dishes out, no questions asked (i.e., they're happy with that setup), but assuming that being in the role of DM in a D&D _entitles_ a person to this agreement is ridiculous.




Hardly. I invite the players, I host the game at my house, and sometimes, I provide them with books. Players are a guest at my house and as long as I'm running the game, I'm the one laying the ground rules. If they can't abide by the ground rules, it's their loss, not mine. That isn't being a control freak, refusing to be coorperative, or asserting control over things outside of the game, it's just performing the function of a DM. To say that there is something wrong with running the game instead of simply acting as a referee is to have an inherently flawed understanding of the way D&D has worked for the past 34 years. Squishy DMs tend to get trampled. I'm not one of those.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2008)

To the OP: What you do in your own game is fine, Scribble.  But never criticise other GMs for running their own games in their own way.  Never forget: *Without the GM, there's no game*.


----------



## Andor (Aug 22, 2008)

A GM banning a race because his boss yelled at him that morning is a bad thing.

A GM banning a race/class/name/haircut because it doesn't match his world is not only acceptable but desireable.

Otherwise you rapidly get a party composed of an Illithid Bard, A Shambling Mound Pyromancer, Sue the Human (male) fighter, and the Plasma Cannon toteing space marine whose race is unknown since he(?) never takes off his power armour.

Said party is usually trying to scrounge work from King Arthur and his generic human knights of the round conference table.


----------



## carmachu (Aug 22, 2008)

I have no probelsm either setting limits or making things off limits or a DM doing so. So long as your up front about it, and fair and consistant about it(ie-your best friend playing one day doesnt get to play the race you said no to in the beginning or other nonsense), its all good.

Its a group effort, but the DM runs the show. His call.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 22, 2008)

Andor said:


> Otherwise you rapidly get a party composed of an Illithid Bard, A Shambling Mound Pyromancer, Sue the Human (*male*) fighter, and the Plasma Cannon toteing space marine whose race is unknown since he(?) never takes off his power armour.




Shemale, better. **in the voice of Dr Evil**

…Though that does sound remarkably like a _Planescape _party I once DMed.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 22, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If the DM eliminates Paladins because he doesn't like them, it may seem arbitrary.  But making him run a campaign in which you've "forced" him into letting him run a Paladin is ultimately futile.  Its probably going to suck, and he's probably going to stop running the campaign.



Do you feel that a player who is "forced" to play in a campaign where there are Paladins, even though he hates Paladins, is also going to "suck" at his contributions to the game, and probably drop out?

When I was a kid, my younger brother used to insist that if my mother made him eat foods he didn't like, he would throw up because they were so gross.  Now, I'm willing to agree that its objectively mean to make a kid eat food that he hates so much that it actually makes him throw up.  Its a good reason not to eat something!  Except that it wasn't true.  He threw up because he'd intentionally dry heave over and over and over until he got a little stomach acid, then proclaim that he'd proven his point.  No one was fooled, and we ignored his antics until he quit doing it and just ate what my mom cooked.

That's the impression I'm getting from this style of argument.  If it were genuinely true that the presence of dragonborn or whatever in a campaign were so offensive that they genuinely ruined the ability of someone in the game to even enjoy running the game, then I suppose they should be removed from that campaign, even sans any other reason.  The player who wanted to play a dragonborn would probably be ok with choosing something else if choosing a dragonborn genuinely wrecked someone else's enjoyment of the game.  He'd way his desire to play a dragonborn, and compare it to his friend's distaste for them, and say, "Woah!  He totally hates dragonborn!  His misery will far outstrip my enjoyment of my own character, so I will choose something else!"

Except that this whole scenario is crazy.  Why is it exclusively DMs to have this problem?  Shouldn't players logically have it too, at the same rate?  And of course we'd see even more of it, since there are more players, right?  But we don't.  We just see DMs proclaiming that this or that would wreck their ability to enjoy the game so much that they wouldn't even be able to be interested in running the game well.

I'd posit that this is because DMs have the power to ban things, and players don't.  So players roll their eyes and get over their dislike of dragonborn when their fellow player wants to play one, and just go enjoy the game.  DMs don't have to do that, so they don't.

Its like a really big strong guy claiming that someone else's insult made him so mad that he couldn't help but punch them in the face.  He might even genuinely feel that way, but if he were a smaller, weaker guy, he'd have learned to control his anger by now.

A DM might genuinely feel that a particular player choice is a campaign wrecker, but if he wasn't accustomed to having his whims become law, he wouldn't feel so bothered by his whims not being followed...


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 22, 2008)

Okay, if I'm running a campaign with only humans as a playable race, and there are no dragons in the world, should I succumb to this dragonborn request?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> /snip
> The DM shouldn't be a jerk, but should a DM ever ban a race you like, you'll purposefully destroy the group?
> 
> This is _exactly_ what I'm talking about.  The DM isn't feeling entitled, YOU are.  You feel that you, as a player, should be the one making all the decisions in the group or campaign, otherwise you'll DESTROY it.  And you say the DM is the one with a god complex?




Try rereading what I said.

What I said was that if a DM had his sphincter in such a pucker that a player trying to pick a race that didn't fit with that DM's "artistic tastes" get ejected for trying to force the issue, I'd most certainly lead the player revolt.

Perhaps gank is the wrong term, but, you get the point.  

Sorry, "My artistic vision is better than yours" is not good enough.  It most certainly isn't a good enough reason to eject someone from the game.



billd91 said:


> Hussar is the one who said he would "gank" the players - and that's not a positive term. It's typically considered underhanded. So I think you and Cadfan should cool your jets about grickherder's indignation. If Hussar really did mean "gank" and not something more innocuous like "woo away", the indignation is correctly placed.




Well, no, there'd be nothing underhanded about it.  So, perhaps gank is the wrong term.  I'd be pretty upfront about it.

Me:  Hey guys, this DM has his sphincter in such a knot about his "vision of the world" that he won't even try to meet me half way despite the fact that I've come up with a plausible explanation about my character.  If he's that tight assed about this, imagine what his adventures are going to be like.  **Choo Choo!**  Let's let him/her go write that fanfic that he's really trying to rope you into and I'll run a game where you get to play the characters you more or less want to play, within reasonable limits set by the parameters of the game and not my personal "artistic vision".

If I'm alone in the room after this, then I'm wrong.  Something tells me, having had the misfortune of playing with DM's like I'm seeing in this thread, I'd have players.  Done it before, will hopefully never have to do it again.



Aeolius said:


> And then there's my game, where aquatic elves, locathah, and merfolk are the "core" races.  PCs must have a natural swim speed and be able to breathe underwater without the use of magic.
> 
> I would allow a player to choose a core race from the PH, though. Their character can be played... for as long as they can hold their breath. Then they can play their character as an undead.




See, now this I would have zero issue with.  Aeolius isn't forcing his (or her, appologies) artistic viewpoint on me.  There's a very clear, logical reason why I cannot play certain races in the game.  The game's underwater.  Ok, fair enough.  I'd be a crappy player for trying to weasel my way around that.  It's not that dragonborn (to use the current example) are distateful to Aeolius, it's that they physically cannot work in the setting.

Great.  Perfectly logical reason that doesn't boil down to, "Well, my imagination is just better than yours".



Greg K said:


> It all depends on the circumstances.  For instance, if you are in a group and a player (or players) are not enjoying their DM's game, it is one thing to offer to run.  It's also ok to run a game to give the DM a break and have people to decide they like your game better.
> 
> However, to complain that you don't like the restrictions, call the DM a jerkwad, and try to steal players is not going to go over well if the other players are enjoying the game.  Such behavior is probably going to get you labeled a problem player. And, if the members of the group, are pretty well connected with the local gaming community via cons, the largest larp groups (comprised of many table top players from various local cities and suburbs), and players that play in multiple rpg groups, word can spread quickly among a decent segment of the local gaming community.




Wow, DM mafia now.  Bow down to the all powerful DM or get reamed, not just at the game, but by the entire community.  How's that for a power trip?

Look, please, read what I'm saying.

It is not a problem to enforce limitations on your game.  That's perfectly fine IMO.  

My problem is when the DM says, "My imagination is just better than yours, so, tough noogies" and has his mind so set on only one perfect vision of his campaigns setting that he or she cannot possibly envision bending an iota to allow a player to play the character they want to play.

Any DM that inflexible, that far up his own petoot, is a bad DM.  Full stop.  And deserves to have his group taken away.


----------



## EATherrian (Aug 22, 2008)

Steely Dan said:


> Shemale, better. **in the voice of Dr Evil**
> 
> …Though that does sound remarkably like a _Planescape _party I once DMed.




I was getting more of a Dr. Girlfriend vibe there myself.  Also the faint scent of Rifts *shudder*.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Except that this whole scenario is crazy.  Why is it exclusively DMs to have this problem?  Shouldn't players logically have it too, at the same rate?  And of course we'd see even more of it, since there are more players, right?  But we don't.  We just see DMs proclaiming that this or that would wreck their ability to enjoy the game so much that they wouldn't even be able to be interested in running the game well.
> 
> I'd posit that this is because DMs have the power to ban things, and players don't.  So players roll their eyes and get over their dislike of dragonborn when their fellow player wants to play one, and just go enjoy the game.  DMs don't have to do that, so they don't.




Do you keep missing that in a good group, _everyone_ has the right to veto stuff that makes the game unfun for him? Of course, if what annoys him is essential to someone else there will be problems, but in a good group who has been playing together for some time it's unlikely that two players' taste differs that much.

If one of my players hated elves and no one would like them I'd surely either ban them, or make them a non-factor in my campaign. It's simply smart and logical not to use something (aka ban it) if no one really wants it and someone hates it.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Try rereading what I said.
> 
> What I said was that if a DM had his sphincter in such a pucker that a player trying to pick a race that didn't fit with that DM's "artistic tastes" get ejected for trying to force the issue, I'd most certainly lead the player revolt.
> 
> ...




A player that is as much of an egoist that he has to play his chosen race (like kender, vampire, demongod, dragonborn) no matter if it annoys other players or the DM just because "my fun is more important than yours" doesn't really deserve a DM or a gaming group.

I'd most certainly kick the guy, or leave myself, because odds are such an egoist will try to control the whole game for his own ego, and try to render everyone else including the DM into his "helpers" so he can play his true fanfic.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Do you keep missing that in a good group, _everyone_ has the right to veto stuff that makes the game unfun for him? Of course, if what annoys him is essential to someone else there will be problems, but in a good group who has been playing together for some time it's unlikely that two players' taste differs that much.
> 
> If one of my players hated elves and no one would like them I'd surely either ban them, or make them a non-factor in my campaign. It's simply smart and logical not to use something (aka ban it) if no one really wants it and someone hates it.




Really?  In a "good group" everyone has the right to veto.  So, when the DM says, "You enter the castle of Baron Von Evilton", the players can veto the vampire because they hate the "angsty, Buffy crap" they'd been subjected to for years?


----------



## Greg K (Aug 22, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Except that this whole scenario is crazy.  Why is it exclusively DMs to have this problem?  Shouldn't players logically have it too, at the same rate?  And of course we'd see even more of it, since there are more players, right?  But we don't.  We just see DMs proclaiming that this or that would wreck their ability to enjoy the game so much that they wouldn't even be able to be interested in running the game well.
> 
> I'd posit that this is because DMs have the power to ban things, and players don't.  So players roll their eyes and get over their dislike of dragonborn when their fellow player wants to play one, and just go enjoy the game.  DMs don't have to do that, so they don't...





No, the player shouldn't have the right to ban things. The DM has the right to include what they want and exclude what they don't what.  The player has the right to walk away from the game.  And, as a player, I have walked away from games for a variety reasons. 

 I have walked away, because the GM had no strong coherent setting in mind. It was simply build whatever you want and I'll build the setting around the party (if even that) or he'd retcon the setting to fit whatever you built.

I have walked away from a 2e campaign run by a boss, because everyone was playing superhero inspired characters (e.g, magic wolverine claws and regeneration, iron man battlesuit, and green lantern ring) in a high level universe

I have refused to join an ongoing high level game run by one of my M&M players.  He had been introduced to rpgs let alone DND when he inherited his group after the DM left.  Not knowing the rules, his campaign became quickly broken with outrageous builds, rules misinterpretations, etc.  He admits hit. His players admit it (and, one players built broken combos just to test the DM and see what he could get away with).

In each the above instances, the players were having fun. The games were not to my taste.  I didn't belittle the DMs. I didn't try to disrupt their play sessions or steal the players (although half of the last group is currently in my M&M group and understand the need for the GM to limit concepts to maintain the setting and campaign themes). 

And, if I were looking for a new gaming group, I'd walk away from a game that included most WOTC supplemental classes, races, books or combinations thereof.


----------



## buzz (Aug 22, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Hardly. I invite the players, I host the game at my house, and sometimes, I provide them with books. Players are a guest at my house and as long as I'm running the game, I'm the one laying the ground rules. If they can't abide by the ground rules, it's their loss, not mine. That isn't being a control freak, refusing to be coorperative, or asserting control over things outside of the game, it's just performing the function of a DM.



The fact that you may be hosting the game at your house, providing books, or whatever is a separate issue. You could be doing that regardless of whether you're DM'ing that night. Heck, you could be playing _Scrabble_. The idea that the players you're inviting to your home acting like considerate human beings needs to somehow be tied to some special social status supposedly conveyed to you by the DMG is, to me, really disturbing.

I once proposed a D&D campaign to my group that was based on the "medieval paradigm" concept in _Ars Magica_. I.e., it would be a mostly-humans game in 13th century Europe that featured the medieval conceptions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism as the setting religions. I thought this was a really cool idea, but two guys in my group had a real problem with using real-world religions. Using them was a deal-breaker for them, and not using them was a deal-breaker for me.

Did I for one second think that my role as DM in this proposed campaign _entitled_ me to a "my way or the highway" attitude? Of course not! Did one of the objectors think for one second that their role as likely host entitled them to a similar attitude? Of course not!

Being rational human beings who care about each other's fun, we talked about it for a while. In the end, I decided to shelve the idea and proposed something else. A fun campaign ensued.



Darrin Drader said:


> To say that there is something wrong with running the game instead of simply acting as a referee is to have an inherently flawed understanding of the way D&D has worked for the past 34 years. Squishy DMs tend to get trampled. I'm not one of those.



Well, I don't really know what your definition of a "squishy DM" is. And I have no quarrel with the DM taking on whatever responsibilities are outlined for their role in the rulebooks. I do not, however, know of any passage in the DMGs I've read that include privileged social status among those responsibilities.

I also don't know of any passage that states the social glue that holds the group together has anything to do with the game itself. The glue needs to pre-exist in order to have a viable gaming group in the first place. Issues of hospitality, consideration, and collaboration are completely separate from the DM and player roles in a game of D&D. There's nothing in the DM role that is going to magically fix them, just like there's nothing in the banker role in _Monopoly_ that will, either. Thinking that problems in these areas can be solved via in-game status is misguided.

This is the primary flaw in these discussions. People say they want to talk about the DM/player roles, but then they give examples of people simply being jerkwads. Said jerkward behavior would be jerkwad behavior whether you were playing D&D, basketball, or having a birthday party. No text printed in the DMG is going to fix that.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 22, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> It is one thing entirely to invoke that stupidity when talking about a game system, though it is annoying enough there.



"Don't think too much about fantasy" are some of the most sage words ever posted to this board, and for the record, I've though a _lot_ about fantasy over the years.



> Considering the ramifications of in-game choices and events is not some kind of _disease_ that needs to be purged.



Luckily I never said they were. I was talking about over-thinking setting details/background/minutiae outside of the context of providing an interesting play environment. 

Thinking too much about the impact of hyperspace on Faerie (or any related elf-spaces) seems like wasted effort. It misses the point, which should be 'how do I create an interesting environment for my players to adventure in?'. Or, rather, it fails to ask the more important question: "does preserving setting integrity in this case make the campaign better?".

Generally speaking, a setting needs to serve the people playing in it. It's a tool. When you start considering it for it's own sake, you're usually going off the rails. Setting cohesiveness or thematic unity are means to an end, and maintaining those things shouldn't be a reflexive act. You should carefully examine the situation at hand, your players, and how much you trust them -- I can't stress that enough.



> Some of us actually like consistency and sensibility in our settings; I'm sorry if you don't...



But I do. I just have a different perspective, which I'm _trying_ to share by posting in this thread, natch.



> ...that are clearly going to be declared worthless by the likes of us, since the saying is clearly anathema to the very way we play the game.



How did I know beforehand that the 'likes of you' would get all rant-y and defensive? 

And note in my response to the example about the Christian priest in the Realms, I tried to give honest-to-God helpful advice that illustrates my perspective. Which is more than you did, BTW... I'd hoped that could launch a more substantive discussion. 



> I don't care if you don't like consistency...



You've said it again... nope... still still not true. 



> ...but don't act like your way is the "most awesomest"...



I'm sharing my experiences and perspective. I'm not sure how I can do that without stating them. If you choose to find that offensive or somehow invalidating, knock yourself out. 

And another thing (hmmm, this works better if I could actually point at you), please stop trying to portray yourself as the defender of sensible, consistent, and well thought-out setting and me as a proponent of random stuff and nonsense. That's not what I'm advocating at all. Though I _do_ have a fondness for stuff and nonsense, in moderation, of course... 

I like a good setting. I have two of mine --well, they're both collaborations, but they're mine _enough_-- on display here on ENWorld. Click either link in my .sig. There's a method to my madness. 



> ...or that it is somehow superior to actually caring about consistency and the idea that your actions have reasonable repercussions.



There are a number of ways to care about consistency. Not all of them are equal. 

Really, all I'm saying is that a DM should think hard before saying 'no', and ask himself if it really benefits the campaign. Well, that an advocating being open to player input, even when it runs contrary to your taste and/or 'vision'. I've had great results doing so.


----------



## buzz (Aug 22, 2008)

Spatula said:


> The boss-employee relationship does not fall under "any other social context"?



No, it doesn't.

You're not talking about a social context, save in the most broadest, scientific definition of the world "social." You're talking about a contractual business relationship in which I am being paid to perform a specific function within a corporate hierarchy. This isn't analogous to a game of D&D in any way, shape, or form, so I don't think the metaphor is even worth examining.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2008)

Fenes said:


> A player that is as much of an egoist that he has to play his chosen race (like kender, vampire, demongod, dragonborn) no matter if it annoys other players or the DM just because "my fun is more important than yours" doesn't really deserve a DM or a gaming group.
> 
> I'd most certainly kick the guy, or leave myself, because odds are such an egoist will try to control the whole game for his own ego, and try to render everyone else including the DM into his "helpers" so he can play his true fanfic.




Yup,  100% agree.

Anyone who refuses to bend, who's "artistic views" trump everyone else's, needs to be pelted with dice.  Be he DM or player.  In my view, "My imagination is better than yours" is one of the worst forms of players there is, regardless of which side of the screen he or she sits on.



			
				GregK said:
			
		

> I have walked away, because the GM had no strong coherent setting in mind. It was simply build whatever you want and I'll build the setting around the party (if even that) or he'd retcon the setting to fit whatever you built.




Do I understand this rightly?  You had a DM who was willing to tailor his campaign to your character, build his entire campaign around the group, and you walked because he had no "strong coherent setting in mind"?  

There's all sorts of DM's out there who simply say, "Hey guys, what kind of game do you want to play" let the group kick the ideas around and then build a campaign from that.  Sounds like a pretty damn good DM to me.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 22, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Yup,  100% agree.
> 
> Do I understand this rightly?  You had a DM who was willing to tailor his campaign to your character, build his entire campaign around the group, and you walked because he had no "strong coherent setting in mind"?  .




Yep. I am not a casual gamer (my rating is less than 10%) . Your vision of the setting is what is going to sell me (or not sell me) on your campaign and I base my character decisions on the setting.  So, come to me with your envisioned setting including an overview of the setting, the deities (including their domains), nations, the races and cultures,  the  allowed classes (and how race/culture affects the choice of classes or class variants).  I also want to see some  major organizations and NPCs that the PCs would know about based upon race, culture, and/or class -especially if they might serve as  mentors, trainers, or an elite group to gain membership.  You don't have to have every NPC statted out, but you need notes about them.


And, having a strong setting in mind doesn't mean railroading.  Therefore, you need to be able to tailor the types of adventures to the character backgrounds, motivations and the direction they take the campaign via their actions which may mean improvising and running by the seat of your pants.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 22, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Cosmopolitan, is fine and fits in my campaign....Mos Eisley Spaceport is too much for my taste or my setting.



Heh... I wasn't suggesting Mos Eisley or Sigil belonged in every campaign; just that cosmopolitan, over-stuffed, even genre-blending settings can be done well (and distinctively!).   



> Demon-folk....that's the problem. They are the offspring of humans mating with creatures of absolute and irredeemable corruption and evil.



Which makes them useful as metaphors. 



> I don't do a medieval campaign with post-modern sensibilities.



My sensibilities are more literary (for certain odd values of 'literature'). 



> Why do I need to add a race a month if I have a working setting with a lot of options for the players?



Surely you don't (but you were making it sound as if you never made use of or had need for material you didn't cook up yourself, which runs contrary to everything I know about thieving together a good campaign setting).


----------



## Mallus (Aug 22, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Not everything is good enough to steal...



We're talking about D&D here. 



> ...and not everything is fun for everyone.



Of course. But I still think compromise and gaming outside one's comfort zone/preferences are good ideas.  



> I think you should try to understand that not everyone thinks like you, and enjoys the same campaigns.



Which is why I'm trying to share my experiences and perspective!


----------



## billd91 (Aug 22, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Do I understand this rightly?  You had a DM who was willing to tailor his campaign to your character, build his entire campaign around the group, and you walked because he had no "strong coherent setting in mind"?
> 
> There's all sorts of DM's out there who simply say, "Hey guys, what kind of game do you want to play" let the group kick the ideas around and then build a campaign from that.  Sounds like a pretty damn good DM to me.




I don't find that confusing at all. Might be a good DM, might be a wishy-washy muddle of a campaign too. I _like_ the DM to have some coherent setting in mind.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 22, 2008)

Greg K said:


> Your vision of the setting is what is going to sell me (or not sell me) on your campaign and I base my character decisions on the setting. So, come to me with your envisioned setting including an overview of the setting, the deities (including their domains), nations, the races and cultures, the allowed classes (and how race/culture affects the choice of classes or class variants).
> 
> And, having a strong setting in mind doesn't mean railroading.





I'm with you, and so are my players, we are currently immersed in my ongoing _Planescape_ campaign of 3 years, but I have told them I want to run my first homebrewed campaign (never done one in 21 years), and have already pitched them some of the specifics:


-No divine power source (no gods or clerics or paladins).

-Playable races: human, hobgoblin, azer, nagaborn, minotaur.

-No Fey or Undead or Dragons in this world, also no unicorns, trolls and a lot of that staple stuff.

-Heavy on genies, titans, devils, rakshasa, nagas, elementals, medusae, constructs, sphinxes.


I'm going for a semi-eastern, slightly hyperborean, classical type campaign setting, and so far they seem to dig it.

They think the omitting of certain things, and the focusing on other things, makes for a more interesting world in a way, even though we won't be starting for a long time, they are already getting excited about character ideas.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 22, 2008)

S'mon said:


> To the OP: What you do in your own game is fine, Scribble.  But never criticise other GMs for running their own games in their own way.  Never forget: *Without the GM, there's no game*.




I'm not really "critisizing" anyone... I couldn't care less about how they play their games as long as they're happy and their group is happy. I'm just trying to understand what promotes the mindset because it's different from my own. I'm also offering an idea that I have that seems to work well, and has led to some great games. 

That said, the same can be said from the opposite side as well: Without the players there is no game. 

Truly without both "sides" there is no game. 

(and according to 1st edition, and now 4th edition the game CAN be run without a DM!  hehe)

Really it's not the idea that the DM can or cannot "ban" something. It's the question of why, if that ban is at odds with a player's enjoyment of the game, do some feel the ONLY answer is "they can leave."  As opposed to talking with the player as to WHY they're at odds with it, and seeing if the DM should reconsider. (For the good of the game as a whole.)


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 22, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Do you keep missing that in a good group, _everyone_ has the right to veto stuff that makes the game unfun for him? Of course, if what annoys him is essential to someone else there will be problems, but in a good group who has been playing together for some time it's unlikely that two players' taste differs that much.
> 
> If one of my players hated elves and no one would like them I'd surely either ban them, or make them a non-factor in my campaign. It's simply smart and logical not to use something (aka ban it) if no one really wants it and someone hates it.



Right.  I'll repeat myself.

Having a system like that relies upon everyone having reasonable boundaries for what sorts of things they feel they can proclaim to be beyond the pale for inclusion in the game.  If everyone took the attitude of the DM who freely proclaims, "I hate X, so not only won't I make it an important part of my campaign, but even if my players want to use it themselves, I won't allow them, _even when there are no coherent or objective reasons to deny them other than my own hatred of X_," the system would break down.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 22, 2008)

Greg K said:


> As someone who despises broad kitchen-sink play environments, cheap puns and absurd characters, neither of us would want to play in the same game.



Re-read what you quoted. My point was that I'm willing to *set aside* my preferences if they didn't fit with the campaign setting, if that setting/campaign seemed interesting.  



> Thankfully, initial discussions prior to playing would reveal that our styles are incompatible and we would never sit at the same game table.



It's more likely that initial discussions would reveal that while our preferences are, in fact, different, I'm amenable to quite a few different play styles, and more than capable of being enthusiastic for a game that offers something new.

Really, I think far too much is made of the 'need' for a group to share a similar play style (so long as people are willing to compromise). My experience is that people with fairly divergent likes and dislikes are perfectly capable to game at the same table, and to each others benefit, as they're exposed to things that they wouldn't be had they sought out entirely like-minded players. For example, I'm far better at 3.5 chargen having played with --and run for-- people who are more power-gamey than me... (not that that's a bad thing).


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Really?  In a "good group" everyone has the right to veto.  So, when the DM says, "You enter the castle of Baron Von Evilton", the players can veto the vampire because they hate the "angsty, Buffy crap" they'd been subjected to for years?




My players can (and did) say "I have enough of this X stuff, please bring something else". Usually not in the middle of the adventure.
Just as a DM can say "no, I do not want to run X", a player cna say "I do not want to encounter Y".


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Right.  I'll repeat myself.
> 
> Having a system like that relies upon everyone having reasonable boundaries for what sorts of things they feel they can proclaim to be beyond the pale for inclusion in the game.  If everyone took the attitude of the DM who freely proclaims, "I hate X, so not only won't I make it an important part of my campaign, but even if my players want to use it themselves, I won't allow them, _even when there are no coherent or objective reasons to deny them other than my own hatred of X_," the system would break down.




The system only needs players who do not have to have something in game that another cannot stand. How "logical" such a taste or distaste is has absolutely no weight. If a player hates a maul, and wants it banned, for no other reason than hate, and if no one loves the maul, then it gets banned, simple as that, and all have fun.

You simply do not accept that "I hate this" is a very reasonable reason to not want something in play. Why you are so convinced that you know better what is fun and acceptable for others I do not know.

All I know is that when I plan a campaign, I aim to make it fun for all that take part. If someone hates something, I'll not use it - I won't try to educate him that he's stupid for hating it. That would be the same as me trying to tell people that they should order themselves pizza with tuna despite them hating tuna, just because it's not rational to hate tuna.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 22, 2008)

Heh.  I just realized something that might drive a few people nuts.

IMC, I eliminated elephants.  None to be found, at all, in my setting.

Why?  A thought struck me several years back that D&D worlds differ from Earth mainly by adding stuff.  I thought, "Why not remove a couple of things, too?"

But, I supposed that makes me a maladjusted jerk.


----------



## Imp (Aug 22, 2008)

Careful, Hussar'll come crusading to your table to gank your players.

Heads down, everyone!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 22, 2008)

_In this thread, some people weren't allowed to play a character they wanted, and all the harbored bitterness of all the years comes out_

*NOBODY IS KICKING PLAYERS OUT OF THEIR GROUP.  STOP SAYING THEY ARE.*

What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call.  You can play in his game.  Or you can choose not to.  If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM.  But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game.  If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.

I almost feel like this entire thread is three or four people just trolling us.


----------



## Emirikol (Aug 22, 2008)

Scribble said:


> This seems pretty odd to me.  D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?




What a wonderful topic!  
The problem arises thus:  A DM decides to change the D&D rules, but has no "campaign reality" to base it on.  For example:  banning half-demons and dragonspewed without having a campaign reason why. 

Personally I believe in a DM's right to change whatever the heck he wants in a game and shove it down his players' throats for absolutely arbitrary and selfish reasons.  If his players dont' like it, they can look elsewhere for a game.  Afterall, there are enough players in the world (and a DM shortage), that more players  should probably start stepping up and offering to DM once in a while.  Also, it's the Dm who stepped up and offered leadership to run the game.  He's the one that's doing most of the work in the game. It's the DM's job to decide, to lead, and to uh..er..make stuff happenate.  He's the decider.  ..but of course nobody wants to play in that game..so it doesn't matter how many players there are 

That said..game groups tend to have more ease of running when the DM works it out with his players and they come to an agreement and work cooperatively.  For instance, character backgrounds and long-range plots.  I'd be pretty disappointed if my DM didn't give me some help with my background, and also if I was the DM and my player didn't give two craps about his background and I had to do it all too.

In the long run of my gaming experiences, I've run into too many Dm's who didn't offer me ENOUGH background and ENOUGH house-rules-cooperation.

jh

..


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> _In this thread, some people weren't allowed to play a character they wanted, and all the harbored bitterness of all the years comes out_
> 
> *NOBODY IS KICKING PLAYERS OUT OF THEIR GROUP.  STOP SAYING THEY ARE.*
> 
> ...




Got it in one.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2008)

> What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call. You can play in his game. Or you can choose not to. If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM. But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game. If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.




QFT.

I've had dozens if not hundreds of PC concepts barred from this campaign or that...I just make different PCs.

About the only time I got ticked off about not playing a particular PC in a particular 2Ed campaign it was because another _player_ (NOT the DM) complained that my PC was "superman" when we used the same PC creation rules...and were in fact *playing the same class.*  After 15 minutes of his whining, I tore up my PC sheet in his face and generated another PC.


----------



## grickherder (Aug 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call.  You can play in his game.  Or you can choose not to.  If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM.  But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game.  If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.
> 
> I almost feel like this entire thread is three or four people just trolling us.




You nailed it.  Totally nailed it.

And the funny thing is that those trolling are doing it from some sort of stance of a moral high ground.  As if the DM's aesthetic decisions are somehow subject to their approval and if they're not accommodated, the DM is somehow the unreasonable one.  Laughable really.  And sad too, given that it's even been expressed by one of them that they'd ruin a game if the DM didn't budge and comply with their wishes or satisfy them with a reason they found acceptable.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2008)

Mercule said:


> Heh.  I just realized something that might drive a few people nuts.
> 
> IMC, I eliminated elephants.  None to be found, at all, in my setting.
> 
> ...






Imp said:


> Careful, Hussar'll come crusading to your table to gank your players.
> 
> Heads down, everyone!




Nice.  Misinterpret what I said.

My question would be, why did you ban X?  Did you ban X simply because you didn't like it?  Is there any other reason, other than your personal preference, that you banned X?  If there is no other reason, other than your personal preference, why does your imagination get to trump mine?

Why does sitting in the DM's chair confer the right to say, "My imagination is better than yours"?



ProfessorCirno said:


> _In this thread, some people weren't allowed to play a character they wanted, and all the harbored bitterness of all the years comes out_
> 
> *NOBODY IS KICKING PLAYERS OUT OF THEIR GROUP.  STOP SAYING THEY ARE.*





'scuse me?  You might want to reread the thread.  Numerous posters, including those above me who are patting you on the back, have emphatically stated that they would kick players out of the group for trying to play something they didn't like.



> What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call.  You can play in his game.  Or you can choose not to.  If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM.  But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game.  If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.
> 
> I almost feel like this entire thread is three or four people just trolling us.




Let's reverse it.  If you, as DM, cannot play the game because someone's character bugs you just that much, the problem runs much deeper in you than in the player.  Posters here have clearly stated that they would refuse to run any game which has dragonborn in it.  Not for any other reason than because they feel their imagination is better than everyone else's.

To me, THAT'S the issue.  That's the entire issue.  Why does being the DM allow you to unilaterly enforce your tastes on the group?  To the point where you can outright ban any element, for no other reason than your personal taste, and if any player objects to this, they should leave the table.

Sorry, I don't agree.  The DM should voice his tastes.  And, 99% of the time, his tastes are likely going to trump for any number of reasons.  But, if the only justification you have for banning something is, "Well, I don't like it", then you have overstepped your powers as DM.

There are a thousand perfectly good reasons for banning something in the game.  It breaks genre conventions (Vampire characters with Battlemechs), it spoils the challenges of the campaign (using warforged in a jungle exploration campaign where survival and disease are main issues), it is physically impossible or at least very, very difficult (dragonborn in an aquatic campaign).  On and on and on.  There are loads of perfectly valid reasons for banning material from the game.

"I just don't like it" is not one of them.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 23, 2008)

I think Hussar simply doesn't get that a player has no right to play in a given game by a DM. Just as a DM has no right to have a player play in his game. It's not like there's someone forcing them to play together.

If they can't come to an agreement of what's fun and what's not fun then there is no game where both take part - there may be two or more games where one of them takes part.

And even if it is useless, I'll try once again to explain to Hussar why my "aesthetics" trump anyone else as far as I am concerned:

It's not me deciding how someone has to play, it's me deciding what sort of game I will be taking part in. I decide what I have fun with, how much I'll be compromising, and for what reasons. I decide how and with whom I spend my spare time.

Not anyone else.

If something is not fun for me I'll not do it. That doesn't mean it's not fun for someone else, or that it is wrong. But no one, no one has the right to force me to do something I do not like in a game.

So, basically, it's the difference between "I will play a game I have fun with, you are invited to take part, but I will not bend on the following points" and "you have to play MY game".

No DM here said that they'd force a player to play in their game - it was always an invitation to play, not a demand. However, the other side tries to tell us that the DM has to play the player's way.

I think it's clear who here thinks his fun is worth more than another's fun. And it's not the DM who won't play a game that's not fun for him - it's the player who expects and demands that the DM plays an unfun game so he has fun.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2008)

Before I get accused of being "creative" in my reading, here's a selection of quotes:



Darrin Drader said:


> As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god. The DM creates the world, the adventures, the DM sometimes cheats to make the encounters more interesting or enjoyable. Without the DM there is no game. So if the DM says that X race or class does not appear in this campaign world, that's just the way it is. *Players who push issues like that with me get ejected from the game, which is also my right.*
> *
> DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group.*






Set said:


> /snippage
> 
> In non-food metaphors,* the DM is doing the players a favor by running the game instead of playing (as most people prefer playing).*  Like a good cook, he's best served to find out what his potential customers like to eat, rather than just plop a steaming plate of beef tongue and boiled cabbage in front of them, but it's his kitchen, and ultimately, nobody has to eat what he's cooking, *when they could all get out of the player chairs and go cook up something more to their taste and let *him* sit down and sample their fare instead.*






Kzach said:


> I have a simple rule when DM'ing.
> 
> *Either you agree to all my rules, or I don't DM.*
> 
> /snip






ProfessorCirno said:


> *There are a lot more players then there are DMs.  Players are replacable.  DMs are not.  If you dislike the campaign rules, (try to) find another DM.*
> 
> You can't tell the DM "I want this, you have to give it to me."  You are perfectly allowed to try and ask the DM to make/do something banned, and he's perfectly allowed to say "No."
> 
> If it rankles you THAT much...YOU could always start DMing.  But then, for most players, that's crazy talk ;p






Darrin Drader said:


> *As I said, the player always has the option of not playing if they don't like the specific terms I put in front of them.* As a DM, I tend to weigh arguments made by players fairly and take their point of view into consideration. I am a kind and benevolent god at my table, and that is the way the players like it. At the end of the day though, the tough decisions are mine to make. If I'm not sure about a rule (and yes, it does happen occasionally), I am willing to defer to the interpretation of one of my most experienced players, provided that he is being reasonable and not trying to break the game.
> 
> /snip




Well, that's just in the first couple of pages, but, you get the idea.

Reading this, I really have to wonder why some people actually DM.  If it's so difficult, and time consuming that you feel such a heavy obligation to do it, why bother?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I think Hussar simply doesn't get that a player has no right to play in a given game by a DM. Just as a DM has no right to have a player play in his game. It's not like there's someone forcing them to play together.
> 
> If they can't come to an agreement of what's fun and what's not fun then there is no game where both take part - there may be two or more games where one of them takes part.
> 
> ...




But, you aren't actually doing anything.  You aren't playing the character, you aren't coming up with a backstory, you aren't involved at all, except as a spectator.  

I honestly cannot believe anyone would hate a character race so much that it would completely destroy the game to have SOMEONE ELSE, not you, play that race.



> So, basically, it's the difference between "I will play a game I have fun with, you are invited to take part, but I will not bend on the following points" and "you have to play MY game".
> 
> No DM here said that they'd force a player to play in their game - it was always an invitation to play, not a demand. However, the other side tries to tell us that the DM has to play the player's way.
> 
> I think it's clear who here thinks his fun is worth more than another's fun. And it's not the DM who won't play a game that's not fun for him - it's the player who expects and demands that the DM plays an unfun game so he has fun.




Yes, it's perfectly clear.  You think your fun is more important than your player's.  Since you are the one banning the element, not the player.  You are the one who has decided unilaterally that your imagination is better than your player's imagination and that if the player plays something you don't like, your fun would be less, therefore, he cannot possibly play it.  Anything which lessens your fun is bad.  It doesn't matter that your decision has lessened his fun after all.  His fun is irrelavent.  The only important thing here is that you are having fun.

Since, if his fun had any relevance at all, you'd compromise and find something that you could both enjoy, rather than unilaterally standing upon the mountaintop and declaring, for no reason other than you don't like it, that element X will is verboten in your game.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 23, 2008)

Hussar, I will ignore you now since you are simply unable to understand what you actually are saying. You are so wrapped in your own views, judging reasons as valid or invalid, that you miss that you, and just you, are treating another player - the DM - as a servant of the rest. You assume and demand that the DM is there for the players, at his own expense, and has no right to have fun himself, unless his reasons are deemed aceptable by yourself.

That's arrogant and hypocritical.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Hussar, I will ignore you now since you are simply unable to understand what you actually are saying. You are so wrapped in your own views, judging reasons as valid or invalid, that you miss that you, and just you, are treating another player - the DM - as a servant of the rest. You assume and demand that the DM is there for the players, at his own expense, and has no right to have fun himself, unless his reasons are deemed aceptable by yourself.
> 
> That's arrogant and hypocritical.




I'm unable to understand what I am actually saying?  Really.  

What I'm saying is that some DM's need to unpucker the control just a smidgeon and allow for the idea that players should enjoy the campaign too.  That sitting in the big chair in no way confers the right to beat players over the head with their tastes.

I have repeatedly supported the idea that DM's can and should ban elements in their game.  I have repeatedly stated that doing so can be perfectly acceptable and probably is in 99% of cases.

What I personally find unacceptable is the DM deciding that his personal preferences trump anyone else at the table, and if people don't like it, they can leave.  There's no room for compromise there.  There's just a brick wall that the players cannot possibly overcome.  

I find it very strange that when a player decides unilaterally that his tastes should trump, he gets ejected from the game, but, when a DM does it, he gets a pat on the back.

Note, I am only talking about situations where the only issue is personal taste.  I am not making any universal statements whatsoever.  I am coming down on this one, single, solitary issue - personal preference.


----------



## 3catcircus (Aug 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But, you aren't actually doing anything.  You aren't playing the character, you aren't coming up with a backstory, you aren't involved at all, except as a spectator.




Jeebus...

I've silently observed this thread until now.

Who do you think has to try and shoehorn in each players' characters with convoluted nonsensical backstories that bear no semblance to anything close to possible?  Ever wonder why so many campaigns start out in the local inn?  Because a DM will present a theme for a campaign, get agreement from the players, and then they go off and create characters that have not one iota of commonality or compatibility with each other or the campaign.  

Example: a military-themed campaign where all of the players are in the local King's army?  Guaranteed that one or more players will throw down a character who is of a different race than is prevalent in that kingdom, or is a "spy for the enemy king's army," or "got drafted and hates the army" or "is a pacifist" or "I'm the commander, so I get all these perks and get to boss around the other PCs."  Not once will any of the players actually - oh - _read_ anything the DM may have provided to them on the army rank structure, or who their commanders are, or what weapons/armor they are issued.



> Yes, it's perfectly clear.  You think your fun is more important than your player's.  Since you are the one banning the element, not the player.  You are the one who has decided unilaterally that your imagination is better than your player's imagination and that if the player plays something you don't like, your fun would be less, therefore, he cannot possibly play it.  Anything which lessens your fun is bad.  It doesn't matter that your decision has lessened his fun after all.  His fun is irrelavent.  The only important thing here is that you are having fun.
> 
> Since, if his fun had any relevance at all, you'd compromise and find something that you could both enjoy, rather than unilaterally standing upon the mountaintop and declaring, for no reason other than you don't like it, that element X will is verboten in your game.




It is no fun for the DM when the players are unwilling to compromise either.  Fact of the matter is that if the DM bans one or more elements, the players still have everything else available to them. More often than not, the players whine about something being banned because it suddenly prevents them from using some completely broken "build."  Too often, players waste a bunch of time coming up with some impossible character design that requires that the DM allow them to have a combination of race, character classes, feats, and magic items that they feel they are entitled to.  You want that deathmaster psycho build that dishes out 1000 damage each hit if you have the right feats and character classes and the minor artifact sword?  Work for them.  If the DM bans one element in the beginning of the campaign that "wrecks" your design - too bad - pick something else.

Bottom line is that the DM is banning something that applies equally to everyone, while players think only of themselves when they whine about some element that isn't allowed by the DM.

In my own campaigns, going forward, I'm banning all D&D psionics.  The only psionics I'm allowing will be the Spycraft 1.0/Shadowforce Archer psionics, modified for D&D.  Why?  Because I am sick of having psionic characters that are completely overpowered relative to magic-using characters in my campaign world. If I were using Dark Sun, I'd keep the D&D psionics, but I'm not, so they get ditched.  Does that mean I have a sense of entitlement?  No - it means I am levelling the playing field for all of the players. That *is* within my rights as DM to do so.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2008)

> In my own campaigns, going forward, I'm banning all D&D psionics. The only psionics I'm allowing will be the Spycraft 1.0/Shadowforce Archer psionics, modified for D&D. Why? Because I am sick of having psionic characters that are completely overpowered relative to magic-using characters in my campaign world. If I were using Dark Sun, I'd keep the D&D psionics, but I'm not, so they get ditched. Does that mean I have a sense of entitlement? No - it means I am levelling the playing field for all of the players. That is within my rights as DM to do so.




150% agreed.

Just to repeat myself.  I am ONLY talking about situations where the ONLY ISSUE is the DM's personal preferences.  ONLY.  Not anything else.  Not one iota, slightly tinged, mildly colored, tangentially related other issue.  This and nothing else.  This much and no more.  Big FREAKING SIGN that says, ONLY TASTE ISSUE.  

Is that clear enough for everyone.  Jeez.

But, yes, I think everyone in this thread agrees that when a player (DM or player) at the table is being an asshat, he needs to be pelted with dice.  

Actually, apparently that's not true.  Numerous posters here are telling me that the ONLY vision that applies at the table is the DM's and no one else's.  It doesn't matter what reason the DM has for banning something.  His reasons need not make any sense whatsoever.  He's the DM and he's GOD, in Darren Drader's words.  He can work in mysterious ways and the players should toe the line or get out.

Am I misinterpreting something there?


----------



## racoffin (Aug 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> What I personally find unacceptable is the DM deciding that his personal preferences trump anyone else at the table, and if people don't like it, they can leave.  There's no room for compromise there.  There's just a brick wall that the players cannot possibly overcome.
> 
> I find it very strange that when a player decides unilaterally that his tastes should trump, he gets ejected from the game, but, when a DM does it, he gets a pat on the back.
> 
> Note, I am only talking about situations where the only issue is personal taste.  I am not making any universal statements whatsoever.  I am coming down on this one, single, solitary issue - personal preference.




All of the issues are personal taste. Whether the DM dresses it up with a "logical" reason or not (enviroment, setting, etc.) in the end it is the Dungeon Master's personal taste on the matter. 

You are welcome to find that unacceptable. This is why there are thousands of games out there, so that everyone can find someplace that they fit.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 23, 2008)

A game doesn't start until people have agreed on what rules are used. Unless that agreement has been made - including all "I don't like this, ban it" conditions there is no game, and so no one can be kicked.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> A game doesn't start until people have agreed on what rules are used. Unless that agreement has been made - including all "I don't like this, ban it" conditions there is no game, and so no one can be kicked.




Now that's just being extremely pedantic.

I don't know about you, but, my groups have been fairly long standing.  The campaigns might come and go, but the groups tend to last more than a few years.  And we generally have a regular game night.

So, I would say that there is a game, even if there isn't a specific one being played yet.

Again, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BANNING MATERIAL.  I just want to be absolutely clear on this since I've been accused of all sorts of things here.  Banning material is perfectly fine.  My single, solitary issue is with the idea that the DM has the right to say, "My imagination is better than yours".


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 23, 2008)

Last time I'm going to try to post in this thread, as other than a few folks, a "middle of the road" suggestion seems to go ignored by many posters.

It's not about DM Entitlement. It's not about Player Entitlement. Anyone, player or DM, who wants to ignore the concerns and tastes and the _fun_ for the rest of the group is *wrong*. I don't care if you have an incredibly detailed history for your world that magnificently ties together magical theory with the origin of the high elves becoming distinct from the wood elves and the setting is a masterpiece the likes of which you would, by all conventional standards, be hailed as not just the epitome of the high fantasy genre, but the rebirth of it: if your players are all sitting around wanting to play Eberron and just not getting your setting, you're *wrong*.

Similarly, as a player, if a DM tries to work with you to include your character, suggesting alternate "races" using the same mechanical basis (like Dragonborn), and all you do is stamp your foot because dammit, you want to be a dragonborn, you're *wrong*, doubly so if the other players in the group don't want dragonborn in the game.

The key is _working together_. The DM's job might be a tough one, but he can make it so much easier by working with the players. During character creation, he can ask, "So, Bob, tell me about your character's home town / friends / enemies / goals." Listen to the players. Make use of their ideas. And the first thing you should do when someone approaches you with an idea is to divorce yourself from the idea that it's _your_ world or _your_ game. It's not. It belongs to the group.

That's not to say that you throw your vision for the world away, but that you _work with the players_. I said a few pages back that a faerie wonderland wouldn't fit in a Conan-esque, grim-and-gritty world, but that maybe a utopian village could serve some narrative purpose in a game if, after being introduced, it were destroyed during an adventure the players were on. Don't make your first reaction: "It's my world, and that doesn't fit." Your first reaction, as the DM, should be, "Hmmm... can I make this fit?" And sometimes, even the best ideas from your players just won't fit. Maybe there just truly is no room in your world for sparkly magic pink ponies with sparkly magic rainbow faerie wings and hair you can brush, especially since the world has no horses or anything equine at all (centaurs included). And that's when, as the DM, you say no. But you don't say, "This is my game, and I don't want that crap in it. If you don't like it, get out." Instead, tell the player, "It's definitely unique, but I just can't see how we can work it into what we've already established for the world. Do you have any other ideas?"

Once you start working the player's ideas in, they'll get use to it, and they'll _keep coming up with new ideas_. Suddenly the burdern of DMing starts getting a little easier when you've got a whole group of people contributing to growing the campaign. But players will only be as creative as you demand of them, so if your players are used to having everything in the setting fed to them, they won't rise to these sorts of expectations.

So seriously, try it. You've got a group of creative people, and you'll never know the opportunities you've been missing until you ask your players.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 23, 2008)

It's not about the middle ground, it is whether or not anyone has the right to say "sorry, if this is in I won't play/run it".

Most state that yes, no one can be forced to play or run a game they don't want, regardless of the reasons.

Some few maintain that the DM has to have an acceotable reason to draw a line - his own fun is not enough to allow him to refuse to run a game.

That's it, in a nutshell.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Aug 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But, yes, I think everyone in this thread agrees that when a player (DM or player) at the table is being an asshat, he needs to be pelted with dice.
> 
> Actually, apparently that's not true.  Numerous posters here are telling me that the ONLY vision that applies at the table is the DM's and no one else's.  It doesn't matter what reason the DM has for banning something.  His reasons need not make any sense whatsoever.  He's the DM and he's GOD, in Darren Drader's words.  He can work in mysterious ways and the players should toe the line or get out.
> 
> Am I misinterpreting something there?



I believe we do have a failure to communicate, yes.  My understanding of the other camp's position is that the DM's discretion is all that matters for the final decision, but I don't think anyone has intentionally advocated completely ignoring the players' input.

I think Ari said it best back in post #2







Mouseferatu said:


> This isn't about power, and it isn't about entitlement. It's about the DM creating the world and setting in which he wants to set his game, and nothing ruins a game faster than a DM who's not enjoying it.
> 
> Is it possible to abuse this? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that it's always an abuse, or that it's unreasonable.



In the final analysis, the DM has a right not to include something in his game.  Yes, saying, "I'm banning dragonborn because I don't like them," is an abuse of this power, if the DM just means, "I'm banning dragonborn because I wouldn't want to play one myself."  However, I see nothing wrong with it if the DM means, "I'm banning dragonborn because they don't fit in the Tolkienesque campaign I have in mind and which I'm jonesing to run."

To reiterate, yes, the DM and players should always try to reach some middle ground.  But if this effort fails, then it's much more realistic to ask the PC to find another game than to ask the DM to run a game he or she can't get into.  You could argue that DMs should be able to generate enthusiasm for any campaign and any collection of character concepts, but in practice, we're all just human.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> 150% agreed.
> 
> Just to repeat myself.  I am ONLY talking about situations where the ONLY ISSUE is the DM's personal preferences.  ONLY.  Not anything else.  Not one iota, slightly tinged, mildly colored, tangentially related other issue.  This and nothing else.  This much and no more.  Big FREAKING SIGN that says, ONLY TASTE ISSUE.



So, I'm off the hook, then.  I've said I'm happy to work with players who have a flavor preference and actual theme to a campaign (I'd like to see a wizard's guild as the focus, or a knightly order, or weird and alien).

On the other hand, if a player has no input beyond "I want to play a dragonborn, and only a dragonborn" then I don't really consider it that big of an input to change an existing vision, tone, or setting.  If I'm creating something from scratch, that's worth considering, but not if I have a long-running home brew.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Actually, apparently that's not true.  Numerous posters here are telling me that the ONLY vision that applies at the table is the DM's and no one else's.  It doesn't matter what reason the DM has for banning something.  His reasons need not make any sense whatsoever.  He's the DM and he's GOD, in Darren Drader's words.  He can work in mysterious ways and the players should toe the line or get out.




No, you pretty much have it right. But as I said earlier, I've never had a player quit one of my games because I shot down one of his character concepts. Before we play, I go to the players and ask them, hey, would you be interested in a game where the premise is X, we're using Y setting, with Z rules allowed? If the answer is yes, then I develop it into a campaign. If the answer is no, then since I would have no players, I drop it.

Once a premise has been agreed upon, then I start nailing down specifics, which includes a list of exclusions. Maybe the exclusions say core rules only, or it might be that all splat material has to be checked for balance. Maybe it's that certain races do or do not appear in the setting. If it's a unique setting, then not everything in the rules has a right to exist. There are some things that I would never allow to exist, like when a player comes to me and says that they want to play a gestalt character or a dragon. Just because the rules exist in Unearthed Arcana and Dragon Magic doesn't mean that I'm obligated to allow them. On the other hand, if I were running an FR campaign and someone wanted to play a tiefling, I'd tell them to go right ahead - in fact I have. If I were running my homebrew, which has existed since the late '80s and has a very limited number of racial choices, for a reason, I'd tell them no.

The name of this thread should really be called Player Entitlement. DMs have been creating homebrews for as long as D&D has existed, yet this notion that the DM isn't the final arbiter of his own world is something that has arisen recently. Call me old school, but the concept that the DM isn't in charge of the game he is running is utterly alien to me. As a DM, I reserve the right to tell players yes or no depending upon whatever conditions I have set for the game. 

If a player came to me with the attitude that some people in this thread are exhibiting, I'd bounce them. Just because someone is a D&D player, that doesn't mean that I have to invite them into my game. In fact, I have more players to choose from than I have spots at the table, so it's far easier for me to just get rid of the problem player than to accomodate whatever world breaking idea they're trying to shoehorn into my setting. Fortunately, in the 24 years I've been gaming, I haven't once run into a player who had a problem with handing over control of the game to the DM. When it does happen, I'll be sure to point them to this thread so they can join in with the rest of you who are saying what a jerk I am.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2008)

This whole thread is extremely surreal. I can't believe anyone plays with this "My way or the highway" mentality in real life. It seems like a lot of Internet posturing and exaggeration, in most cases. Surely, nobody would ever get into a situation where a friend even might consider leaving a game over something like a PC race! I, most certainly, have _never_ lost a player or quit a game for a game-related reason! Just thinking about it seems preposterous.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 23, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> This whole thread is extremely surreal. I can't believe anyone plays with this "My way or the highway" mentality in real life. It seems like a lot of Internet posturing and exaggeration, in most cases. Surely, nobody would ever get into a situation where a friend even might consider leaving a game over something like a PC race! I, most certainly, have _never_ lost a player or quit a game for a game-related reason! Just thinking about it seems preposterous.




Arguments over internet message boards do tend to get pretty exaggerated. Part of it comes because participants often feel they need to repeat certain points over and over because it's hard to tell if the other participants have really gotten your point. I know I see it, and do it, quite often. I'll make a point and someone will respond to it, largely missing the point I was trying to emphasize, so I'll repeat that point, which serves to make it look like that's ALL I care about or at least seems to narrow my focus to the point of obsession.
Sometimes it seems like others aren't getting my point because they're being obtuse, but quite often it's just because they're trying to deal with multiple issues coming up from a variety of posts in the thread, trying to deal with them all at once, and because they, themselves, are doing the same thing I am doing: circling back around to the same points again and again because, in their estimation, nobody is really getting _their_ points.
Of course, this happens in face to face discussions too, but it's a bit easier there to step back and make sure people are referring to the same points quickly and efficiently. On a message board, that typically takes days and by then the discussion has gone straight to hell.


----------



## Imp (Aug 23, 2008)

> Surely, nobody would ever get into a situation where a friend even might consider leaving a game over something like a PC race!



Well that's the thing isn't it? This is an internet forum, not a group of friends. Because groups of friends 1) tend to have something like a consensus on taste issues and 2) assuming they have like an over-18 maturity level they'll come to an agreement about little stuff like this before it gets to the my-way-or-the-highway point, like:

CONFRONTATION THE FIRST

Player: I want to play a _drragonborn!_
DM (rolls eyes): Really?
Player 2: Psh!
Player: Please I've wanted to play a dragon guy ever since I was thirteen and I saw this awesome movie where
DM: ...Fine.

CONFRONTATION THE SECOND

Player: Hey man I was thinking of rolling up a dragonborn and
DM: Oh, _GOD_
Player 2: Hahahaha!
Player: Eh, aight. (Rolls up a dwarf instead)

But in a less tight-knit group it might not go down like this.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 23, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> This whole thread is extremely surreal. I can't believe anyone plays with this "My way or the highway" mentality in real life. It seems like a lot of Internet posturing and exaggeration, in most cases. Surely, nobody would ever get into a situation where a friend even might consider leaving a game over something like a PC race! I, most certainly, have _never_ lost a player or quit a game for a game-related reason! Just thinking about it seems preposterous.




I think that's precisely why so many people here, myself included, have table-sized indents in their forehead.  We're saying "The DM will work with the player."  We're saying "Nobody just gets kicked out for no reason."  We're saying "The DM should help the lpayer make a character if his first idea doesn't go through."

What we're getting in return is: "No matter how much of a dick the player is, it's his right to stay in the game, complaining and whining, ruining it for anyone.  And if you *ever* tell the player no, it means you're a HORRIBLE DM."

Just look at Hussar's post where he claims people are talking about kicking people out - only ONE of those mentions actually ejecting someone from the game, and that's because said player was being a craven douche.  The others say, quite simply, that the *player* has the choice of playing in the game or not playing in the game, and that if he cannot, for whatever reason, abide by the rules, then it's not the game for him.  Yet somehow this has been twisted so radically to mean "DMs like to kick out players because they have a god complex."  Is it any wonder so many of us are getting our hackles raised when the slightest thing we say gets twisted out of proportion?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The others say, quite simply, that the *player* has the choice of playing in the game or not playing in the game, and that if he cannot, for whatever reason, abide by the rules, then it's not the game for him.




It's weird, though, because I've never seen it get this far. Actually, I've never seen anyone _think_ about leaving a game over an in-game issue. I've seen people leave games because of interpersonal issues, scheduling considerations, moving away, and things like that. But, I've never even seen anyone even consider leaving because of what is being discussed in this thread.

It's like the entire topic of discussion is purely constructed.

Am I off base here? Are my experiences that different than others'?


----------



## Greg K (Aug 23, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> It's weird, though, because I've never seen it get this far. Actually, I've never seen anyone _think_ about leaving a game over an in-game issue?




I have left or not played due to in game reasons.   I left a boss's campaign due to  the group's playstyle - a high level campaign  in which characters with powers and magiic items inspired by comic book characters travel through planes and to planets and fight the gods) . I have also refused to play in an epic campaign being run by one of my M&M players.  And, my refusal to the latter game has nothing to do with the DM and three of his player admitting that the campaign is broken, because he had never run a campaign before taking over for another DM without knowing the rules at the time he did.

I can think of several other types of DND games that I would not want to play in despite the other players enjoying themselves.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> It's like the entire topic of discussion is purely constructed.



Not purely, in my view.

I think there is a tradition in D&D (at least as the rulebooks are written - it's hard to know how much actual play experience of the myriad groups playing D&D matches the books) of trying to solve social issues via ingame devices.

The highpoint of this trend is probably the 1st ed AD&D DMG, which says nothing about how to handle social issues that might arise in the game (compare to the 4e DMG in this respect). But it does give us alignment rules: - the social problem is players wanting to play distasteful PCs, and the solution offered by the rulebook is an ingame one, of alignment rules to be applied forcefully by the GM. And in the section on "the ongoing campaign" it tells us that the PCs of disruptive players can be struck by lightning hurled by the gods - again, an ingame solution for what is a social problem.

In my view it is this feature of AD&D's presentation (peculiar to that game, I think - it is not found in 3E or 4e, nor as far as I can recall in Moldvay/Cook D&D, nor in any other RPG I'm familiar with) that is one of the sources of AD&D's reputation for fostering abusive GMing.

AD&D also has another feature that is fairly distinctive for an RPG, and which perhaps has continued into later editions: namely, the notion that the PC can be created independently of some particular gameworld, and taken by the player from world to world.

A third feature of D&D is that it tends to be treated as a toolkit - with bits and pieces to be added and subtracted from campaign to campaign - much more than most other RPGs.

I think that these things add up to create the issue that is being debated in this thread.

For what it's worth, I sympathise with those in this thread like Buzz, Lost Soul, Scribble ect who think that social issues should be handle separately from ingame issues, and that the GM has no special status in resolving those social issues.

One of the more important social issues to settle, of course, is "Which game?" and "Who is GM?" The first question is not answered simply by saying "D&D", given the tookit way in which D&D tends to be used. It is not answered until we know what sorts of PCs are permitted. It seems pretty obvious that the answers to these two questions have to be worked out together. But it doesn't follow from that that the only person who takes part in answering them is the person who ends up being chosen as GM by the group.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> It's weird, though, because I've never seen it get this far. Actually, I've never seen anyone _think_ about leaving a game over an in-game issue. I've seen people leave games because of interpersonal issues, scheduling considerations, moving away, and things like that. But, I've never even seen anyone even consider leaving because of what is being discussed in this thread.
> 
> It's like the entire topic of discussion is purely constructed.
> 
> Am I off base here? Are my experiences that different than others'?




No, I don't think you're off base here.  I think 99.999% of conversations around the table will look exactly like Imp said.

My only beef is with the idea that the DM's prerogative of creating setting extends to enforcing his personal tastes over the wishes of the players.  If the DM bans something and no one cares, well, who cares?  But, if the player, who I'm assuming is not being an asshat for the purposes of this discussion, honestly wants to play X because he likes X and can do a good job of playing X and will not abuse the rules and is doing so simply because he likes X, then why does the DM have the right to say "no, my imagination is better than yours"?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 24, 2008)

Hussar said:


> My only beef is with the idea that the DM's prerogative of creating setting extends to enforcing his personal tastes over the wishes of the players.  If the DM bans something and no one cares, well, who cares?  But, if the player, who I'm assuming is not being an asshat for the purposes of this discussion, honestly wants to play X because he likes X and can do a good job of playing X and will not abuse the rules and is doing so simply because he likes X, then why does the DM have the right to say "no, my imagination is better than yours"?




Because personal tastes are integral to the DM's vision of the campaign world. How many things is the DM going to ban that he actually likes? Even if broken, if he likes them, he will easily find a way to work them in, even if slightly modified. It's mainly when he's neutral toward things or dislikes them that they will get banned and so his likes and dislikes are already wedded into the decision of what to include and not to include to some basic degree.
Aand that's why, when push comes to shove, the DM's gets the final decision. If the DM doesn't want to run a particular kind of game, you can't make him.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 24, 2008)

pemerton said:


> One of the more important social issues to settle, of course, is "Which game?" and "Who is GM?" The first question is not answered simply by saying "D&D", given the tookit way in which D&D tends to be used. It is not answered until we know what sorts of PCs are permitted. It seems pretty obvious that the answers to these two questions have to be worked out together. But it doesn't follow from that that the only person who takes part in answering them is the person who ends up being chosen as GM by the group.




No, but the DM has the right to say "that game I won't run". Then the group can either change "that game", or find someone who will run it.


----------



## Andor (Aug 24, 2008)

Hussar said:


> No, I don't think you're off base here.  I think 99.999% of conversations around the table will look exactly like Imp said.
> 
> My only beef is with the idea that the DM's prerogative of creating setting extends to enforcing his personal tastes over the wishes of the players.  If the DM bans something and no one cares, well, who cares?  But, if the player, who I'm assuming is not being an asshat for the purposes of this discussion, honestly wants to play X because he likes X and can do a good job of playing X and will not abuse the rules and is doing so simply because he likes X, then why does the DM have the right to say "no, my imagination is better than yours"?




The DM isn't saying "My imagination is better than yours." that's purely your own construction. 

The Dm is saying "I'm the one doing the work of running this campaign, and that element causes me to stop enjoying that work, so I'm not going to do it."

If the Dragonborn obsessed players is willing to do the work and GM a world with Dragonborn is it, then spiffy, go for it. If not, why is the GM supposed to do something he finds unpleasant purely for the joy of a whiny player?

For some people element X pushes their personal squick factor, and who are you to force them to be squicked? If we replaced the words "Dragonborn character" with "Pedophile character" would we still be having this discussion? Would you think a GM was being a tyrant for not wanting a pedophile character in their game?


----------



## Fenes (Aug 24, 2008)

Andor said:


> For some people element X pushes their personal squick factor, and who are you to force them to be squicked? If we replaced the words "Dragonborn character" with "Pedophile character" would we still be having this discussion? Would you think a GM was being a tyrant for not wanting a pedophile character in their game?




That is the main point those people have: They only accept some reasons for banning something from a game. Anything else - espcially "I don't like it" - is tyranny in their eyes.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2008)

Fenes said:


> That is the main point those people have: They only accept some reasons for banning something from a game. Anything else - espcially "I don't like it" - is tyranny in their eyes.




Wow.  No matter how many times I repeat it, you still don't get it.

It's not accepting "some reasons".  It's not accepting ONE SINGLE reason for banning material.

When the DM says, "I don't like X, therefore no one can play it", he's enforcing his personal preferences on the entire group.  He most certainly IS saying "my imagination is better than yours".  If he wasn't, then the player could play the distasteful character, because then the player's imagination is given equal play to the DM's.  The DM gets to control everything else in the world.  Why does my playing an X have to be absolutely under the control of the DM?  

Again, this is ONLY when the DM is banning something for solely the reason of his personal preferences.  If he has any other reason, it's probably fine.  It's when the DM, like Fenes here, says, "Well, I cannot envisage a society which accepts people with scales, therefore, nothing you the players can say can change my mind and you WILL NOT play this race.  If you want to play that race, play in a different game (Ie, get out of my game)."

He has unilaterally decided that his enjoyment of the game hinges on this one single factor and anyone else's enjoyment is secondary.  If someone plays a dragonborn, it will make the game less fun for him, therefore, no one shall play a dragonborn.

No matter what.

And people are patting him on the back for it.

That's what absolutely blows my mind about this.  He's being 100% unreasonable.  No compromise, no attempt to find a middle ground.  THOU SHALT NOT PLAY THIS.  It doesn't matter if the player tries to come up with a reasonable background, it doesn't matter what the player wants at all.  No matter what, no one can play this in his game.  For no other reason than he doesn't like it.

And this is a legitimate use of DM authority?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 24, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And this is a legitimate use of DM authority?




Absolutely. The DM could say that he only likes gnoll, dwarf, and tefling characters, therefor all characters will be one of those races. And if he can find players for that game, more power to him.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2008)

Ok, well, it's time to simply agree to disagree.  I think of this as incredibly abusive of DM's authority at the table.  Beating players over the head with my personal preferences is not something I'm comfortable doing.  Nor am I comfortable playing with such an autocratic DM who would not even consider compromising on a taste issue.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Aug 24, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And this is a legitimate use of DM authority?




That would depend entirely on the people involved in the group.

I've been in groups where everyone had a little hand in shaping aspects of the setting along with the DM. That worked well and everyone had a good time. I've been in groups where the DM set things in stone and we gave him the benefit of the doubt and went with it. That worked well and everyone had a good time.

Whether or not you find a particular approach to gaming reasonable or unreasonable has more to do with your expectations than whether the approach is actually reasonable or unreasonable. We would achieve as much by debating whether olives are tasty or foul.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 24, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So I've seen a lot of posts (especially with some of the changes in the new edition) that have people saying things like:
> 
> "In my game there will be no (insert random thing to ban from campaign.)"
> 
> ...




The game is about collective storytelling.  But the DM has to spend the time and effort creating and managing the world, writing adventures, etc.  If the players throw things off track by making characters that don't fit with the world, or displaying behaviour through their characters that doesn't work, or is problematic, it puts a lot of pressure on the DM.

If the DM loses interest, no more game.

I've never had any guilt about banning evil characters.  I had two instances of players having their characters murder the characters of other players, and it's just generally antisocial.....and it breeds bad feelings.  The first time it happened, I thought I was being fair, by allowing it to happen, since the player of the character doing the killing did it in a way that made sense, and within the limits of the rules.  Unfortunately, the victim's player didn't appreciate it (obviously), and quit the game.  The second time it happened, I kicked out the player of the evil character.  After that, I just outright banned evil characters, and the games have been much smoother since.  And no players have complained.

Admittedly, if the players don't like the game, they'll leave, and then there won't be a game either.  But if the DM sets the ground rules and expectations at the beginning, the players really don't have a right to complain.

But overall, if the DM ain't interested in what he's running, the game will suck for all concerned, and that doesn't help anyone.

Banshee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2008)

> Anyone, player or DM, who wants to ignore the concerns and tastes and the fun for the rest of the group is wrong. I don't care if you have an incredibly detailed history for your world that magnificently ties together magical theory with the origin of the high elves becoming distinct from the wood elves and the setting is a masterpiece the likes of which you would, by all conventional standards, be hailed as not just the epitome of the high fantasy genre, but the rebirth of it: if your players are all sitting around wanting to play Eberron and just not getting your setting, you're wrong.




I disagree.

The last campaign I ran started off in a standard-type D&D PMP, but in the first adventure, they got abducted into another PMP to be stock in a private hunting preserve.

There were _NO_ PHB races in this world.  At all.  They did not exist.

Should someone's PC have died, they would have had to choose their new PC's race from that world's races.  Someone joining the campaign in process would have to do likewise...and the 2 who did, did.

If anyone (established or new) had raised a fuss about wanting to play a PHB race, they could have argued with me 'till doomsday- they'd have been *S*imply *O*ut of *L*uck.

That's not wrong, that's playing within the campaign.  If your PC concept doesn't fit within the campaign, that's a player's problem, not the GM's (regardless of genre).


----------



## Greg K (Aug 24, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Definately a 3e meme and one that hopefully dies a terribly painful though blessedly rapid death soon. I have been seeing less and less of this attitude probably because it was yanked from WoTC's Meme Life Support System.
> Wyrmshadows




I saw it on message boards back in 2e  regarding Player's Options, Monster Handbook, etc.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2008)

DannyA - PMP?  Not familiar with that TLA.  

The question I have though is why did you ban PHB races?  Did you do so because you had a very specific vision for your campaign setting or did you do so simply because you didn't like them?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2008)

> DannyA - PMP? Not familiar with that TLA.




PMP = *P*rime *M*aterial *P*lane



> The question I have though is why did you ban PHB races? Did you do so because you had a very specific vision for your campaign setting or did you do so simply because you didn't like them?




Simple question, complex answer.

I had a very specific vision of that campaign setting- the races in question were simply non-existent.  In my current setting work in progress, I had a similar vision, but allow Humans and some variant monster races- Goblinoids, Orcs, Gnolls and so forth.  Again, the PHB races don't fit, and their places in the ecosystem have been filled.  The exceptions, you'll note, are all races that are notoriously fecund...the "cockroaches" of the sentient races.

However, I've come to dislike the "Half" races- fantasy genetics have become largely distasteful to me.  I don't eliminate hybrids completely, though- ancestry that includes otherplanar beings is an old, old trope in mythology and religion, so I usually allow "Plane-touched," and the WotC/DCv1 bloodline/heritage feats and so forth are also allowed, but they're all over the place.

So I'm currently reworking much of that into Nephilim, a Template (WotC standard), Racial Class (AU/AE style), or Heroic Path (Midnight 2Ed)- I haven't decided which, yet- in which a PC can trace ancestry back to some kind of powerful otherplanar being- "angels," devils, demons, powerful dragons, true Fey, etc.

Elves and Orcs need not apply.


----------



## rounser (Aug 24, 2008)

> The question I have though is why did you ban PHB races? Did you do so because you had a very specific vision for your campaign setting or did you do so simply because you didn't like them?



Does it really matter?

Why not turn the question around, ask WOTC why they foisted this unasked-for, arguably "wahoo", mythologically void stuff on the implied setting.  The conspicuousness lies with them - they've made the change, not the banning DM.  The banning DM is just maintaining verisimilitude, why should he bow to what appears to be a cynical branding exercise?


----------



## jensun (Aug 24, 2008)

rounser said:


> Does it really matter?
> 
> Why not turn the question around, ask WOTC why they foisted this unasked-for, arguably "wahoo", mythologically void stuff on the implied setting.  The conspicuousness lies with them - they've made the change, not the banning DM.  The banning DM is just maintaining verisimilitude, why should he bow to what appears to be a cynical branding exercise?



This has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread.  Is there any particular reason you try to turn everything into an edition war?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 24, 2008)

I dunno, I'm of the old school where if a DM has devised a world, you can plead your case to get your 'non-appropriate' character in.... but if he didn't convince him, you didn't convince him, and whining about it is immature behavior.

Perhaps he might not like that race, perhaps the mechanics for that ability are too powerful in his opinion;  Heck, maybe he just doesn't want to deal with the rules because they're too convoluted for his tastes.  Or perhaps he has an idea for that race that makes a player character inappropriate.  Perhaps they're the big bad?

Or perhaps some aspect of his game world just doesn't mesh with the traditional racial presentation.

Not to support 'playing god' but lately, D&D3+ has presented a far greater sense of player entitlement than previous editions, or even different roleplaying games in general.  The DM has to arbitrate things because -unlike- the players, the DM's vested interest is in the continued health of the game and a better story.  Players' vested interest is in the interest of their character.


----------



## jensun (Aug 24, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> I dunno, I'm of the old school where if a DM has devised a world, you can plead your case to get your 'non-appropriate' character in.... but if he didn't convince him, you didn't convince him, and whining about it is immature behavior.



I am also of the old school which says that when playing with friends some give and take is in order and that the goal is for everyone to enjoy themselves.  

Then again my groups default position also involves a lot of player generation of game material.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 24, 2008)

So, some people favour (or are more accustomed to) collaborative world building, and some do not (or are not.)

Hm. And?


----------



## Mallus (Aug 24, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> So, some people favour (or are more accustomed to) collaborative world building, and some do not (or are not.)
> 
> Hm. And?



And we could have a nice discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of both approaches, perhaps with some amusing/enlightening personal anecdotes?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 24, 2008)

Mallus said:


> And we could have a nice discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of both approaches, perhaps with some amusing/enlightening personal anecdotes?



Brilliant!


----------



## Fenes (Aug 24, 2008)

Mallus said:


> And we could have a nice discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of both approaches, perhaps with some amusing/enlightening personal anecdotes?




Yes, and one thing in cooperative worldbuilding is how to handle things that are a game breaker for one player.

Or in other words: Is the DM allowed to walk away from such a game if it has things in it he absolutely doesn't like, or is that right to walk away reserved for players?

And does one have to justify such dislikes, or is everyone allowed to have fun their way?


----------



## jensun (Aug 24, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Yes, and one thing in cooperative worldbuilding is how to handle things that are a game breaker for one player.
> 
> Or in other words: Is the DM allowed to walk away from such a game if it has things in it he absolutely doesn't like, or is that right to walk away reserved for players?
> 
> And does one have to justify such dislikes, or is everyone allowed to have fun their way?



I dont see anyone in this thread advocating slavery so of course the GM can walk away.

However, when I game I do so with friends.  If a person dislikes something then we are able to sit down and discuss why they dont want a particular element in the game.

That can be as simple as "I dont like it" although I would hope for a bit more detail than that.

For example, in my current game (about 80% created by the players) I started off with the premise that it would be sword and sorcery themed, more Conan than Tolkein.  So we have ancient crumbling cities, sinister sneering demonologists, half naked slave girls and looming temples of the serpent god.  

Halflings and Gnomes dont fit.  Even if they do fit I still cant stand them, they are both utterly pointless and silly races.  Yes, my dislike of them is irrational however they still dont mesh well with the genre I had in mind.  

I made my views known at the start but was clear, if someone wanted to play one we could accommodate it.  The world isnt a static thing neither does it belong to me alone.  

If no-one wanted to play one then they would be gone from the game for good.  

Tielfings and Dragonborn, not a problem with.  Tieflings fit the crumbling urban decadence theme well and the Dragonborn sit nicely as the noble/violent outsider barbarian.

EDIT: At the end of the day it is all about the social contract between the group, the rules (not games rules) that you agree to before you even sit down to start doing anything.  

I get the feeling that a number of these problems mostly occur when people play with strangers or with people who they only game with rather than people who are firends beyond the gaming table.


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 24, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Yes, and one thing in cooperative worldbuilding is how to handle things that are a game breaker for one player.
> 
> Or in other words: Is the DM allowed to walk away from such a game if it has things in it he absolutely doesn't like, or is that right to walk away reserved for players?
> 
> And does one have to justify such dislikes, or is everyone allowed to have fun their way?



Sure, you can walk away if you really want to. But isn't it better to talk about it? If you don't like Dragonborn, for instance, try talking with the players. What if it's the culture of nomadic, noble warriors that really attracts the player and it's the imagery of "dragon people" that turns the DM off? Then you have room to find a good, healthy middle ground. Cut away all the dragonic flavor, make them similar to humans or elves in most ways (including appearance), but have them maintain most of the racial abilities (maybe the breath weapon becomes a one-off spell for a race of nomadic warrior-mages). Everyone winds up relatively satisfied, and everyone wins.

So end of story: talk about it. Work together. It also helps neatly with the whole "the DM does all the work and the players don't do any" issue by, well, getting the players involved.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 24, 2008)

Jackelope King said:


> Sure, you can walk away if you really want to. But isn't it better to talk about it? If you don't like Dragonborn, for instance, try talking with the players. What if it's the culture of nomadic, noble warriors that really attracts the player and it's the imagery of "dragon people" that turns the DM off? Then you have room to find a good, healthy middle ground. Cut away all the dragonic flavor, make them similar to humans or elves in most ways (including appearance), but have them maintain most of the racial abilities (maybe the breath weapon becomes a one-off spell for a race of nomadic warrior-mages). Everyone winds up relatively satisfied, and everyone wins.
> 
> So end of story: talk about it. Work together. It also helps neatly with the whole "the DM does all the work and the players don't do any" issue by, well, getting the players involved.




We already said that we'd work with the players. The whole issue is that some simply do not acecpt that if no compromise can be found the DM can say "sorry, I won't run this game." They really believe and demand that the DM should run a game that's not fun for him.


----------



## grickherder (Aug 24, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Beating players over the head with my personal preferences is not something I'm comfortable doing.




Then why do you insist on doing this to one of the players-- the DM?


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 24, 2008)

Fenes said:


> We already said that we'd work with the players. The whole issue is that some simply do not acecpt that if no compromise can be found the DM can say "sorry, I won't run this game." They really believe and demand that the DM should run a game that's not fun for him.



You might have missed part of what I suggest when I say that players and the DM/GM should work together. One of the complaints I've seen leveled often (and often in this thread) is that DMs/GMs do all the work, so their opinion just plain counts more than everyone else. I agree, to an extent, that this is indeed the case. The sharehold who invests more in a business gets more of a say in how it's run. If I spend ten hours every week preparing a game and you spend one, I should have ten times the say.

But what I'm saying is that the workload doesn't need to be divided up like this. It's not hard for the DM to ask for help in certain things, to make running the game easier. And once you get past this, everyone starts to have a more equal share of the workload, and everyone becomes more invested in the game, and what is/isn't allowed in the game.

That's what I'm getting at when I say, "It's not _my_ game: it's _our_ game." And that spirit of cooperation coupled with the combined creativity of an entire group really can do wonders for helping to find ways around seemingly insurmountable differences. What you may see as absolutely non-negotiable (no dragonborn, for instance) might be relatively easy to work-around (as I suggested above) if you tap your players for help in solving such a problem. The number of these "It's my way or I'm going home" situations can be reduced if you're willing to work together to come up with a solution that addresses the heart of the problem.

And as I've already said, if at the end of the day, the problem still can't be resolved, then nobody should be forced to play a game they don't want. It's all fun and games, or it's a waste of time. But the other added benefit of the solution I suggest is that there are more people willing to step up and run a game: if one GM can't/won't/just doesn't want to run a certain type of game, someone else who does can stand up and do so. Everybody wins in such a situation, which is why I advocate it so strongly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 24, 2008)

IME, over 90% of all players respect the DM's authority enough that they don't try to tank a game when they can't get their way, and the other (less than) 10% aren't worth playing.  If the DM says "no dragonborn" and a player is set on elements X, Y, and Z from that race _that player's creativity has already been tapped by the DM if the player wants those elements._  The DM has enough to do prepping the game without also making the players' characters for them.  This is not to say that DM cannot or should not be open; only that the onus for fitting those elements into what is known about the world is on the player wanting them.  This is not to say that the DM cannot or should not suggest a compromise if he or she thinks of one....merely that doing so is not primarily the DM's responsibility (nor the DM's primary responsibility!).

Saying that the DM has ultimate authority in any game he/she runs does not in any way, shape, or form suggest that the DM should not discuss things with players.  Interestingly enough, although saying the DM has _*ultimate*_ authority means just that....in the _*final*_ say, the DM decides what gets into his/her world.....again and again "counter" examples are put forth which are _agreements between players and DM_.  So long as everyone agrees (either because the players say OK to the DM, or because the player who wants an exception convinces the DM that it is a good [or okay] idea), there is no need for _*ultimate*_ authority to be exercised.

Give me an example where the DM remains unconvinced, and really believes that element X shouldn't be in the game, but where the DM must or should say Yes, and then you have an argument for DM entitlement.  Until then, not so much.

Even with collaborative worldbuilding, once the world is in motion, decisions that have made are going to preclude other decisions.  Or do those who think the DM should never say (or have the power to say) No automatically accomodating when one player pulls out the Book of Erotic Fantasy and wants his character to rely heavily on the rules therein? 

Of course, just as a player may make a "dream character" and then seek out a game that will accomodate him, so may a DM make a "dream campaign setting" and then seek out players to whom this setting is interesting.  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2008)

rounser said:


> Does it really matter?
> 
> Why not turn the question around, ask WOTC why they foisted this unasked-for, arguably "wahoo", mythologically void stuff on the implied setting.  The conspicuousness lies with them - they've made the change, not the banning DM.  The banning DM is just maintaining verisimilitude, why should he bow to what appears to be a cynical branding exercise?




I know this is OT, but, how is a race of demonic half breeds, a warrior reptile race and elves mythologically void?  I'd say that these are pretty mythologically, and certainly genre, filled.

I would also point out that 4e has not actually lost any races, other than half orc, which is truly a mythologically void race, since all 3e races are still playable.

Adding =/= restricting in most dictionaries.



Fenes said:


> We already said that we'd work with the players. The whole issue is that some simply do not acecpt that if no compromise can be found the DM can say "sorry, I won't run this game." They really believe and demand that the DM should run a game that's not fun for him.




But you aren't working with the players.  You have absolutely, 100% banned a race, for no other reason than you dislike the race.  What compromise have you made?



grickherder said:


> Then why do you insist on doing this to one of the players-- the DM?




But, the DM isn't actually doing anything.  That's been my point all the way along.  I'm the one playing the character. I'm the one who has to make it fit into the setting.  I'm the one who has to accept the consequences of my choice - perhaps I cannot enter towns, I take penaties to certain things, everyone hates me, whatever.  What is the DM "having" to do?  What about my choice of race forces the DM to do anything?

Note, again, I'm only talking about a situation where the only issue is the DM's preference.  In all other situations, the DM is most certainly entitled to have his way.  It is only in this one, single situation, where the DM is forcing his personal tastes on the player.

Just as a question, what if two players want to play something that the DM doesn't like?  Does it matter?  Does it matter that the DM is putting his tastes ahead of more than one player?  Or is it only OK when he's forcing his tastes upon one player?



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Give me an example where the DM remains unconvinced, and really believes that element X shouldn't be in the game, but where the DM must or should say Yes, and then you have an argument for DM entitlement. Until then, not so much.




I thought I just had for the past three pages.  I feel when the DM's only reason for banning an element is his own personal tastes, then the DM should not force his tastes on other players.  Doing so is entirely DM entitlement.  No player can do so.  No player can turn to another player and say, "No, I hate X, you can't play it".  Only the DM can do so.  And, IMO, doing so is an abuse of his authority.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar, you're missing the question.

The question is, what is so damnably difficult about just _making a new character_ when it's apparent the DM doesn't like the one you're trying to push on him like some cliched drug dealer?

All your posts are backing up this idea of "My character is the most important part of the game."  That's the problem everyone else here has.  _It's not_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2008)

> But isn't it better to talk about it? If you don't like Dragonborn, for instance, try talking with the players.




Eventually, a decision will be made, and it will be made by the DM.  If the player still doesn't like the DM's call, what then?



> But what I'm saying is that the workload doesn't need to be divided up like this. It's not hard for the DM to ask for help in certain things, to make running the game easier. And once you get past this, everyone starts to have a more equal share of the workload, and everyone becomes more invested in the game, and what is/isn't allowed in the game.
> 
> That's what I'm getting at when I say, "It's not my game: it's our game."




While there are examples of great shared world stories- Thieves' World and Wild Cards spring immediately to mind- the quality of collaborative fiction generally decreases as the number of collaborators increases.

It makes it more difficult to maintain a cohesive feel to the setting.  It also makes it difficult to hide things that may need to be hidden from the players.

This isn't to say that I don't value player input.  I value it highly.

My best campaign ever was a superhero campaign set in 1900- the 1900 as might have been imagined by Verne and Wells.  The campaign lasted 3 years.

The player input came in 2 forms: 1) PC design & backgrounds and 2) table talk related to the game world.  They did NOT have a say in the initial campaign design, but their running commentary provided inspiration for at least 40% of the adventures that followed the initial story arc.


----------



## Imp (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar. You're specifying a hard case, requiring a hard rule (yes/no), and then being appalled at how hard it looks when people choose one of those hard rules.

I mean, something like dragonborn, among friends, that's usually going to be discussed around the table and everyone will have a pretty good idea of what everyone's point of view is before anyone even gets to the point of developing a character. Even in 3e when a player might spring a monster PC concept on the group you'll probably have a general idea of how receptive the campaign is to outlandish PCs, and heck you'd probably have come up with a way to fit the strange PC in the campaign (actually, if you didn't, and you'd been playing a while in my campaign, I'd question my own DMing) – you're going past a whole lot of soft decision-making to get to a hard point.

Similarly, it's not really possible to isolate banning something "just because you don't like it" from whatever other reasons simply because people are pretty good at coming up with rationales for their decisions – the DM makes a world without elves, the DM doesn't like elves, chicken, egg, chicken, egg.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While there are examples of great shared world stories- Thieves' World and Wild Cards spring immediately to mind- the quality of collaborative fiction generally decreases as the number of collaborators increases.



To the extent that RPGing resemble the authoring of fiction, it is perhaps closer to improvisational theatre than to short story writing.

Or to put it another way - except in a very railroady game, the players are not simply the audience for the GM's story.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But, the DM isn't actually doing anything.  That's been my point all the way along.  I'm the one playing the character. I'm the one who has to make it fit into the setting.




Let us say that I am playing an alien (from Aliens) in the Forgotten Realms.  The DM (and other players) now have to accept the implication that this is possible.  They might also have to accept the implication that Predators are possible.  The DM, in particular, has to role-play the response of _every single NPC_ to this thing foisted on the game by myself.....and that is, no matter how you slice it, 90% of the work of making a character fit into the setting.

Or perhaps I want to play a Teletubby.  Apart from my going "La la" with my character, repeatedly, throughout every game session, the DM is really going to have his work cut out for him when I convince the other PCs to accompany me to Teletubby Land.  Because, I reason, how can there be Teletubbies without Teletubby Land?

Or I pull out the Book of Erotic Fantasy and decide I am playing a character whose focus cannot be fully described here due to the Eric's Grandmother rule.  And that is how I am going to focus my character, every game.  After all, it's the source of his power.  This still implies no work for the DM?  He should, maybe, say Yes to my character concept, and then gimp me in actual play?

What about your choice of race forces the DM to do anything?

The DM has to decide whether or not you can enter towns, and deal with a split party if you cannot.  The DM has to decide whether or not you take penaties to certain things, everyone hates me, whatever, and deal with the whining when you complain that the DM has tacitly vetoed your concept after the fact because he is being gimped in actual play.  No matter how you slice it, playing the reaction of the world to a character always requires more effort that playing that character, assuming any sort of cohesive setting at all.



> I'm the one who has to accept the consequences of my choice




Agreed.  And one of those consequences might be that the DM says No.




> Just as a question, what if two players want to play something that the DM doesn't like?  Does it matter?  Does it matter that the DM is putting his tastes ahead of more than one player?  Or is it only OK when he's forcing his tastes upon one player?





The DM never has to run a game including elements he doesn't like, just as the players never have to play in a game including elements they don't like.




> I thought I just had for the past three pages.  I feel when the DM's only reason for banning an element is his own personal tastes, then the DM should not force his tastes on other players.  Doing so is entirely DM entitlement.  No player can do so.  No player can turn to another player and say, "No, I hate X, you can't play it".  Only the DM can do so.  And, IMO, doing so is an abuse of his authority.





So, you argue that no player can say "No, I hate games without dragonborn, you can't play it" while arguing that the DM cannot say "No, I hate games with dragonborn, so I will not run one"?

Colour me confused.  



RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Let us say that I am playing an alien (from Aliens) in the Forgotten Realms.  The DM (and other players) now have to accept the implication that this is possible.  They might also have to accept the implication that Predators are possible.  The DM, in particular, has to role-play the response of _every single NPC_ to this thing foisted on the game by myself.....and that is, no matter how you slice it, 90% of the work of making a character fit into the setting.




Nice strawman first off, but, let's run with it.

Ok, why?  Why do I have to assume that there might be Predator's present?  Nothing about Alien assumes they are.  The DM is certainly not forced to.  But, I'll come back to this in a second.



> Or perhaps I want to play a Teletubby.  Apart from my going "La la" with my character, repeatedly, throughout every game session, the DM is really going to have his work cut out for him when I convince the other PCs to accompany me to Teletubby Land.  Because, I reason, how can there be Teletubbies without Teletubby Land?
> 
> Or I pull out the Book of Erotic Fantasy and decide I am playing a character whose focus cannot be fully described here due to the Eric's Grandmother rule.  And that is how I am going to focus my character, every game.  After all, it's the source of his power.  This still implies no work for the DM?  He should, maybe, say Yes to my character concept, and then gimp me in actual play?
> 
> What about your choice of race forces the DM to do anything?




I have repeatedly stated that players who are being ass hats deserve to be pelted with dice.  Straw man arguments are not helping.  The player is being an ass hat.  You can remove any of these elements simply, without having to resort to a "I just don't like it."



> The DM has to decide whether or not you can enter towns, and deal with a split party if you cannot.  The DM has to decide whether or not you take penaties to certain things, everyone hates me, whatever, and deal with the whining when you complain that the DM has tacitly vetoed your concept after the fact because he is being gimped in actual play.  No matter how you slice it, playing the reaction of the world to a character always requires more effort that playing that character, assuming any sort of cohesive setting at all.




Yup.  You're right.  Exactly like the DM has to determine how the world reacts to EVERY OTHER PC in the game.  He has to determine how the world reacts to the "allowed races" as well.  How is this any different?

Again, assuming the player isn't being an asshat.  Asshats need to be pelted with dice.  On either side of the screen.



> Agreed.  And one of those consequences might be that the DM says No.
> 
> 
> The DM never has to run a game including elements he doesn't like, just as the players never have to play in a game including elements they don't like.
> ...




No, I argue that the DM should not say, "I hate X, therefore my personal preferences trump yours.  No matter what compromises you make, no matter what elements you bring up, you cannot have this.  Not because there is anything mechanically wrong with it, or even genre issues.  Solely because I don't like it."

Look, take these two hypotheticals (and look ma, no screwing around with totally bogus examples):

1. 
Player:  I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
DM:  Well, I don't really like the idea of ancient dragonborn empires.  It doesn't fit in my campaign.  How about you keep the dragonborn racial stuff, but, we rebrand it so that it fits in my campaign?
Player:  What?  No way!  I insist that you keep dragonborn exactly as they are in the PHB.  

This player is an asshat.  He deserves to be pelted with dice.  The DM tried to compromise and the player is being a jerk.  Everyone, I hope, agrees that this is a bad player.

2.  
Player:  I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
DM:  Oh man, I hate that crap.  No, not in my game.
Player:  Well, I really like them.  I like the idea of them.  I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with?  Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world.  He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner.  He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home.  Hrm.  Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly?  That might work.
DM:  No way.  You absolutely cannot play a dragonborn no matter what.  It's my game and if you don't like it, there's the door.  

Now, me, I'd be out the door.  Any DM who had his sphincter that puckered about something like this would be one I'd never want to play with.  But, apparently, several people here would pat him on the back and congratulate him for being a great DM.

Do I have that right?



			
				ProfessorC said:
			
		

> The question is, what is so damnably difficult about just making a new character when it's apparent the DM doesn't like the one you're trying to push on him like some cliched drug dealer?




No, to me that's not the question.  My question is, why is it so damnably difficult for the DM to give that tiny little inch to make his player happy?  Just because he's in the big chair does not give him the right to beat the player over the head with his personal preferences.

Again, assuming no one's being an asshat.


----------



## Papa-DRB (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But, the DM isn't actually doing anything.  That's been my point all the way along.  I'm the one playing the character. I'm the one who has to make it fit into the setting.  I'm the one who has to accept the consequences of my choice - perhaps I cannot enter towns, I take penaties to certain things, everyone hates me, whatever.  What is the DM "having" to do?  What about my choice of race forces the DM to do anything?




While I do not agree with your premise, I was willing to listen up to this point. I the DM doesn't have to do anything? Who plays all the NPCs that have to interact with your character? Who has to worry perhaps about a split party? Who has to potentially change a module that I am running because of something "wierd" in your character? etc, etc.

The DM does a bloody lot of work and it is players like you who make the job very difficult. I'm outta here, goodbye thread....


----------



## racoffin (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> No, I argue that the DM should not say, "I hate X, therefore my personal preferences trump yours.  No matter what compromises you make, no matter what elements you bring up, you cannot have this.  Not because there is anything mechanically wrong with it, or even genre issues.  Solely because I don't like it."
> 
> ...




I suppose it is as damnably difficult for the DM to give in as the player. In the above example (#2), the player knows before he launches into the questionable backstory that the DM absolutely despises dragonborn, but he pushes the point anyway, and, if your words afterwards are any example, is then going to not play because the DM didn't give in.

Assuming no one is being an asshat, we have a player that despite being told that a race/class/prestige class/piece of equipment/spell/whatever isn't availiable is *still* going to try to cram that whatever into the campaign. 

*That*, more than anything, seems to be a pretty good example of being an asshat.

So what is the "good" reason for the player to have whatever the forbidden item is, if we remove "because I wanna have it!" as a rational excuse? You've mentioned previously that the DM shouldn't use "Because I don't like it" as a valid reason not to allow it. So what is the good reason for it to be reintroduced? 

I suppose I am one of the "bad" DMs. I give the players a pretty detailed list of what is and isn't allowed, and I tend to frown pretty heavily on games of "What if" when players try to get around it. I've had a few people walk away from the table over it, usually friends of a friend who have successfully managed to get their way in other games and are horrified and shocked when it doesn't work in our game.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And this is a legitimate use of DM authority?



Absolutely.

By the social contract of my current group, my original group, and almost every group I've participated in between.

Your group may have a different social contract, but that doesn't make it any more or less valid.  The "DM is god" contract is no more tyrannical than the alternative is a hippy love-in.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2008)

Scribble said:


> (and according to 1st edition, and now 4th edition the game CAN be run without a DM!  hehe)




4th edition says this. 1st edition never did. You might be confusing the suggestions for randomly generated dungeons to mean this but that isn't the same thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Nice strawman first off, but, let's run with it.




Hardly a strawman.  It shows up the inherent flaw in your argument.

What it does is raise the question why you believe that a player playing an alien, a Teletubby, or a character from the BOEF is being an asshat, but one playing a dragonborn is not.




> You can remove any of these elements simply, without having to resort to a "I just don't like it."





Why is it that you are removing the alien, Teletubby, or BOEF character if not for the reason that you don't like it?




> Yup.  You're right.  Exactly like the DM has to determine how the world reacts to EVERY OTHER PC in the game.  He has to determine how the world reacts to the "allowed races" as well.  How is this any different?





You argued that there is no work involved for the DM in your playing whatever it is you wish to play.  I demonstrated that this is untrue.

When a DM decides to allow X into the game, he undertakes the work to make X fit of his own free will.  When you demand Y be allowed in the game, you demand that he undertakes the work to make Y fit into the game, whether he enjoys it or not.

I realize that you might not see the difference here, but frankly, IMHO, demanding that the DM undertake the work to make Y fit into the game, whether he enjoys it or not, is being an asshat.  By your reasoning, the fellow who refuses to take No for an answer should be pelted with dice.  I don't go so far.....I just say he shouldn't be invited back.



> Player:  I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
> DM:  Oh man, I hate that crap.  No, not in my game.
> Player:  Well, I really like them.  I like the idea of them.  I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with?  Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world.  He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner.  He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home.  Hrm.  Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly?  That might work.
> DM:  No way.  You absolutely cannot play a dragonborn no matter what.  It's my game and if you don't like it, there's the door.
> ...





I would be more than happy, if that was the only "problem".....and (from what I read) I suspect that you'd be out the door whether you willed it or no.  Because I know, as you should, that if the DM said Yes based on the reasoning above, then Player 2 should legitimately be able to say

"I would like to play an alien/Teletubby/BOEF character.  Why? Well, I really like them.  I like the idea of them.  I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with?  Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world.  He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner.  He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home.  Hrm.  Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly?  That might work."​Because, ultimately, the only difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character and the dragonborn is that you happen to like the dragonborn, while some others might think that the dragonborn is no different than the Teletubby.  And that seems to be the bit you're missing.  For some folks, if the game has dragonborn, it might as well have Teletubbies.

So, yes, you have the right to walk from any game you are not enjoying, as player or DM.

And, no, letting you play the sort of Dipsy you like isn't always giving "that tiny little inch to make [you] happy".

And the DM not only lacks the right, but he lacks the means "to beat the player over the head with his personal preferences", because the player can (and should) always walk from a game he finds unenjoyable.

Assuming no one's being an asshat, IMHO, _requires_ assuming that the player can either take No for an answer, or find/create a game more to his liking.  Refusing to take the DM's No for an answer, and yet demanding to play in a given game, is _*always*_ being an asshat.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2008)

> Because, ultimately, the only difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character and the dragonborn is that you happen to like the dragonborn, while some others might think that the dragonborn is no different than the Teletubby. And that seems to be the bit you're missing. For some folks, if the game has dragonborn, it might as well have Teletubbies.
> 
> So, yes, you have the right to walk from any game you are not enjoying, as player or DM.
> 
> And, no, letting you play the sort of Dipsy you like isn't always giving "that tiny little inch to make [you] happy".




Well, if you are going to equate dragonborn with teletubbies, with a straight face, then yup, I don't think we could agree.  

Y'know, it's funny.  Most new RPG's, whether mainstream or indie, all give the same DM advice: "Find a way to say yes".  Yet, here we have a number of DM's all screaming because the poor peon of the player wants to play something besides the prescribed elements.  

Again, I'm assuming the player is not taking races simply to break the setting - as would something like playing an Alien in FR or a Teletubby.  I'm talking about a player who is asking for something pretty reasonable and being shot down, without ANY compromise, simply for the fact that the DM doesn't like it.

See, I inherently reject the idea that one player playing a race that the DM doesn't personally like is going to destroy the game.  Again, assuming that the element in question is in keeping with the game (BOEF is easily banned - no adult themes, no sex in the game, comfort levels of the players, etc. - Aliens are easily banned - cannot fit with the power level, their level adjustment is too high, completely against genre - Teletubbies are easily banned and I'm not even going to dignify why), the ONLY reason that the player cannot play this race is because one other player at the table doesn't like it.

Ok, howzabout this?  DM okays the race, but, other player detests it.  Should the race be banned or not?  I notice no one took me up on whether or not two players count.  

If two players want to play that element, does the DM's personal predilictions still trump?  

Yes, I know I'm taking this way out of the realm of realism.  99.99% of conversations at the table will never, ever go this far.  Not about a race.  What shocks me is that people are absolutely defending the DM's authority here.  Under no circumstances, even when the DM is being an absolute ass hat, is the DM even remotely questioned.  The player shows willing to compromise, yet, the DM is under no obligation to do so.

It's funny, RC and I went around on this issue some time ago.  Then it was playing a warforged ninja in a naval campaign.  RC had exactly the same reaction then.  The DM is infallible.  His tastes trump all, 100% of the time, players be damned.

I am questioning that.  Not that DM's can ban material.  Of course they can.  I'm not questioning that.  I'm questioning if it is not an abuse of DM authority to enforce his personal preferences on the players.  It's apparently wrong when players do it to the DM, but it's perfectly acceptable the other way around?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Well, if you are going to equate dragonborn with teletubbies, with a straight face, then yup, I don't think we could agree.




Are you saying that you don't understand how someone's tastes can differ with you so much that something you think is okay is, to them, deal-breaking?   



> Yet, here we have a number of DM's all screaming because the poor peon of the player wants to play something besides the prescribed elements.




(1)  No one is screaming with the exception of the poor "woe-is me" player who can't bring his dragonborn character into Bob's Conan game.

(2)  There is a difference (subtle, I know), between prescribed elements and proscribed elements.



> Again, I'm assuming the player is not taking races simply to break the setting - as would something like playing an Alien in FR or a Teletubby.




Are you suggesting that there is no group for which these might be options?  Because there was a netbook for Aliens in D&D.  BoEF is a real book....I own it.



> I'm talking about a player who is asking for something pretty reasonable and being shot down, without ANY compromise, simply for the fact that the DM doesn't like it.




Why is playing a dragonborn more reasonable than playing a character from the BoEF?



> See, I inherently reject the idea that one player playing a race that the DM doesn't personally like is going to destroy the game.




I inherently reject the idea that the DM has to run a game with elements he does not want.

I inherently reject the idea that Hussar can play a dragonborn, but Sarah and Joe can't.  



> Again, assuming that the element in question is in keeping with the game (BOEF is easily banned - no adult themes, no sex in the game, comfort levels of the players, etc. - Aliens are easily banned - cannot fit with the power level, their level adjustment is too high, completely against genre - Teletubbies are easily banned and I'm not even going to dignify why), the ONLY reason that the player cannot play this race is because one other player at the table doesn't like it.




no adult themes = player doesn't like it

no sex in the game = player doesn't like it

comfort levels of the players = player doesn't like it

cannot fit with the power level is adjustable....at least as easily as adjusting dragonborn to some settings

their level adjustment is too high = player doesn't like it

completely against genre = player doesn't like it



> Ok, howzabout this?  DM okays the race, but, other player detests it.  Should the race be banned or not?  I notice no one took me up on whether or not two players count.




A player making character X should be attempting to fit character X into the group.  If the group doesn't like character X, I would not (as DM) force them to play with character X.  

Example:  In a world where reptiliads were recently overthrown by humans, elves, and dwarves, Hussar wants to play a dragonborn.  I think, "That won't fit, and will cause problems" but Hussar begs and wheedles, claiming that he will accept the consequences of playing that character.  I say OK.  The other PCs, on encountering the "reptiliad", slaughter him.  Who is at fault?



> If two players want to play that element, does the DM's personal predilictions still trump?




Only if they want to play in that DM's game.



> Under no circumstances, even when the DM is being an absolute ass hat, is the DM even remotely questioned.  The player shows willing to compromise, yet, the DM is under no obligation to do so.




The player is under no obligation to compromise.

What part of "If you don't find the game enjoyable, find/create a game that you do enjoy" do you fail to understand?



> It's funny, RC and I went around on this issue some time ago.  Then it was playing a warforged ninja in a naval campaign.  RC had exactly the same reaction then.  The DM is infallible.  His tastes trump all, 100% of the time, players be damned.




What part of "If you don't find the game enjoyable, find/create a game that you do enjoy" do you fail to understand?

DMs can make errors and show poor judgment, obviously.  But, equally obviously, even if we all agreed with you, there is no way that you can force a DM to run a game he is not enjoying.  I happen to disagree with you that you should even try.



> I am questioning that.  Not that DM's can ban material.  Of course they can.  I'm not questioning that.  I'm questioning if it is not an abuse of DM authority to enforce his personal preferences on the players.  It's apparently wrong when players do it to the DM, but it's perfectly acceptable the other way around?




You make several errors here:

(1)  That banning material is ever _not_ the result of personal preference.

(2)  That the DM could, even if he wanted to, enforce his personal preferences upon anyone.  Consent is required.  How do you imagine this DM prevents these players from walking?

(I'll answer that:  If the DM gives good value for the conditions imposed on the game, the players will remain.  "Good value" is a matter of personal preference, so some players may find a game to be of "good value" while others might not.)

(3)  That a player could, even if he wanted to, enforce his personal preferences upon anyone.  Consent is required.  How do you imagine this player prevents the DM/other players from walking?

(I'll answer that:  Same answer as with the DM.)


RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2008)

> (1) No one is screaming with the exception of the poor "woe-is me" player who can't bring his dragonborn character into Bob's Conan game.




**Waggles finger** Ah ah ah.  That's shifting the goalposts.  I've REPEATEDLY stated that this isn't what's I'm arguing about.  Dragonborn don't fit in a Conan game because they break genre.  I have no problems with that.



> You make several errors here:
> 
> (1) That banning material is ever not the result of personal preference.




Umm, what?  You've never banned something because it broke genre?  Or because it was overpowered and broken?  There are a plethora of reasons to ban stuff other than "my imagination is better than yours".



> (2) That the DM could, even if he wanted to, enforce his personal preferences upon anyone. Consent is required. How do you imagine this DM prevents these players from walking?
> 
> (I'll answer that: If the DM gives good value for the conditions imposed on the game, the players will remain. "Good value" is a matter of personal preference, so some players may find a game to be of "good value" while others might not.)




I find the idea of beating someone over the head with my preferences to the point where they either accept them or leave to be an abuse of authority.



> (3) That a player could, even if he wanted to, enforce his personal preferences upon anyone. Consent is required. How do you imagine this player prevents the DM/other players from walking?
> 
> (I'll answer that: Same answer as with the DM.)




Obviously players cannot enforce their preferences.  You've handed all authority to the DM.  How could they?  The DM simply says, "no" and that's the end of it according to you.

OTOH, if all players are willing to compromise including the DM, then the players preferences might just win out.  Maybe not.  But all I'm saying is that the DM should try to say yes.  Now, the player has to compromise as well.  Of course.  It's a two way street.  

But, in a situation where you have opposing preferences, and no other mitigating circumstances, when the ONLY issue is "I like it" vs "I don't", I think "I like it" should win every time.  Forcing players to play something they don't want to, simply because you happen not to like the choices they want (AND NO OTHER ISSUES ARE AT STAKE - I don't understand why I keep having to repeat that, but, apparently I do), is an abuse of DMing authority, IMO.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Well, if you are going to equate dragonborn with teletubbies, with a straight face, then yup, I don't think we could agree.



Dragonborn have simply been the whipping boy in this particular conversation.  I wouldn't relate them to Teletubbies, except for an example.  But, if you want a concrete example, I'd consider tinker gnomes to be as objectionable as Teletubbies, and about as game-spoiling for me.

I've never been able to understand how anyone could tolerate them, let alone want to play one.  Tastes can differ that much.  I could conceive of someone having the same reaction to dragonborn.

Besides, it's not as though any good DM would ban Teletubby PCs just because of personal preference.  That'd make him a tyrannical jerk on a power trip.  He has to come up with a better reason.


----------



## racoffin (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> OTOH, if all players are willing to compromise including the DM, then the players preferences might just win out.  Maybe not.  But all I'm saying is that the DM should try to say yes.  Now, the player has to compromise as well.  Of course.  It's a two way street.
> 
> But, in a situation where you have opposing preferences, and no other mitigating circumstances, when the ONLY issue is "I like it" vs "I don't", I think "I like it" should win every time.  Forcing players to play something they don't want to, simply because you happen not to like the choices they want (AND NO OTHER ISSUES ARE AT STAKE - I don't understand why I keep having to repeat that, but, apparently I do), is an abuse of DMing authority, IMO.




But the DM has said yes. He's said yes to elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, or whatever else is availiable in his world/setting. He has said no to your choice/request. In your many examples and posts, the player doesn't seem to be compromising. It has become a battle of "my imagination trumps yours" instead of "Hey. This is what is availiable. Select from the following options."

No one is forcing the player to play something they do not want. They are welcome to sit at the table and watch, or start their own game, or not play. Or they could even unbend a bit and try something outside of this favorite idea they have.


----------



## racoffin (Aug 25, 2008)

Mercule said:


> Dragonborn have simply been the whipping boy in this particular conversation.  I wouldn't relate them to Teletubbies, except for an example.  But, if you want a concrete example, I'd consider tinker gnomes to be as objectionable as Teletubbies, and about as game-spoiling for me.
> 
> I've never been able to understand how anyone could tolerate them, let alone want to play one.  Tastes can differ that much.  I could conceive of someone having the same reaction to dragonborn.
> 
> Besides, it's not as though any good DM would ban Teletubby PCs just because of personal preference.  That'd make him a tyrannical jerk on a power trip.  He has to come up with a better reason.




Or at least the DM could paint the better reason over his personal opinion. "They don't fit my world" for example. That is assuming that you need to put another reason up. With my group, if we mentioned tinker gnomes my disliking them would probably be the most polite thing said at the table.

In any case, that seems to be what it is boiling down to: the reason given. As long as the DM gives a "good" reason, everyone is happy and he isn't a tyrannical jerk.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2008)

> In any case, that seems to be what it is boiling down to: the reason given. As long as the DM gives a "good" reason, everyone is happy and he isn't a tyrannical jerk.




Pretty much.  Like I said, I can live with pretty much any other reason.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Again, I'm assuming the player is not taking races simply to break the setting - as would something like playing an Alien in FR or a Teletubby. I'm talking about a player who is asking for something pretty reasonable and being shot down, without ANY compromise, simply for the fact that the DM doesn't like it.
> 
> See, I inherently reject the idea that one player playing a race that the DM doesn't personally like is going to destroy the game. Again, assuming that the element in question is in keeping with the game (BOEF is easily banned - no adult themes, no sex in the game, comfort levels of the players, etc. - Aliens are easily banned - cannot fit with the power level, their level adjustment is too high, completely against genre - Teletubbies are easily banned and I'm not even going to dignify why), the ONLY reason that the player cannot play this race is because one other player at the table doesn't like it.



There are spaceships and guns in FR. I doubt Aliens will break the setting.

Tellytubbies? Just some kind of Fae.
No more annoying than a pixie roleplay wise (mechanics will differ).

If 4th edition:
Aliens are easy: Dragon Stats, except Breath Weapon. 
Make it an immediate action that can activated when hit, usable 1/encounter.
Does same effect, but is a Close Burst instead of a blast.
Most Aliens choose acid, but yours could choose fire.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> **Waggles finger** Ah ah ah.  That's shifting the goalposts.  I've REPEATEDLY stated that this isn't what's I'm arguing about.  Dragonborn don't fit in a Conan game because they break genre.  I have no problems with that.




But you did have an objection to no warforged ninja in a Pirates of the Carribean (not simply a naval) game, and you certainly did not accept "because they break genre" as a valid reason.  We discussed that to death, as you acknowledge in this thread.

How, exactly, does that shift goalposts?

Or why is it okay for the DM to say "This is a Conan-type game, and your dragonborn breaks genre" but not okay for the player to then say "But how come you get to impose your genre on me?!?!?"

Choosing genre is as much a matter of preference as the elements that may (or may not) fit into that genre.  Nor is genre so well defined that you cannot think something absolutely fits while I think something absolutely does not.  

How does "No dragonborn, because I do not like them" equal "My imagination is better than yours" anyway?  (Speaking of shifting, goalposts or otherwise.)  I am not a big fan of romance novels, but I would hardly claim that my preferences are therefore _objectively_ better than those who like them.  Yet, I wouldn't run a game with romance novel characters.

"This is the kind of game I am willing to run" =/= "My imagination is better than yours".....and if you were able to acknowledge that there is no objective value judgment involved, you might see that.



> I find the idea of beating someone over the head with my preferences to the point where they either accept them or leave to be an abuse of authority.




Is "I've baked some chocolate chip cookies.  Would you like some?" beating someone over the head with my preferences to the point where they either accept my cookies or leave?

If not, how is "I've devised a campaign.  Here are the character options allowed.  Would you like to play?"  beating someone over the head with my preferences?

Or is it beating someone over the head to want to play chess rather than monopoly, and looking for someone equally interested in chess?

Again, color me confused.



> Obviously players cannot enforce their preferences.  You've handed all authority to the DM.  How could they?  The DM simply says, "no" and that's the end of it according to you.




What part of "If you don't find the game enjoyable, find/create a game that you do enjoy" do you fail to understand?

A player has _absolute authority_ over what type of game he is willing to play in.....just as the DM has _absolute authority_ over what type of game he is willing to run.  That doesn't mean that the player has some sort of right to have the game he wants magically appear, with DM and other players slave to his whims, nor does it mean that the DM has some sort of right to have the players he wants magically appear, and be slaves to his whims.  This is true simply because, in their respective social roles in the game, the DM and players both have _absolute rights_.

Despite your repetition, bemoaning "Forcing players to play something they don't want to, simply because you happen not to like the choices they want", this type of "force" is, AFAICT, _*imposssible*_ (short of abducting/enslaving your players), so likewise is the abuse of DMing authority you seem so worried about.


RC


----------



## wally (Aug 25, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Do you honestly feel the only way to achieve a particular objective is through threats or ultimatums?
> 
> This again seems alien to me. An example from one of my longest running campaigns after a play'er character had died. It was an "epic story" style campaign so we rarely if ever brought people back from the dead the player was makign a new character.
> 
> ...




Just wondering if you can give an example where you guys didn't agree and neither would bend.  How did you solve?

-wally


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

racoffin said:


> Or at least the DM could paint the better reason over his personal opinion. "They don't fit my world" for example. That is assuming that you need to put another reason up. With my group, if we mentioned tinker gnomes my disliking them would probably be the most polite thing said at the table.
> 
> In any case, that seems to be what it is boiling down to: the reason given. As long as the DM gives a "good" reason, everyone is happy and he isn't a tyrannical jerk.






Hussar said:


> Pretty much.  Like I said, I can live with pretty much any other reason.




So am I to understand that now "Sorry, no dragonborn.  They don't fit in my world" is suddenly good enough for you?!?!?!  Because, I could swear we went through _*pages*_ where it was not.


----------



## garyh (Aug 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> What it does is raise the question why you believe that a player playing an alien, a Teletubby, or a character from the BOEF is being an asshat, but one playing a dragonborn is not.
> 
> /snip/
> 
> Because, ultimately, the only difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character and the dragonborn is that you happen to like the dragonborn, while some others might think that the dragonborn is no different than the Teletubby.  And that seems to be the bit you're missing.  For some folks, if the game has dragonborn, it might as well have Teletubbies.




The difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character, and the dragonborn is that the dragonborn are in the Player's Handbook (#1 even!).  There's an implicit assumption most players make that core stuff will be included in a game that is roughly "normal" D&D.  If someone's running a Conan / underwater / Wheel of Time game, then the player would be silly to insist on a dragonborn.  But if it's Bob's Homebrew #12,984 - Standard D&D World (But no Dragonborn 'cuz Bob hates 'em!), then a player who was excited to play a Dragonborn when flipping through the PHB has a right to be disappointed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

Oh, one final thing to consider, Hussar.

Imagine that I have (as a group) Fred, Wilma, Barney, and Betty.  Now I know that Fred is a loudmouth, and often gets his way.  He loves the Dinoborn.  However, I also know that Wilma, Barney, and Betty would occasionally like a game without Dinoborn.  So, I set up a game without Dinoborn, and I tell Fred that, for this game, he will have to play something else.

And, most emphatically, I am not going to say that it's because of Wilma, Barney, and Betty, because that would make Fred round on them and browbeat them into the game he wants.  It would remove my ability to shift the focus from Fred's preferences _for just this campaign_.

And Fred might argue that I am being a tyrannical jerk.

Might I suggest, however, that most people recognize that Betty, Wilma, Barney, and I are being extremely tolerant of Fred and his need to always play Dinoborn.  Indeed, if Wilma wasn't married to Fred, and Barney and Betty were not such close friends with him, we would all be telling him to hit the road.


RC


_*No Flintstones were actually harmed in the composing of this message.*_


----------



## Mallus (Aug 25, 2008)

Now that I have some time for this thread... 



Fenes said:


> Yes, and one thing in cooperative world building is how to handle things that are a game breaker for one player.



The trick is not to consider something as a game breaker, outside disliking the actual people you'd be gaming with. But more on this in a minute...  



> Or in other words: Is the DM allowed to walk away from such a game if it has things in it he absolutely doesn't like, or is that right to walk away reserved for players?



This is why I don't like talking about 'rights'. If you're not enjoying yourself and compromise is impossible, find a gracious way to exit the situation. That's all that needs to be said. 



> And does one have to justify such dislikes, or is everyone allowed to have fun their way?



Here's the thing: people can have fun 'their way' in a group of people having fun in different ways. It's simple a question of respecting each others preferences. 

This relates back to my remark about game breakers (I wasn't being facile). I use the term 'game breaker' to denote a mechanical aspect of the game that the DM can't handle, a mechanical impediment to smooth play. As a player, I'm not going to ask a DM to include something that makes the game hard for him to run. As a DM, if I really have a problem with some ability or element, then I voice my concerns and we all work out a solution. Everyone at my table understands that maintaining game balance (and ease-of-play) is a joint responsibility that we all share in. I've had players volunteer to give up class abilities and spells... just to make my job easier (and coincidentally, I haven't had to take them up on it --with the exception of one Atlatl Jones...). 

Now as a player, I don't have any 'game breakers'. Sure, I have preferences, likes and dislikes, but I accept that different people get different things out of the game. They play in different ways. They're _idiosyncratic_, to say the least. So I try to respect those differences, and not hang my own personal enjoyment of the game on everyone else playing in the same manner, in accordance with the same aesthetic as I do. 

I've found that gaming with people who have different perspectives, likes, skills, quirks et al has been rewarding. Besides, with a player base that can charitably described as 'not adding new members at a brisk pace' and uncharitably as 'dwindling', the ability the game with people who don't precisely match your tastes is a skill worth cultivating.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

garyh said:


> The difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character, and the dragonborn is that the dragonborn are in the Player's Handbook (#1 even!).  There's an implicit assumption most players make that core stuff will be included in a game that is roughly "normal" D&D.





Ah, but when we were told that the Dragonborn were coming, and quite a few folks expressed a distaste for that race, weren't they told that they could simply ignore it?

Now they cannot?

Simply put, if Fred cannot play a Dinoborn in Mr. Slate's game, he has a right to feel disappointed.  But that doesn't mean that he has a right to try to ruin Mr. Slate's game, to pelt Mr. Slate with (stone) dice, or to try to force Mr. Slate to allow Dinoborn.  He has the right to accept it, or to not accept it.  Should he choose not to accept it, there is a very good chance that he will not be playing in Mr. Slate's game.  He has an absolute right to seek out (or create) a game with Dinoborn.  Since, as you say, they are in the core Dungeonstones & Dinosaurs rulebook (just trying to keep with my Flintstones theme), he shouldn't really have that big of a problem doing so.



RC


----------



## Mallus (Aug 25, 2008)

garyh said:


> There's an implicit assumption most players make that core stuff will be included in a game that is roughly "normal" D&D.



Is there? The gamers I've met IRL seem to share the implicit assumption that "normal" D&D doesn't really exist, and are quite amenable to all sorts of oddball campaigns. In other words, abnormal is the norm.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

Mallus said:


> As a player, I'm not going to ask a DM to include something that makes the game hard for him to run. As a DM, if I really have a problem with some ability or element, then I voice my concerns and work out a solution. Everyone at my table understands that maintaining game balance (and ease-of-play) is a joint responsibility that we all share in.





Mallus,

In a table where everyone assumes responsibility, the ability of the DM to say "No" is never in question.  As a result, the need to do so seldom (if ever) arises.  And gaming in such a group is, IME, both the norm, and a much better experience than otherwise.

There seem to be some who, when their claims that (A) a DM who says No is a tyrannical jerkwad who should be pelted with dice is refuted, are unable to see a middle ground between that statement and saying that (B) the DM should never compromise, even where doing so doesn't damage the game (in his opinion).  

If a person only sees A or B as the possible positions to take, that disagreeing that a DM who says No is a tyrannical jerkwad who should be pelted with dice means "You've handed all authority to the DM....The DM simply says, "no" and that's the end of it according to you", it is unlikely that person will be satisfied by any "compromise" wherein the answer is still No.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 25, 2008)

Since it sounds like everyone is talking past each other now, how about this:

Is it appropriate for a player to expect a DM/GM to help him to fit a character into the world, with the understanding that some degree of compromise to make that fit happen will be necessary?


----------



## Fenes (Aug 25, 2008)

Jackelope King said:


> Since it sounds like everyone is talking past each other now, how about this:
> 
> Is it appropriate for a player to expect a DM/GM to help him to fit a character into the world, with the understanding that some degree of compromise to make that fit happen will be necessary?




Of course it is. The main problem in this thread is that some people accept some reasons for a veto - "no BoEF" - but not "no, I hate this".


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 25, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Of course it is. The main problem in this thread is that some people accept some reasons for a veto - "no BoEF" - but not "no, I hate this".



I think that's where the confusion lies. You agree that there should be some back-and-forth and discussion to determine what is appropriate and to try to make what might seem at first blush to be inappropriate. When it's determined that something just can't be made to fit after this work, that's not really a veto (which is understood in common parlance to be a little more unilateral).

EDIT: To use Hussar's lexicon, a player who won't engage the DM and be willing to compromise would be labeled an "asshat", and should "be pelted with dice". The question is whether a DM can be similarly labeled and assaulted for refusing to engage the player and compromise, or at least try to help the player figure out a way to make a character work for everyone.


----------



## wally (Aug 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> "no, my imagination is better than yours"?




I think this quote is totally yours.  Please correct me if someone else claimed that their imagination is better, as I haven't seen it.

I think what people are saying is that as a DM, they are the ones either creating a world or using a pre-published world, but they are the ones running that world for the characters to adventure in. To do so, they need to set certain boundaries for themselves and for their players, whether those boundaries have long drawn-out reasons, or not aren't really a big concern.  They need to do this to allow for a more consistent and easier run game.  This isn't claiming that they have a better imagination or not, just that within their mindset, this is the game they want to run.

Within that criteria, you as a player have the option to play, try to convince the DM to be more open, or just leave.  That statement isn't saying, 'get out if you don't like it,' it is just the options that are available.

Bringing in the imagination argument is a little weird I think.  Have you ever had a DM or other player specifically say that their imagination was actually better than yours?

-wally


----------



## Mercule (Aug 25, 2008)

Jackelope King said:


> Is it appropriate for a player to expect a DM/GM to help him to fit a character into the world, with the understanding that some degree of compromise to make that fit happen will be necessary?



Absolutely.  I even made a comment several pages back about getting a player to try my setting's hobgoblins, rather than dragonborn because of the similar history/niche.

I absolutely love it when players try to work within the framework of a setting, whether it's my home brew, Greyhawk, or Eberron (the latter two being my go-to for lower maintenance games).  IME, though, most players create characters in a bubble, and won't even choose a specific home city, family members, etc.

If the player has no interest in working within a setting (and even the most open setting should have some sort of consistency), then I don't even see a way in which I could work with the player.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 25, 2008)

Mercule said:


> I absolutely love it when players try to work within the framework of a setting, whether it's my home brew, Greyhawk, or Eberron (the latter two being my go-to for lower maintenance games).



And I'm approaching this from the other side. What I've discovered (somewhat) recently is the joy of expanding the setting framework when presented with a character that doesn't fit inside it. 



> ...and even the most open setting should have some sort of consistency...



The other thing I've discovered is there are ways of maintaining distinctiveness and consistency even when you throw the doors fairly wide open. It becomes a matter of choosing the right organizing motif/theme.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 25, 2008)

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that everyone posting here plays the same in practice.

I think most of the arguments are just made against parodies of the "other side's" views or else theoretical things which haven't come up.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

Here's another way of looking at it:

If a player in the group finds something so objectionable in the group that he cannot play in the proposed game, he is free to not play in the proposed game.  So long as the player doesn't attempt to destroy the game for others, or attempt to force them to play as he likes, it's all good.  He may be able to find a game that is almost exactly the same, but without the objectionable elements, and that would be great.

In face, I believe that Hussar said that if the DM was behaving in a way he felt appropriate to the game, that he would not play in that game.  (I paraphrase.)

It therefore follows that, if the player in the group who finds something so objectionable in the group that he cannot play in the proposed game happens to be the DM of that proposed game, he can choose not to DM that game.  He may choose, should he have players, to run a game that is almost exactly the same, but without the objectionable elements, and that would be great.

The problem that arises is the idea that the DM choosing not to run a particular game is considered an "attempt to destroy the game for others, or an attempt to force them to play as he likes."  So far, correct?

Because, if it is correct, that offers a premise that can be rationally examined.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 25, 2008)

Obryn said:


> The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that everyone posting here plays the same in practice.
> 
> I think most of the arguments are just made against parodies of the "other side's" views or else theoretical things which haven't come up.
> 
> -O





I guarantee you that I can say "No dragonborn" without being laughed off the table, so there is probably some variance.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 25, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Is there? The gamers I've met IRL seem to share the implicit assumption that "normal" D&D doesn't really exist, and are quite amenable to all sorts of oddball campaigns. In other words, abnormal is the norm.




I remember when the Darksun and Ravenloft campaign settings were released and some people complaining that they were not DND, because they were not quasi-medieval settings.   The Darksun setting doesn't even include gnomes or paladins and both settings altered various   DND elements from the PHB


----------



## Mallus (Aug 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In a table where everyone assumes responsibility, the ability of the DM to say "No" is never in question.  As a result, the need to do so seldom (if ever) arises.



Sure. In my campaign I have absolute authority that I never use, which is great.

I probably should have been clearer up front about this: my advice to _players_ would be work with the DM and accept when they no. My advice to _DM's_  --which is what I've tried to offer in this thread-- however, is not to say no.


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 25, 2008)

Obryn said:


> The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that everyone posting here plays the same in practice.
> 
> I think most of the arguments are just made against parodies of the "other side's" views or else theoretical things which haven't come up.
> 
> -O



That's what I was trying to get at with this post, Obryn.


Jackelope King said:


> Since it sounds like everyone is talking past each other now, how about this:
> 
> Is it appropriate for a player to expect a DM/GM to help him to fit a character into the world, with the understanding that some degree of compromise to make that fit happen will be necessary?


----------



## Obryn (Aug 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I guarantee you that I can say "No dragonborn" without being laughed off the table, so there is probably some variance.



Again, that's a parody.

If a player suggested a Dragonborn character, you'd work with them to try and find something similar (either thematically or mechanically) that works for both of you, right?  Say, "I don't have those.  How about a lizard-man?" or something like that?

Because really, that's what everyone is actually saying.

-O


----------



## CountPopeula (Aug 25, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Again, that's a parody.
> 
> If a player suggested a Dragonborn character, you'd work with them to try and find something similar (either thematically or mechanically) that works for both of you, right?  Say, "I don't have those.  How about a lizard-man?" or something like that?
> 
> ...




I agree here, I think, in a way, both sides have made it seem like the DM is sitting there, in his cape, taking the advice he read in his hackmaster's guide to heart, being a jerkweed. I don't know if that this has ever happened.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 25, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Again, that's a parody.
> 
> If a player suggested a Dragonborn character, you'd work with them to try and find something similar (either thematically or mechanically) that works for both of you, right?  Say, "I don't have those.  How about a lizard-man?" or something like that?
> 
> ...




No. Some say that the players has the right to play a Dragonborn, if the DM is just banning dragonborn because he hates them, but is allowing half-dragon lizardfolk.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 25, 2008)

Fenes said:


> No. Some say that the players has the right to play a Dragonborn, if the DM is just banning dragonborn because he hates them, but is allowing half-dragon lizardfolk.



OK.  Want to point me at a post that specifically says this?

-O


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

Obryn said:


> OK.  Want to point me at a post that specifically says this?
> 
> -O




There are lots of posts that state that if the DM bans something just because he dislikes it he is being a jerk. You cannot have missed them. And they kept coming up after countless examples of how one would try to work with players first to handle things.

I'd point you at them, but I ignore the poster since this thread.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 26, 2008)

Obryn said:


> OK.  Want to point me at a post that specifically says this?



Just about every post by Hussar and Cadfan in this thread?  They both say repeatedly that "personal taste" isn't a valid reason for excluding some element from games.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I would also point out that 4e has not actually lost any races, other than half orc, which is truly a mythologically void race,



Half-orcs, like a lot of early D&D bits, originated with Tolkien.  Where are fire-breathing humanoid reptiles that are fully integrated into human society from?

(I say this with no particular animus towards Dragonborn)


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

Jackelope King said:


> I think that's where the confusion lies. You agree that there should be some back-and-forth and discussion to determine what is appropriate and to try to make what might seem at first blush to be inappropriate. When it's determined that something just can't be made to fit after this work, that's not really a veto (which is understood in common parlance to be a little more unilateral).
> 
> EDIT: To use Hussar's lexicon, a player who won't engage the DM and be willing to compromise would be labeled an "asshat", and should "be pelted with dice". The question is whether a DM can be similarly labeled and assaulted for refusing to engage the player and compromise, or at least try to help the player figure out a way to make a character work for everyone.




Bingo.  This is precisely the argument I'm making.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> The problem that arises is the idea that the DM choosing not to run a particular game is considered an "attempt to destroy the game for others, or an attempt to force them to play as he likes." So far, correct?
> 
> Because, if it is correct, that offers a premise that can be rationally examined.




No.  That is not the premise.  You are offering additional elements.  "The DM choosing not to run a particular game" is not what I'm discussing.  I'm discussing, Does the DM have the right to enforce his personal preferences over the preferences of a player or players, regardless of reason?

I don't think so.  I think there are numerous perfectly legitimate reasons for saying no, but, "I don't like it" is not one of them.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> Half-orcs, like a lot of early D&D bits, originated with Tolkien. Where are fire-breathing humanoid reptiles that are fully integrated into human society from?
> 
> (I say this with no particular animus towards Dragonborn)




True.  But, appearing in Lord of the Rings does not make you mythological.  

Are you saying a race descended from dragons, an ancient empire fallen into ashes, has no mythological resonances?

Again, just to reiterate.  My only, single issue, is when the DM has decided that his preferences trump the players, when no other issue is on the table.  When it simply comes down to "I like it" vs "I don't like it", I think "I like it" should win, regardless  of which side of the screen people sit on.

RC - In the discussion about warforged ninja, I came up with a perfectly reasonable backstory that fit into the setting - the warforged was actually a construct designed to pilot a damaged ship that wandered for years before foundering.  Over the years of wandering it gained a small sense of sentience and becomes the PC.  ((The story I wrote in that thread was longer  ))  How is that breaking POTC genre?  

Wally - When a DM has decided that his preferences trump the players, how is that not declaring "my imagination is better than yours"?  When the DM has unilaterally, without any recourse, decided that no matter what, something that he personally cannot or will not envisage or imagine will exist in his campaign, he has expressly declared that his imagination trumps all.  That's the same as declaring "My imagination is better than yours" IMO.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I probably should have been clearer up front about this: my advice to players would be work with the DM and accept when they no. My advice to DM's --which is what I've tried to offer in this thread-- however, is not to say no.




Quoted for troothiness.  This is precisely what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> So am I to understand that now "Sorry, no dragonborn.  They don't fit in my world" is suddenly good enough for you?!?!?!  Because, I could swear we went through _*pages*_ where it was not.




Point to the quote please.

I've repeated myself so many times in this thread.  It simply stuns me that people insist on attributing stances that I have not taken.  I've taken to reiterating my position with every post in the hopes that some people will get it.  Apparently its started to work.  Just not well enough.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

In case anyone thinks I don't practise what I preach, here's a little anecdote.

I don't like elves.  Never have.  I strongly dislike the idea that a quasi-imortal race runs around with much shorter lived races and never sits back and takes a break.  But, my dislike of elves pales before my loathing of ninjas.  My hat of ninja no no limit.    I really, really don't like ninjas.

So, when one of my players approached me with a character concept of elf ninja, I was less than impressed to say the least.  I tried cajoling him into choosing another race/class, but, he was adamant that this was the concept that he wanted to play.  He really liked the idea.  So, I sat back and looked at my campaign, which was fairly open ended at the time and I couldn't really think of any particular reason why an elf ninja couldn't exist in the setting.  Nor was there any compelling mechanical reason for banning the character.

So, I caved.  I let him have the PC.  And he had a great time with it.  

Apparently, according to some in this thread, I made the wrong decision.


----------



## Imp (Aug 26, 2008)

Well it can't be the wrong decision if you're okay with it!

But neither would it have been wrong for another DM to disallow the choice, especially if the DM's preferences on the matter were well known. It could be wrong for the DM to be a jerk about it but that is a separate layer to the issue.

Though it is pretty easy to reflavor a 3e "elf ninja" as "vicious trickster with magic in his veins" – a lot of the ki stuff can be cast as faerie (or not-faerie) magic. I think that'd be my angle, assuming I had a thing against elves (pretty sick of 'em) or ninjas (they're ok).


----------



## Voadam (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> In case anyone thinks I don't practise what I preach, here's a little anecdote.
> 
> I don't like elves.  Never have.  I strongly dislike the idea that a quasi-imortal race runs around with much shorter lived races and never sits back and takes a break.  But, my dislike of elves pales before my loathing of ninjas.  My hat of ninja no no limit.    I really, really don't like ninjas.
> 
> ...




I don't think you made a wrong decision. I think you were morally free to choose to cave and allow something you disliked. I also believe however you were morally free to choose not to allow it.

As I said before "I don't like X" seems a self evidently valid reason to exclude elements from a game. Its not a moral obligation to do so though.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 26, 2008)

Spatula said:


> Just about every post by Hussar and Cadfan in this thread?  They both say repeatedly that "personal taste" isn't a valid reason for excluding some element from games.



You must be reading them way differently than I am.

I agree that both are saying "It's banned because I don't like that" is a _crummy_ reason.  Which is way different than saying "The DM can't do that."

-O


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 26, 2008)

> Apparently, according to some in this thread, I made the wrong decision.



Only if you had very strong reasons- including simple deep loathing of elves and/or ninjas- not to allow the elf ninja.  You said that you couldn't find a reason why not to allow the PC, so apparently your dislike of elves and/or ninjas wasn't quite deep enough to disallow the PC.

Personally, I like to play "monster" races.  Almost none of my DMs allow them to be run- "PHB races only" is a common stricture, as is a similar bar on character classes.  IME, I've even been in several campaigns in which Monks or Paladins have been banned (though never _both_).  Sometimes the spellcasters get axed.

None of this bugs me.

I have a lot of PC concepts floating around- I find out what the campaign strictures are, then I adapt.  I may try to convince the DM to bend, but if he doesn't, I'm not going off in a snit.  I simply change my PC concepts and play.

Think of it like Jeet Kune Do for roleplaying...


> Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.- _Bruce Lee_




Why did the DM ban X or Y or Z?  Who knows.  It doesn't really matter- it is part of his delineation of the campaign world.

If you actually operate within those strictures- being like water- you may actually find yourself having a good time and tapping new depths of creativity.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> True.  But, appearing in Lord of the Rings does not make you mythological.



Myths have to start somewhere. 



Hussar said:


> Are you saying a race descended from dragons, an ancient empire fallen into ashes, has no mythological resonances?



The complaint against dragonborn specifically comes mostly from old-school players who don't like the idea of monstrous races walking around fully integrated into "normal" society.  It has nothing to do with dragon men or ancient empires.  Fenes, for example, has repeatedly said that he has draconic reptile men in his homebrew, but he would ban dragonborn as they are presented in the PHB.

Monstrous races that aren't monsters goes against the preferred genre of fantasy for some - which, again, is why the "any reason is ok, other than taste" argument makes zero sense.  People play around in particular genres because those genres align with their personal tastes.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Apparently, according to some in this thread, I made the wrong decision.



The whole travesty of this thread is people thinking there are objectively right or wrong decisions when it comes to individual groups and individual tastes.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 26, 2008)

Spatula said:


> The complaint against dragonborn specifically comes mostly from old-school players who don't like the idea of monstrous races walking around fully integrated into "normal" society.



Yeah, because it's not like 1e had rules for half-orc or drow or duergar PCs.... oh wait!


----------



## wally (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Wally - When a DM has decided that his preferences trump the players, how is that not declaring "my imagination is better than yours"?  When the DM has unilaterally, without any recourse, decided that no matter what, something that he personally cannot or will not envisage or imagine will exist in his campaign, he has expressly declared that his imagination trumps all.  That's the same as declaring "My imagination is better than yours" IMO.




Couldn't you actually say that if they can't tolerate something due to their not liking it and not wanting to incorporate it as saying that their imagination isn't as good as yours as they aren't willing to try and see how it would work?

Not that I really buy any of that.  I don't think that anyone is claiming superior imagination.  That is like saying that I like x food, and since you don't therefore my taste in food is superior.  (just to go back to someone else's food metaphors)

I think all that is being said is that if I am running a game of my design, or taste, then I should be able to decide what is available or not.

It also seems like you previously stated that if someone had a reason other than 'I don't like it,' you wouldn't care.  How about everytime you ask someone for a reason you tell them to lie as you don't want to know if it is due to personal preference?

-wally


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 26, 2008)

Or to continue the food metaphor and put it a different way...

If I'm hosting a dinner party at the Pasand Indian Restaurant*, you can come if you want to enjoy that with me, but don't complain that beef isn't on the menu.  If you don't want to show up because they don't serve beef, so be it, but don't ruin the experience for others.  Maybe next time I host a dinner, I'll have it at a Brazillian churrascaria and you can gorge on beef and drown yourself in Caphirinas.

When YOU decide to host a dinner party, YOU get to choose the location and menu.  Then YOU get to decide how much you want to accommodate everyone's dietary restrictions: no pork for Muslims and Jews (especially those who keep halal or kosher...er...religiously), meatless for the Vegans, low-salt for the hypertensives, low-sugar for the diabetics, macrobiotic, Atkins, etc.

*several locations in the Dallas/FW Metroplex...all good, baby!


----------



## Spatula (Aug 26, 2008)

Ourph said:


> Yeah, because it's not like 1e had rules for half-orc or drow or duergar PCs.... oh wait!



In 1e AD&D (and LotR) half-orcs were depicted as looking like ugly humans.  "...some one-tenth of orc-human mongrels are sufficiently non-orcish to pass for human.  ...it is assumed that player characters which are of half-orc race are within the superior 10%..."

Duergar and drow aren't monstrous - they look just like dwarves & elves with different colorations (+baldness for the stunties) - and aren't able to operate openly in normal society, in any case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I've repeated myself so many times in this thread.  It simply stuns me that people insist on attributing stances that I have not taken.  I've taken to reiterating my position with every post in the hopes that some people will get it.  Apparently its started to work.  Just not well enough.





Poor, poor Hussar.  So misunderstood.  Clearly, if the DM says, "Sorry, Hussar, there are no dragonborn in this world" that would be good enough for him.  My error.  Because _*I do*_ see you saying repeatedly that you accept reasons that something might not be allowed in a game.  Vampires in mech games.  Teletubbies in the Forgotten Realms.  You are even willing to say that it's okay if it violates genre conventions.

But "There are no dragonborn in this world" is not one of the things you've agreed is okay, anywhere I can see, unless the world is underwater and they couldn't breathe.

And, see, I have a hard time understanding how a DM can ban a PC race without it being automatically true that they either are not in the world, or that they are in the world in such a way that they can be PCs.  It would be rather odd for a DM to ban (say) dragonborn as PCs because he cannot stand them, yet have every third NPC be a dragonborn.

So I question the intellectual honesty of saying "It's okay for the DM to make a world without dragonborn, because he hates them, and ban dragonborn because they are not in the world", but at the same time say, "It's not okay for the DM to ban dragonborn because he hates them" even though the implication of that banning is (very, very, very strongly) that there are no dragonborn in the world.

The "logic" seems.....rather wishy-washy to me.  At best.

And I guess some things you said just sorta led me astray.  For example, from post #262:

Me: Hey guys, this DM has his sphincter in such a knot about his "vision of the world" that he won't even try to meet me half way despite the fact that I've come up with a plausible explanation about my character. If he's that tight assed about this, imagine what his adventures are going to be like. **Choo Choo!** Let's let him/her go write that fanfic that he's really trying to rope you into and I'll run a game where you get to play the characters you more or less want to play, within reasonable limits set by the parameters of the game and not my personal "artistic vision".​
although I'd swear that the presence or absence of a racial choice has something to do with the way that the world is envisioned by the DM.  And it seems to be the DM's "vision of the world" that you are upset about here.

And I guess post 292 sort of makes me wonder how you can say that you accept the DM saying "There are no dragonborn in this world":

Yes, it's perfectly clear. You think your fun is more important than your player's. Since you are the one banning the element, not the player. You are the one who has decided unilaterally that your imagination is better than your player's imagination and that if the player plays something you don't like, your fun would be less, therefore, he cannot possibly play it. Anything which lessens your fun is bad. It doesn't matter that your decision has lessened his fun after all. His fun is irrelavent. The only important thing here is that you are having fun.​
Because there, indeed, we are talking about an element being banned from the game.  And being banned from the game means to not exist in the game.  And it is rather difficult to understand how it is not okay for an element to not exist in a game, save that the DM says that it does not exist in the game because it does not exist in the world.

See, this sort of thing confuses me.  I have a hard time understanding your response, especially when you are talking to Fenes, who has stated that his world has no dragonborn.  Which is, apparently, okay, as long as he has said so.  Which he has.......so.......

See.  Now I feel like a computer having to talk to Captain Kirk.  The next sentence is true.  The last sentence was a lie.

Because I get that, time and again, you are saying that you only have a problem with banning elements when it is an issue of personal taste.  But, isn't "There are no dragonborn in this world" a matter of personal taste?  You seem to think so, in post 312:

My only beef is with the idea that the DM's prerogative of creating setting extends to enforcing his personal tastes over the wishes of the players. If the DM bans something and no one cares, well, who cares? But, if the player, who I'm assuming is not being an asshat for the purposes of this discussion, honestly wants to play X because he likes X and can do a good job of playing X and will not abuse the rules and is doing so simply because he likes X, then why does the DM have the right to say "no, my imagination is better than yours"?​
Because here, you are talking about the DM banning something as part of "creating setting".  Isn't "No dragonborn in this world" part of creating setting?

Hey, how about Fenes again?  He has said that he has a world with no dragonborn, and given you specific reasons why it is genre-breaking for him.  If you say that simply saying "There are no dragonborn in this world" is good enough, you must be okay with that, right?  Post 317 has the answer:

It's when the DM, like Fenes here, says, "Well, I cannot envisage a society which accepts people with scales, therefore, nothing you the players can say can change my mind and you WILL NOT play this race. If you want to play that race, play in a different game (Ie, get out of my game)."

He has unilaterally decided that his enjoyment of the game hinges on this one single factor and anyone else's enjoyment is secondary. If someone plays a dragonborn, it will make the game less fun for him, therefore, no one shall play a dragonborn.

No matter what.

And people are patting him on the back for it.

That's what absolutely blows my mind about this. He's being 100% unreasonable. No compromise, no attempt to find a middle ground. THOU SHALT NOT PLAY THIS. It doesn't matter if the player tries to come up with a reasonable background, it doesn't matter what the player wants at all. No matter what, no one can play this in his game. For no other reason than he doesn't like it.​
Heck, in post 346 you give an example of your reaction specifically to a world without dragonborn:

Player: I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
DM: Oh man, I hate that crap. No, not in my game.
Player: Well, I really like them. I like the idea of them. I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with? Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world. He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner. He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home. Hrm. Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly? That might work.
DM: No way. You absolutely cannot play a dragonborn no matter what. It's my game and if you don't like it, there's the door. 

Now, me, I'd be out the door. Any DM who had his sphincter that puckered about something like this would be one I'd never want to play with.​
And this stuff confuses me, because one side of your mouth is saying one thing, and the other side seems to be saying something completely different.

And the funny thing about that "Naval campaign" conversation you mention in post 352 is that, when I suggested that the DM was within his rights to disallow a warforged ninja in a Pirates of the Carribean game _because it did not fit the genre/setting_, you argued that this was not a good enough reason.  In fact, here you characterize my position as 

The DM is infallible. His tastes trump all, 100% of the time, players be damned.​
So, again, this confuses me.  I am not sure who you are being dishonest with.  Me?  Yourself?  One of us, certainly.  Or so it seems to me with my admittedly feeble grasp of language and logic.  Certainly there is something here where 2+2 is not adding up to equal 4.

But, then again, this thread is littered with posts by several folks pointing out the same thing to you, and being blithely ignored.



Hussar said:


> Apparently, according to some in this thread, I made the wrong decision.




Can you explain to me how you jump to this conclusion?

How does "The DM can, and sometimes should, say No" mean that the DM cannot say Yes?!?!?!

Or is this simply more "Woes!" like the "Woes!  The mean DM said I can't play a dragonborn in his game!"?!?!



RC


----------



## rounser (Aug 26, 2008)

> The complaint against dragonborn specifically comes mostly from old-school players who don't like the idea of monstrous races walking around fully integrated into "normal" society.



That's one justification.  Another is that the concept is lame, the artwork is ugly, and the name sounds contrived.  They shouldn't be in the core.  But wait, we have a tide of...questionable flavour material...entering the core on the horizon, like goliaths.  

Can you see where the wyrm is turning?  Splatbook crap is now THE GAME, not just an optional part of it with the core as a safe haven.  And people with opinions like Hussar's are not an accident - because it's core and in the artwork there's a sense of entitlement to this tidal wave of lame.  Abandon ship.


----------



## SableWyvern (Aug 26, 2008)

I don't understand why this is so controversial.

As a DM, I'm entitled to run or not run anything I want in any fashion I want (within the law). The players that are part of the group are entitled to play or not play whatever it is that I ultimately decide to run.

Somewhere in all that, if there is to be a game, everyone needs to find some common ground. As a DM, I need to decide how much leeway I'm willing to give any individual player before I'm no longer running a game I'm happy with.* The players need to decide if the options available to them allow them to play a character they're happy with in a setting and style they'll enjoy.

However, there's no objective point where any particular option or lack thereof becomes too restrictive or too open. Where the line rests will vary from group to group, game to game and player to player.

*Edit: Even if this decision is arrived at by group consensus, the GM still needs to be happy with the ultimate outcome. I don't know why any GM would agree to run a game if he's not comfortable with the style or rules, and if the group agrees to play something he doesn't want to run, then he would be better of stepping aside so that someone more comfortable with the concept can run it. If the group expects the GM to run it anyway, then what we have is arrogant player entitlement. At the very least, if the GM agrees to run such a game, the rest of the group should recognise and appreciate that the GM is generously and selflessly going the extra mile and deciding to limit his fun for the sake of the others.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2008)

rounser said:


> Can you see where the wyrm is turning?  Splatbook crap is now THE GAME, not just an optional part of it with the core as a safe haven.  And people with opinions like Hussar's are not an accident - because it's core and in the artwork there's a sense of entitlement to this tidal wave of lame.  Abandon ship.



I don't fully follow this. Unless you are talking about playing in offical contexts - RPGA, tournaments etc - then THE GAME is whatever the gaming group agrees to play. WoTC, simply by placing a logo saying "core" on a rulebook, can't force a group to agree to use that material. If all the group agree that it is lame, then presumably they won't use it. If one person likes it and another does it, then negotiation and compromise ensue.

In any event, as far as I can see, the only remedy for the sense of "entitlement" that you decry appears to be WoTC to not produce new material. Unfortunately, that's kind of their raison d'etre.


----------



## rounser (Aug 26, 2008)

> In any event, as far as I can see, the only remedy for the sense of "entitlement" that you decry appears to be WoTC to not produce new material. Unfortunately, that's kind of their raison d'etre.



No.  All they had to do was to keep the core game core, and keep their hexblade warforged dire flail specialists in some splatbook that can be easily ignored.  Unfortunately they've gotten greedy, and the experimental splat is mixed up with classic mythological stuff, so they can sell more books.  Unfortunately, they're taking down D&D's implied setting with this maneuver.  It'll be wombat stew (children's book about a stew where everything from old boots to hair and toenail clippings go in the stew alongside real food).


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 26, 2008)

Gak!  It's 1:50 a.m. here and you lot are still typing faster than I can read! 

A few random notes:

 - I as DM am not necessarily saying "my imagination is better than yours", but what I *am* saying is "better, worse, or the same, it's my imagination that came up with this world and that's what this game is going with".

 - Believe it or not, I actually had a player who wanted to play a Jedi in my based-on-FR Riveria game.  I said no; Jedi don't exist in this setting, and then watched with some amazement as she managed over time to almost build one anyway: spec. Fighter with glowing sword, used a wish to become psyonic (and was almost there anyway; would have got it naturally with one more level), then rolled ridiculously high on the ability charts.  Bingo!  As close to a Jedi as you could ever hope for.  Problem was, the Jedi she was trying to match was Episode-3 Anakin, meaning the character was well on his way to bat-guano evilness...

 - A few years prior, this same player wanted to play a vampire and presented a lengthy and compelling case for such.  I said no, both for power reasons (at then-party-levels a vampire as opponent would have had a field day, so I wasn't about to allow one as a PC) and for practicality reasons (the party would have had to become completely nocturnal as vampires don't function very well in the daylight).

 - "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for a DM to ban something, regardless how it's presented.  If I ever run 4e the first things to go will be Dragonborn and Tieflings, replaced with Hobbits and Part-Orcs...and while I can easily enough couch it in terms of setting, the real reason is simple personal preference; I don't like half-dragons and half-demons in earlier editions either.  On the flip side, "I do like it" is a perfectly valid reason for a DM to allow something the game or setting otherwise wouldn't have, such as Warforged in the Realms or firearms in Greyhawk.

Players, on the other hand, can't do this...in my game.  They can do what they like in their own game, should they choose to run it....

 - I can understand why things have to be more cut and dried when you're gaming with people you don't otherwise know...but I've been lucky, and never had to be in this situation.  For my current game, I had the wonderful luxury of being able to, out of a fairly large and diverse pool, invite the players I wanted...those who I knew would entertain me and would appreciate my (not always successful) efforts to entertain them in return...and the result so far has been pure gold!  Complete in-game mayhem, mind you, but pure gold!

There'd be more, but it's late and my memory is shutting down for the night... 

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Aug 26, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm not really "critisizing" anyone... I couldn't care less about how they play their games as long as they're happy and their group is happy. I'm just trying to understand what promotes the mindset because it's different from my own. I'm also offering an idea that I have that seems to work well, and has led to some great games.
> 
> That said, the same can be said from the opposite side as well: Without the players there is no game.
> 
> ...




As GM I may not have time to engage in a long discussion and thought process with a player pre-game about why I'm not allowing Dragonborn.  I may just need to say "No Dragonborn" and have them respect my decision.  Now as it happens, having ploughed through this thread I have had lots of time to think about how I could accommodate Dragonborn IMC.  I've come up with:  "They look human, except for their reptilian eyes, oddly pointed teeth, and some have scaly patches of skin.  Mechanically they are by the book".
So a player could now play one without busting up my setting's thematic elements.  But if a player had come to me 20 minutes before the game started with wanting to play a Dragonborn, I wouldn't have had time to think through that.  I've had just had to say "No".  If the player is dead set on playing a dragonborn, I respect their decision to leave.  I wouldn't be happy if they tried to 'gank' the other players, though.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> .  My single, solitary issue is with the idea that the DM has the right to say, "My imagination is better than yours".




Does the GM have the right to say "I prefer my imagination to yours"?  

It's not about whose ideas are objectively better.  It's about the GM's personal preference for the game he wants to run.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

RC - How can you quote so much, spend so much time, and still not get it when everyone else does?

THE ONLY ISSUE AT STAKE FOR ME IS WHEN THE DM'S ONLY REASON FOR BANNING IS HE DOESN'T LIKE IT. 

Is that clear enough.  Hell, in the bits you quote, I actually say that repeatedly.  That you choose to ignore that and argue against things I'm not actually saying leads me to think you are deliberately misconstruing things.

It's funny really.  This is a thread about DM Entitlement.  I suggest (strongly perhaps) that one very small limitation be placed on DM's authority - that DM's should not unilaterally enforce their tastes on the group without any other reasons - and people are crying and gnashing teeth to the point where some have put me on ignore. 

I'd say that DM Entitlement is pretty prevalent around here.  I'm talking about one very minor point.  There are a million reasons to ban stuff from the game.  "I don't like it" all by itself, is not IMO, one of them.

There RC, is that crystal clear enough.  I tried typing slowly and not using any big words.

-----

I have one problem with the food analogies that use restaurants.  When I go to a restaurant, I'm spending what, three hours tops?  When I play a campaign, I'm going to be spending hundreds of hours with this character.  Shouldn't things lean on the player's side when trying to find a character they want to play?

Again, with the proviso, that the ONLY ISSUE IS ONE OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE.  If there are ANY OTHER ISSUES, then I have no problems with the DM banning material.  None.  Zip, zero, zilch.  Nada.  I no way do I advocate limiting DM's authority when he has any other reason than "I don't like it"

((I absolutely hate that I have to repeat this line IN EVERY FREAKING POST, but, apparently I'm not being clear enough.))


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Does the GM have the right to say "I prefer my imagination to yours"?
> 
> It's not about whose ideas are objectively better.  It's about the GM's personal preference for the game he wants to run.




Obviously, for some, only the player has the right to say "my imagination is better than yours".


----------



## SableWyvern (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> that DM's should not unilaterally enforce their tastes on the group




Right. GMs should not be allowed to only run games that suit their tastes. They should run what they're told.

But, how exactly does a GM ever enforce his tastes on anyone in the first place? Which player or group of players are you referring to that are forced to play in a campaign they're not happy with? These poor sods are in the same terrible position as the GMs you expect to run games they're not happy with. I pity them all.

Fortunately, everyone I game with does so voluntarily, not at gunpoint.



> "I don't like it" all by itself, is not IMO, one of them.




If you expect me to have fun and do a good job running a game for you, don't expect me to include stuff I don't like in the game. I might do so, but I reserve the right not to. Just like I'll give you the right not to play a character you won't enjoy. How is that not a reasonable position?


----------



## racoffin (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> It's funny really.  This is a thread about DM Entitlement.  I suggest (strongly perhaps) that one very small limitation be placed on DM's authority - that DM's should not unilaterally enforce their tastes on the group without any other reasons - and people are crying and gnashing teeth to the point where some have put me on ignore.
> 
> I'd say that DM Entitlement is pretty prevalent around here.  I'm talking about one very minor point.  There are a million reasons to ban stuff from the game.  "I don't like it" all by itself, is not IMO, one of them.
> 
> ...




Yes, you've been more than clear that you do not like it when the DM doesn't give you any other answer than he doesn't care for something as a reason for banning it. Which is sort of interesting, given that your not liking it is the ONLY reason you keep repeating. Don't like it on one side vs. don't like it on another. Hm.

As for the rest, the DM's imagination trumping yours doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to the rest of the game? Because that's what is going on, you know. By being the player instead of the DM, you are letting the guy with more energy, time, experience, or whatever depend on their imagination to create the stories you play in, the world your character breathes in, the rules and house rules in the game.

You have, as you pointed out, repeated over and over again that the only issue is one of personal preference. EVERYTHING the DM bans or allows is one of personal preference. I've repeated this several times myself. You basically want the DM to lie to you, or to create wholesale a good reason for you when in the end it all comes down to the same thing: *The DM doesn't like it.*. You can put as much dressing on that statement as you need to make it go down, but in the end it is what it is.

We're going over old ground. If that is your only reason to have issue with the DM's choice, then I suggest finding a group wherein the DM phrases things in a manner you find palatable. For my group, I don't have to create artificial reasons for things. If that makes me a dictator, an asshat, or a big meanie I'll accept that title.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> RC - How can you quote so much, spend so much time, and still not get it when everyone else does?
> 
> THE ONLY ISSUE AT STAKE FOR ME IS WHEN THE DM'S ONLY REASON FOR BANNING IS HE DOESN'T LIKE IT.
> 
> Is that clear enough.  Hell, in the bits you quote, I actually say that repeatedly.





You sure do.  Much like the bigot who utters racial slurs repeatedly, and then says "But I'm not racist".  When called on it, he says "BUT I SAID I'M NOT RACIST EVERY TIME I USED THOSE WORDS!"

I quoted a lot to point out that the position you claim to represent and what you are actually saying are at odds with each other.  You chose not to answer any of these obvious flaws in your reasoning, of course.  You cannot see that, obviously, but I'm fairly certain that a percentage of "everyone else" can. 

Of course, some of them have already put you on Ignore as a result.  And now, I'm joining them.

Ta.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

racoffin said:


> Yes, you've been more than clear that you do not like it when the DM doesn't give you any other answer than he doesn't care for something as a reason for banning it. Which is sort of interesting, given that your not liking it is the ONLY reason you keep repeating. Don't like it on one side vs. don't like it on another. Hm.




Pretty much, yup.  In this one single situation, I think the player should have authority in the game, not the DM.  That's true.  I'll come back to this below.



> As for the rest, the DM's imagination trumping yours doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to the rest of the game? Because that's what is going on, you know. By being the player instead of the DM, you are letting the guy with more energy, time, experience, or whatever depend on their imagination to create the stories you play in, the world your character breathes in, the rules and house rules in the game.




Yup.  100%.  Because, the rest of the game is not the character that I'm playing for the next couple of hundred hours.  While my investment may not be as great as the DM's, it is hardly inconsequential.  I'm only asking for the player's wishes to be respected in one single instance.  The DM's free to do whatever the heck he wants with the rest of the world.  I would certainly never question that.  I'm only questioning whether his authority extends to trumping the wishes of the player in regards to that player's character.



> You have, as you pointed out, repeated over and over again that the only issue is one of personal preference. EVERYTHING the DM bans or allows is one of personal preference. I've repeated this several times myself. You basically want the DM to lie to you, or to create wholesale a good reason for you when in the end it all comes down to the same thing: *The DM doesn't like it.*. You can put as much dressing on that statement as you need to make it go down, but in the end it is what it is.




Now, the DM could lie.  That's certainly true.  I would hope that he wouldn't, and, as a DM, I certainly wouldn't.  I would hope the DM is honest enough to say, "Look, I don't like this, but, I don't have any concrete objections, other than my personal distaste, so, since you really want it, go ahead."

Sure, he could simply lie.  I don't know about anyone else, but, I don't make lying to my players a habit.



> We're going over old ground. If that is your only reason to have issue with the DM's choice, then I suggest finding a group wherein the DM phrases things in a manner you find palatable. For my group, I don't have to create artificial reasons for things. If that makes me a dictator, an asshat, or a big meanie I'll accept that title.




Again, it's not about making it palatable.  I was assuming everyone was being forthright and honest in the discussion.  

I'll try to boil this down simply.

In the case of a tie, the decision goes to the player.  The only way a tie can occur is if the DM has no other objection to material than his personal preference.

Obviously, many in this thread feel that the tie should go the other way.  That the DM's preferences should trump.  I do not.  I think, in this very specific and limited circumstance, the player should "win".

Is that clear enough?


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 26, 2008)

RC, how about what I posted a page or so ago:


> Is it appropriate for a player to expect a DM/GM to help him to fit a character into the world, with the understanding that some degree of compromise to make that fit happen will be necessary?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 26, 2008)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> RC, how about what I posted a page or so ago:
> 
> 
> 
> > Is it appropriate for a player to expect a DM/GM to help him to fit a character into the world, with the understanding that some degree of compromise to make that fit happen will be necessary?




Slippery question, but if by "expect" you mean that the player assumes an onus on the DM's part to alter the world to make the character fit, then No, it is not.  Of course, neither should the DM expect the player to accept the restrictions on character and play in his game.

It is not wrong to _want_ either of these things, nor is it wrong to _have_ either of these things, but _expecting_ them implies a duty on the part of the other party.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King (Aug 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Slippery question, but if by "expect" you mean that the player assumes an onus on the DM's part to alter the world to make the character fit, then No, it is not.  Of course, neither should the DM expect the player to accept the restrictions on character and play in his game.
> 
> It is not wrong to _want_ either of these things, nor is it wrong to _have_ either of these things, but _expecting_ them implies a duty on the part of the other party.
> 
> ...



By "expect" I mean that the player assumes an onus on the DM's part to help adjust the player's character concept to fit the world, and to a degree (if necessary), make small (non-detrimental) changes to the world that makes the character fit. I've suggested a few times that a player who's attracted to the noble wandering warrior nature of the dragonborn might be satisfied in a world without dragonborn is a similar culture might exist. 

Obviously having such an addition to the DM's planned world is a change, and playing a human with dragonborn stats in a dragonborn-esque culture is a change for the player. But if both parties are happy afterwards (the player gets the culture that he was really interested in, and the DM maintains a humanocentric fell to the world), then it's all the better. Indeed, any time a DM invites players to play a game set in his world, he's already adding elements to the world in the form of the PCs.

I suggest that rather than say that the answer to conflicts of what to include in a game-world _de facto_ default to the DM's opinion, that the DM and the players should, ideally, try to disect the problem and find the areas where they agree, and use that as the foundation for how to include the character. If it can't be done (because either the player or the DM cannot agree on some element or another of the compromise), then it can't be done, and neither party should be "forced" to play a game they wouldn't enjoy. As I've already said, it's all fun and games or it's a waste of time. To promote a good group dynamic, it really is the onus of all players, DM or otherwise, to work together to find a game that works.


----------



## wally (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> In the case of a tie, the decision goes to the player.  The only way a tie can occur is if the DM has no other objection to material than his personal preference.
> 
> Obviously, many in this thread feel that the tie should go the other way.  That the DM's preferences should trump.  I do not.  I think, in this very specific and limited circumstance, the player should "win".
> 
> Is that clear enough?




Okay, you ignored my previous question(s), and I try to keep them simple, but I don't worry as you sort of answered them anyway.

With regard to the above quote, where do you draw the line if you were the DM?  If someone comes up with whatever character concept they want, and they can make it fit in your game, since you are DM, do you allow it, or do you draw the line at some point?  Or do you allow whatever they can come up with as the player should win?

-wally


----------



## La Bete (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I'll try to boil this down simply.
> 
> In the case of a tie, the decision goes to the player.  The only way a tie can occur is if the DM has no other objection to material than his personal preference.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting view. I'm not sure that I agree 100% with this, but it's not completely without merit.

Of course, as others (obryn?) have noted, the examples of this would be vanishingly small - most DMs would say "I don't want dragonborn/elves/furries because they are unbalanced/inappropriate/covered by another race/too foreign/too normal, etc", rather than a virginity/cheetos-flecked rant of "because they SUXXORS and I HATES them!!11!"


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

La Bete said:


> That's an interesting view. I'm not sure that I agree 100% with this, but it's not completely without merit.
> 
> Of course, as others (obryn?) have noted, the examples of this would be vanishingly small - most DMs would say "I don't want dragonborn/elves/furries because they are unbalanced/inappropriate/covered by another race/too foreign/too normal, etc", rather than a virginity/cheetos-flecked rant of "because they SUXXORS and I HATES them!!11!"




As I said - I can handle lizardmen, I can handle halfdragons, or half-dragon lizardmen. But I hate the dragonborn as presented, as a widely accepted civilised race that generally suffers no problem in society.

I can call it genre, I can call it not fitting my world, but mainly I dislike DMing a "Sword & Sorcery" game where society acts like it was Sigil.

I'll offer the aforementioned characters (half-dragon, lizardfolk, half-dragon lizardfolk) if someone absolutely wants to play a dragonborn, and can handle the reactions of most NPCs to a "scaley freak", but I'll not run a game where he can walk around as Dragonborn can in stock D&D.

For some, that makes me a tyrant.


----------



## La Bete (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> But I hate the dragonborn as presented, as a widely accepted civilised race that generally suffers no problem in society.
> 
> I can call it genre, I can call it not fitting my world, but mainly I dislike DMing a "Sword & Sorcery" game where society acts like it was Sigil.




And that strikes me as a perfectly rational explanation. And if I'm reading Hussar right, so does he.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

La Bete said:


> And that strikes me as a perfectly rational explanation. And if I'm reading Hussar right, so does he.




However, it is purely my personal preference for a world without lizards in civilised society. "I do not want to run such a world, and Dragonborn need such a world or they are just lizardfolk with a breath weapon, or scaly wanna-be drows" is no more or less reasonable than "they do not fit my genre/world".

It boils down to "I dislike Dragonborn, and what they stand for in my eyes".


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

wally said:


> Okay, you ignored my previous question(s), and I try to keep them simple, but I don't worry as you sort of answered them anyway.
> 
> With regard to the above quote, where do you draw the line if you were the DM?  If someone comes up with whatever character concept they want, and they can make it fit in your game, since you are DM, do you allow it, or do you draw the line at some point?  Or do you allow whatever they can come up with as the player should win?
> 
> -wally




Apologies for not answering your question.  Not avoiding, just missed it in the scrum.

The point here is, there is no real line to draw.  If I can come up with a fairly decent reason why something shouldn't be in the game (and by decent, I mean one that I can honestly believe and the other person can at least acknowledge, if not agree with - yeah, that's vague, but, it's going to come down to situation and not something I can frame completely) then it's gone.  If, OTOH, I take an honest look at an idea and the only reason I want it gone is because I don't like it, then, IMO, I should back down and allow it.  

In other words, ties go to the player.



La Bete said:


> That's an interesting view. I'm not sure that I agree 100% with this, but it's not completely without merit.
> 
> Of course, as others (obryn?) have noted, the examples of this would be vanishingly small - most DMs would say "I don't want dragonborn/elves/furries because they are unbalanced/inappropriate/covered by another race/too foreign/too normal, etc", rather than a virginity/cheetos-flecked rant of "because they SUXXORS and I HATES them!!11!"




Yes, I do think this is vanishinly small.  It did, however, happen to me, as I pointed out above.  Many people are painting me with a brush that I am trying to strip DM's of all authority and ram my ideas down their throat.  That can't be further from the truth.  I'm talking about a very corner case, one that likely won't happen all that often.

Really, I'm addressing this more to DM's than to players.  You're right, the DM could lie and there'd be nothing you could do about it.  However, if the DM takes an honest look at the element, trying to be as objective as possible, and can't really come up with a compelling reason to ban it, besides "I don't like it", then he should allow it.

Again, IMO.  

For example, someone above (Mallus I believe, too lazy to fight the slow boards tonight to look it up) hates tinker gnomes.  Loathes them.  I wonder though, if the player said, "Ok, how about an gnomish artificer?  I really dig the whole Macgyver thing and I can make all sorts of cool toys using the Artificer mechanics", would he still say no?

Remember, all the way along, I've said that the players and the DM should be willing to compromise and find common ground.  Where I differ from Jackalope King is that when a deadlock occurs, based solely on taste, the nod should go to the player.  

This is why all the ridiculous examples aren't really what I'm talking about.  Yeah, if someone is trying to ram something into the game that breaks genre, for example, and does absolutely nothing to try to make it fit genre, then, sure, he's wrong.  However, if the player makes an honest effort to fit the concept into the setting, and succeeds to a reasonable degree, then the DM should back off.

Honestly, I think the standard wisdom is that in the case of a deadlock, the DM gets the nod.  That's what I'm questioning.  Both sides have made compromises, the concept fits into the setting, it's just that the DM really hates something about that concept.  In other words, it's the DM's personal hang up.  I think that the DM should get over it.  The DM gets to control so much of the world.  Every single element, other than the PC's.  Letting the PC's stake out a claim around their character is not the huge concession that some are painting it to be.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> As I said - I can handle lizardmen, I can handle halfdragons, or half-dragon lizardmen. But I hate the dragonborn as presented, as a widely accepted civilised race that generally suffers no problem in society.
> 
> I can call it genre, I can call it not fitting my world, but mainly I dislike DMing a "Sword & Sorcery" game where society acts like it was Sigil.
> 
> ...




This is different than how I read Fenes before.  ((Since I believe he cannot read this, I'll talk about him in the 3rd person))  It is entirely possible that I misread him and attributed elements that I should not have.  If that's true, then, my bad.  

If the only change he wants to make to Dragonborn is to make them an outcast race in his setting, then, more power to him.  That's not banning the race, that's just changing flavor.  Good grief, there's nothing wrong with that.  Every setting ever changes the flavor of races.  That would completely not be an issue, since he's not actually banning the race.

And, he's even given a reason that I said I found perfectly acceptable - Sword and Sorcery genre.  4e D&D is NOT S&S by default.  He's entirely right.  In a S&S genre game, Dragonborn as written do not fit.  Certainly not as an accepted race by the community at large.

Now, I would also argue that EVERY non-human race would not be accepted by the community at large in S&S genre, but, it's not my game, and I don't care all that much.  

Now, fallen empire reptile men fit perfectly in S&S.  Conan had them in spades.  So, they're a marginalized race with reaction penalties.  

I was under the understanding that he was outright banning them, but, allowing lizard folk with breath weapons.  Kinda wondered what the difference was.  

I think this was entirely my misreading of Fene's point.  Again, very sorry.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> No.  That is not the premise.  You are offering additional elements.  "The DM choosing not to run a particular game" is not what I'm discussing.  I'm discussing, Does the DM have the right to enforce his personal preferences over the preferences of a player or players, regardless of reason?




Yes.

The players can elect to play in the game or not, as their preference dictates.



> _I don't think so.  I think there are numerous perfectly legitimate reasons for saying no, but, "I don't like it" is not one of them._




You are wrong.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Player:  I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
> DM:  Oh man, I hate that crap.  No, not in my game.
> Player:  Well, I really like them.  I like the idea of them.  I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with?  Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world.  He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner.  He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home.  Hrm.  Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly?  That might work.
> DM:  No way.  You absolutely cannot play a dragonborn no matter what.  It's my game and if you don't like it, there's the door.
> ...




Sure, you have every right not to play in the game.

And as DM, I'd say "don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out". If you want a game with dragonborn (or whatever other element you want that the DM doesn't like and wants to exclude), then you take up the role of DM and run the game. Otherwise either play and accept the restictions the DM has imposed, or don't play.

But to claim the DM is being unreasonable here? That's a volume of _player_ entitlement that is staggering in its audacity and obnoxiousness.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I think the standard wisdom is that in the case of a deadlock, the DM gets the nod.  That's what I'm questioning.  Both sides have made compromises, the concept fits into the setting, it's just that the DM really hates something about that concept.  In other words, it's the DM's personal hang up.  I think that the DM should get over it.  The DM gets to control so much of the world.  Every single element, other than the PC's.  Letting the PC's stake out a claim around their character is not the huge concession that some are painting it to be.




I don't really believe in a cut-and-dried "the player should win" or "the DM should win" principle that applies in every case. Though your argument does make sense in the name of player empowerment, it also kind of puts the DM in a position where he's running a game for a character that he doesn't like. That's not a great thing. In the worst-case scenarios, yeah, that means that an unfair DM might have a stake in watching the unwanted player character fail, and start stacking the deck against him. But even in the best-case scenarios, that means the DM is probably not going to be as enthusiastic about providing interesting opportunities, NPCs and challenges customized to your player. 

So for instance, if you love gnomes and your DM hates gnomes, but allows your character anyway, you get to play a gnome. But will you get to interact with NPCs who react to you the way you'd hoped they would? Will they laugh at your gnomish jokes? Will you see another gnome NPC that the DM enjoys playing? Will you see another gnome NPC at all? 

I think RPGs as a whole are best served when both the person running the game and the players are all enthusiastic about the source material. Now, it may be that a player can take a hated concept and be a "breed ambassador," so to speak, convincing everyone else that it's more fun than they thought. But honestly, I think it's better to have characters that your friends enjoy, not just ones they tolerate, in the same sense that it's preferable to have a game that your players enjoy rather than tolerating. Enthusiasm adds so much more to a game for everyone involved. It would be good for the DM to be able to be enthusiastic about something he hates but is willing to let a player play anyway, but human nature being what it is, it can't always happen. And the more work you have to put into a game, the more helpful enthusiasm (or the more crippling its lack) can be.

So I come down lightly on the side of the guy running the game, just for reasons of sheer pragmatism: if my character is something the DM hates, I don't think I'm going to get maximum fun out of the session. At that point I'm not sure if I'd be better off if he agrees to let me play that character or if I come up with something else I like to play.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I can call it genre, I can call it not fitting my world, but mainly I dislike DMing a "Sword & Sorcery" game where society acts like it was Sigil.



This.  If there is no difference in how the races react to one another, then just stick with human as the only PC race.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 26, 2008)

Storm Raven said:


> Sure, you have every right not to play in the game.
> 
> And as DM, I'd say "don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out". If you want a game with dragonborn (or whatever other element you want that the DM doesn't like and wants to exclude), then you take up the role of DM and run the game. Otherwise either play and accept the restictions the DM has imposed, or don't play.
> 
> But to claim the DM is being unreasonable here? That's a volume of _player_ entitlement that is staggering in its audacity and obnoxiousness.



Erm, have you noticed you're agreeing with him completely?

Him:  If my DM didn't allow X and wouldn't hear any reasonable arguments, I'd leave and not play.

You: If my player demanded to play X and wouldn't take no for an answer, I'd tell him to leave and not play.

The only thing you're disagreeing on is whether or not he approves of the way you run your game.  Which, I'd hope, is irrelevant to you.

-O


----------



## wally (Aug 26, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Erm, have you noticed you're agreeing with him completely?
> 
> Him:  If my DM didn't allow X and wouldn't hear any reasonable arguments, I'd leave and not play.
> 
> ...





Actually, I think you are correct for them on how things are now, but I think what one of them is saying is that if the DM says no, just because he doesn't like it, then he still has to run for that player with what that player wants.

-wally


----------



## Obryn (Aug 26, 2008)

wally said:


> Actually, I think you are correct for them on how things are now, but I think what one of them is saying is that if the DM says no, just because he doesn't like it, then he still has to run for that player with what that player wants.
> 
> -wally



I completely don't read it like that.  I see a lot of talk about what the DM _should_ do according to different people, but absolutely zero about what anyone _has_ to do.  Even a moment thinking about the argument as you're stating it leads me to two conclusions.

(1) Obviously, no thinking human being could ever make an argument about what any DM or player _has_ to do when playing a game.

(2) I'll assume everyone posting on the board is a thinking human being, with at least the mental capacity to operate a keyboard, and therefore nobody is actually making the above argument.  And if it looks like they could be, it's more likely to be due to confusion on the reader's part.

-O


----------



## wally (Aug 26, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I completely don't read it like that.  I see a lot of talk about what the DM _should_ do according to different people, but absolutely zero about what anyone _has_ to do.  Even a moment thinking about the argument as you're stating it leads me to two conclusions.
> 
> (1) Obviously, no thinking human being could ever make an argument about what any DM or player _has_ to do when playing a game.
> 
> ...





Okay, let me re-word it.

In my experience, and I think you agree, in most other experiences, if there is disagreement on what is and isn't allowed, things either get worked out, or they don't.  If they don't, it is usually up to the player to decide whether they want to continue playing under a DM who wont allow what they want, or whether they want to opt out of that game or the whole group.  Usually things don't get that far unless there are other issues besides what one person wants to play one time.

What I have been reading on this thread, from some of the responses, is that if there is a disagreement that has reached the point where neither will give, then the DM has to give in so the player can play what he wants to and be happy.  I don't know if I have ever seen this attitude anywhere else, and I don't know if I can ever see anyone I normally play with being told what they have to allow or not and continuing with the game that they were running.

I think the arguments fall within the second paragraph rather than the first.  I think most everyone agrees on the first, but there are a lot of people who have been running their own games either for a short while or a long while who believe that if someone else wants to tell them what to run that those individuals should step up and run their own game rather than tell another what he should or shouldn't be running as a DM.

Is that confusing enough?  

S


----------



## Vegepygmy (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Player: I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
> DM: Oh man, I hate that crap. No, not in my game.
> Player: Well, I really like them. I like the idea of them. I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with? Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world. He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner. He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home. Hrm. Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly? That might work.
> DM: No way. You absolutely cannot play a dragonborn no matter what. It's my game and if you don't like it, there's the door.
> ...



I speak only for myself, but...yes, you have that right.

There is nothing wrong with a DM choosing not to allow "X" simply because he doesn't like "X" in his game.  I might, like you, elect not to play with him, but he's not a _bad DM_ just because he chooses not to run a game that includes elements he doesn't like.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 26, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> I don't really believe in a cut-and-dried "the player should win" or "the DM should win" principle that applies in every case.



This, for all the reasons listed.

In addition, someone has to be the final arbiter of most rules.  Like it or hate it, that's _traditionally_ part of the DM's role.  He's the game _master_ and the _referee_.

Yes, there are plenty of crappy DMs out there, just like there are plenty of crappy referees in the sport of your choice.  One of the marks of a good DM, though, is that they actually do look at the desires and interests of the players as a whole (including their own) and make determinations that maximize the fun for everyone.  Sometimes, that includes saying "no", for whatever reason.

Sometimes, "No, because I don't like it," also carries the weight of "I have a setting idea in mind that I think everyone will enjoy, but that concept doesn't mesh with it or I'm not sure how it will mesh with it."  Maybe the right answer is to go with the DM's plan B setting, but maybe not.

In a perfect world, the guy who sits on one side of the screen alone makes the perfect call every time.  But, we don't live in a perfect world and the call sometimes gets botched.  Still, I think the GM tends to have the better position for perspective.

What I will say, though, is that as a DM, most times I've had a tough call to make on whether to allow a character concept into a game and allowed it, it turned out to be an issue.  When I denied it, it was generally fun for all.  This holds true for all games I've run, whether it's a foreign, cosmopolitan character in a cozy, local starting town or the player that really wants to play a Werewolf in a Vampire game.  My gaming experiences have strongly encouraged me to believe that boundaries are not only acceptable, but highly beneficial.


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 26, 2008)

I have a prospective new player who wants to play a viletooth lizardfolk (Dragon Magic) druid. They can breathe underwater but do not have a natural swim speed (probably an oversight, as they have a swim bonus), but still, I approved of the character. In essence he'd be an anthropomorphic water-breathing marine iguana; not too big a stretch. 

   That's kind of dragonborn, isn't it?


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2008)

rounser said:


> No.  All they had to do was to keep the core game core, and keep their hexblade warforged dire flail specialists in some splatbook that can be easily ignored.



Again, I don't fully follows. Why is it harder to ignore a book with the "core" label on it than one with the "supplement" label?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2008)

this is the longest a thread I've started has ever gone. go me.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 27, 2008)

Scribble said:


> this is the longest a thread I've started has ever gone. go me.




Given the content, you may want to apologize instead.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 27, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Again, I don't fully follows. Why is it harder to ignore a book with the "core" label on it than one with the "supplement" label?



It is no harder to ignore.  It may or may not be harder to get prospective players to buy into the idea of ignoring it, especially players that you don't have an existing relationship with.  People tend to think of the basic options as a default that can be safely ported from game to game, and not without reason.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 27, 2008)

> It is no harder to ignore.




Given the number of...

1) No Paladins or

2) No Monks or

3) No Halflings or

4) No Gnomes or

5) No Half-Orcs or Half-Elf

campaigns in which I've participated (from both sides of the screen), I'd have to agree with that statement 100%.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 27, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Given the content, you may want to apologize instead.




Agreed.  I can't believe this thread hasn't been closed by now.  Of course I keep coming back to see what new fights have broken out.  Kind of like watching a car crash.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2008)

Mercule said:


> This, for all the reasons listed.
> 
> In addition, someone has to be the final arbiter of most rules.  Like it or hate it, that's _traditionally_ part of the DM's role.  He's the game _master_ and the _referee_.




Agreed.  I'm simply questioning that tradition in a very limited, specific case.



> Yes, there are plenty of crappy DMs out there, just like there are plenty of crappy referees in the sport of your choice.  One of the marks of a good DM, though, is that they actually do look at the desires and interests of the players as a whole (including their own) and make determinations that maximize the fun for everyone.  Sometimes, that includes saying "no", for whatever reason.
> 
> Sometimes, "No, because I don't like it," also carries the weight of "I have a setting idea in mind that I think everyone will enjoy, but that concept doesn't mesh with it or I'm not sure how it will mesh with it."  Maybe the right answer is to go with the DM's plan B setting, but maybe not.




Again, agreed.  I agree with this 100%.  My only issue is when the DM, in a moment of honesty with himself, does not have problems with "that concept doesn't mesh", but only has a problem because he doesn't like X.  

Psionics are probably a poster child here.  Lots of people don't like psionics.  Yet, really, it's pretty hard to argue that psionics shouldn't exist for genre or meshing reasons in most standard campaigns.  So, when the player says, "I want to play a psion", instead of the automatic "no" that some DM's do, step back for a second, examine why you are saying no and, if the only reason is because you don't like it, say yes instead.



> In a perfect world, the guy who sits on one side of the screen alone makes the perfect call every time.  But, we don't live in a perfect world and the call sometimes gets botched.  Still, I think the GM tends to have the better position for perspective.




Again, sure.  I'm not arguing that DM's should never say no.  I'm simply arguing that IMO, you should not say no simply because you don't like X.  ((Please note the SHOULD in that sentence for those claiming I'm forcing DM's to do anything))



> What I will say, though, is that as a DM, most times I've had a tough call to make on whether to allow a character concept into a game and allowed it, it turned out to be an issue.  When I denied it, it was generally fun for all.  This holds true for all games I've run, whether it's a foreign, cosmopolitan character in a cozy, local starting town or the player that really wants to play a Werewolf in a Vampire game.  My gaming experiences have strongly encouraged me to believe that boundaries are not only acceptable, but highly beneficial.




Again, 100% agreed.  With the caveat that the boundaries get drawn with a stronger, more compelling reason than "I just don't like it."


----------



## Reynard (Aug 27, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Again, agreed.  I agree with this 100%.  My only issue is when the DM, in a moment of honesty with himself, does not have problems with "that concept doesn't mesh", but only has a problem because he doesn't like X.




Right, but "doesn't like X" feeds into not designing a setting where X is likely to fit in. Now, I'm not saying that the reasoning can't be irrational -- "I hate elves.  Here's my long lived arcane race instead!" -- but people, being people, are sometimes irrational.



> Psionics are probably a poster child here.  Lots of people don't like psionics.  Yet, really, it's pretty hard to argue that psionics shouldn't exist for genre or meshing reasons in most standard campaigns.  So, when the player says, "I want to play a psion", instead of the automatic "no" that some DM's do, step back for a second, examine why you are saying no and, if the only reason is because you don't like it, say yes instead.




Psionics aside (I thin it is a really bad example; lots of folks think psionics are more appropriate to sci-fi than fantay, their origins in the game notwithstanding), I don't think the issue here isn't so much that people don't think that the DM might benefit from stepping back and examning their reasoning, but rather that the player in the situation feels _entitled_ to play X even when the DM obviously dislikes and doesn't want to include X.  If it is inappropriate for a DM to exclude something due to personal preferences, it is equally inappropriate for a player to demand something's inclusion due to personal preferences -- more so, perhaps, because the player invests far less time and effort into the game.

An anecdote or two to illustrate how complex this issue can be:

Many moons ago I started a 2nd Edition campaign in a pseudo-dark ages, germanic europe like setting.  When we sat down to roll up characters (4d6-L, in order!) I gave only a few rules: no halflings (I didn't want hobbits, or kender, so I didn't know what to do with them), no gnomes (the gnolls ate them all), no elves (I knew I wanted to do something different with elves, but I didn't know what yet) and no ninja (what part of dark ages europe don't you people understand).  So, as is inevitable, one player requested to play an elf ninja (what is it with elf ninjas, anyway).  I balked, but he was persuasive and while everyone else was buying equipment and choosing spells and the like, we hashed it out and came to a compromise (found in the woods, amnesia, abusive foster father) that worked for both of us.  the character not only ended up being one of two key characters in not just this campaign but the follow up one (as an NPC), the "elf ninja" bit enhanced the campaign by helping me find a place for elves ("When China Ruled the Seas").

There were lots of players in that game, though.  one of them wanted to play a two weapon wielding ranger type.  Great -- something easy and within the milieu I had created.  That player/character lasted 3 sessions, but still managed to taint the entire campaign with his insipid BS.

The moral: a player that tries to get over isn't always wrong, and one that plays by the rules isn't always right, and a DM that says yes isn't always right and one that says no isn't always wrong.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 27, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Psionics are probably a poster child here.  Lots of people don't like psionics.  Yet, really, it's pretty hard to argue that psionics shouldn't exist for genre or meshing reasons in most standard campaigns.



It's hard to argue that sci-fi doesn't belong in a fantasy game?  People have been doing just that since 1e.  Of course, psionics also has a bad reputation in D&D because 1e & 2e psionics were horribly integrated into the rules.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2008)

> If it is inappropriate for a DM to exclude something due to personal preferences, it is equally inappropriate for a player to demand something's inclusion due to personal preferences -- more so, perhaps, because the player invests far less time and effort into the game.




See, this is where I disagree for two reasons.  First, the player is trying something positive - he wants to play something he likes.  To me, this is not simply the opposite of not allowing someone else to play something I don't like.  I realize that I seem to be the lone voice in the wilderness on this though.  

Secondly, I mostly DM.  I DM because I want to DM.  I do not feel that the work I put into my campaign somehow entitles me to any special treatment.  I don't see that so much.  If I didn't want to do the work, I wouldn't DM.  DMing, in this very limited circumstance, does not entitle me to put my preferences ahead of the player.  

Note, again, I'm only speaking in a VERY limited sense.



> The moral: a player that tries to get over isn't always wrong, and one that plays by the rules isn't always right, and a DM that says yes isn't always right and one that says no isn't always wrong.




Listen to this man, he is wise.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 27, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Secondly, I mostly DM.  I DM because I want to DM.  I do not feel that the work I put into my campaign somehow entitles me to any special treatment.  I don't see that so much.  If I didn't want to do the work, I wouldn't DM.  DMing, in this very limited circumstance, does not entitle me to put my preferences ahead of the player.




The "work" of DMing varies wildly between individuals, though.  in the past, you have made statements that strongly suggest you don't think much of the worldbuilding aspect and don't engage in it.  As such, it might me more difficult for you to wrap your head around the idea that the player who won't shut up about playing an X being a pain.  By the same token, I can hardly conceive of GMing without engaging in the worldbuilding aspect, even for a one shot, so it is hard to wrap my head around the idea that my preferences should not, in fact, trump the players' desires when the two are irreconcilable.




> Listen to this man, he is wise.




Even a blind squirrel...


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 27, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Even a blind squirrel...




I think I smell sour grapes.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 27, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I think I smell sour grapes.




Do tell.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2008)

Actually, I really don't know what the blind squirrel refers to.  

To me, it comes down to embracing the idea of "Say Yes".  Say Yes basically boils down to, unless X is going to cause massive problems in your game, say yes.  Adding a race is typically not a massive problem, so, say yes.  If it is a massive problem, then say no.  But, if the only problem is "I don't like it", not "This doesn't fit with the genre of my game" or "This breaks my game mechanically", then I don't really have a problem with saying yes.  ((Note, those are only two of many examples, please, no one jump over me for not including an exhaustive list))

Like you yourself said, letting the player have his way wound up being a better experience for everyone at the table.  So, the idea that the DM should always say no is problematic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 27, 2008)

> Actually, I really don't know what the blind squirrel refers to.



"Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while."



> So, the idea that the DM should always say no is problematic.



_
NOBODY_ said that.

What we're saying is that the DM _can_ always say no and that it is _never_ wrong for a DM to say no.*

*Actually, I do have a *single* caveat to that- the DM is wrong to say no when it is_ personal._  IOW, he is saying no solely because he dislikes the _player_ and wants to make things less enjoyable for that person.


----------



## hanasays (Aug 27, 2008)

A lot of times when my DM has stated special rules like that, they're usually ones I agree with.  Generally this is because I've been in campaigns with a player who made that type of rule necessary.  I also tend to only play campaigns run by DMs I like, and I don't participate in campaigns run by DMs I dislike.  The DMs I like usually play with the same mindset that I do, and therefore, I agree with most of their judgements.  If I like someone as a person, but not as my Dungeonmaster, I just politely bow out of the campaign.

Having been on the other side of the table, I can understand why some DMs would make special rules.  Sometimes, you get a nightmare player (somebody you can't exclude because they're so-and-so's girlfriend/boyfriend/your-mother's-friend's-kid) and they do something that upsets everybody else in the game so much that you want to make sure that it never happens in another game again.

When I create special-case rules like that, it's not usually because I'm an authoritarian control freak.  It's because I want to make sure the game runs smoothly and everyone enjoys it, and even though I trust my players, I want the rule in place to protect everybody (including the other players) just in case somebody really really really wants their girlfriend/boyfriend/mother's-friend's-son to hop in mid-campaign.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 27, 2008)

I have now read through all 15 pages.

In conclusion:

Hussar calls GMs like us "asshats".

I think players like him are asshats.

_finis_


----------



## Umbran (Aug 27, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I think players like him are asshats.
> 
> _finis_





And I think you're rude.  

_finis_


----------



## hanasays (Aug 27, 2008)

Is any of this worth being nasty and defensive over?  Does it really matter whether or not you personally agree with how a DM has decided to run the game he or she is hosting if, in the end, everybody has fun?

I don't see the point of arguing about whether the DM's decision is right or wrong.  Some DMs do things that irk some players.  Just because a DM is running a campaign doesn't mean you are obligated to play in it, or play by his or her house rules.  If you don't like how the DM handles the rules, don't argue... just find another DM.


----------



## greatamericanfolkher (Aug 27, 2008)

I’m a lenient DM when it comes to what’s on the Ban List. Usually it’s either for genre reasons (European knights in an ancient Egypt themed game) or for mechanical reasons (Nightsticks are right out), but sometimes it is for the dreaded “I don’t like it” reason (psionics and the “east meets west” party). In the past when someone made a compelling case, I’ve relented on those restrictions, and I’ve usually come to regret it almost every time. Nowadays I don’t give in, even if someone has come up with a thirty page back story to try and justify it. 

Among my regular group of friends this never becomes an issue, because they know why I have this policy, and when I play in the games they run I don’t pester them to run something on their Ban List because I know they have a reason for it being on the list.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Erm, have you noticed you're agreeing with him completely?




Not entirely. His version includes the added argument that in the example given, the DM is being unreasonable and, in his words, an "asshat". In this conclusion, he is simply wrong. If you want to set the parameters of the game, then you sit behind the DM screen and run the game. For someone who is running the game to ban something _even if it is only because he does not like it_ is perfectly reasonable.

It is the player who expects otherwise who is being unreasonable and obnoxious.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 27, 2008)

Storm Raven said:


> Not entirely. His version includes the added argument that in the example given, the DM is being unreasonable and, in his words, an "asshat". In this conclusion, he is simply wrong. If you want to set the parameters of the game, then you sit behind the DM screen and run the game. For someone who is running the game to ban something _even if it is only because he does not like it_ is perfectly reasonable.
> 
> It is the player who expects otherwise who is being unreasonable and obnoxious.



No, like I said before - the fundamental thing that happens in both cases is the same.  You're not playing in each other's games.

The only difference is whether or not he _approves_ of the reasons for your doing so.  Which, like I said, hardly matters unless you need him to approve of your style of gaming.

-O


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 27, 2008)

Obryn said:


> No, like I said before - the fundamental thing that happens in both cases is the same.  You're not playing in each other's games.
> 
> The only difference is whether or not he _approves_ of the reasons for your doing so.  Which, like I said, hardly matters unless you need him to approve of your style of gaming.
> 
> -O




His disaproval isn't the problem.  His statements that we're horrible bad asshat DMs is the problem.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> His disaproval isn't the problem.  His statements that we're horrible bad asshat DMs is the problem.



So it's not his disapproval of your DMing style, it's his opinion of your DMing style?

I really don't see the difference here.

-O


----------



## SableWyvern (Aug 28, 2008)

Obryn said:


> So it's not his disapproval of your DMing style, it's his opinion of your DMing style?
> 
> I really don't see the difference here.
> 
> -O



I'd say its not about his opinion/disaproval so much as it is the implication that his opinion/disaproval carries objective weight and can be applied as a universal truth.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2008)

I blame the internet.

Look, I'm not trying to preach from the mountain here.  I'm not trying to say, empiricly that my way is best.

What I'm saying, is that, in my opinion, it is far better to let the ties go to the player.  When the only issue at stake is my personal dislike of a concept, I should suck it up and let the player have what he wants.

Now, I do think that when a DM, who absolutely will not compromise (a detail that gets left out when some people quote me), bans something because he doesn't like it, he is an asshat.  Not because he banned something, but because he absolutely will not compromise and his only justification is his personal preference.

I think it comes from the fact that the worst DM's I've ever had all did this.  Every one of them decided that their personal vision was primary and all other visions were inferior and should be ignored.

THAT'S the kind of DM I call an asshat.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> What I'm saying, is that, in my opinion, it is far better to let the ties go to the player.  When the only issue at stake is my personal dislike of a concept, I should suck it up and let the player have what he wants.




Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but obviously, many would disagree on this point.


> Now, I do think that when a DM, who absolutely will not compromise (a detail that gets left out when some people quote me), bans something because he doesn't like it, he is an asshat.  Not because he banned something, but because he absolutely will not compromise and his only justification is his personal preference.




I'll disagree. (And no, your details aren't being missed.)

The only asshat DM is one who bans something because he dislikes the player personally.

*Any* other reason- be it whim, carefully reasoned decision or even _a random die roll_- is a valid reason for banning something from a game.

He's free to compromise if he wishes, but it is not a requirement, and his willingness to compromise (or lack thereof) does not make him any less a quality GM.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2008)

And this is where we disagree DannyA.  I think a DM who refuses to compromise is a bad DM.  The game should be about everyone at the table, not just the guy in the big seat.  To me, there's no difference between banning something on a whim and, say, creating railroading dungeons.

After all, a railroad is a DM's way of saying, "I hate all other endings, so, this is the way things are going to be."

To me, being able to compromise is the hallmark of a good DM.  When I think of good DM qualities, inflexible is not on the list.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> To me, there's no difference between banning something on a whim and, say, creating railroading dungeons.
> 
> After all, a railroad is a DM's way of saying, "I hate all other endings, so, this is the way things are going to be."




Really?  _Really?  _Because I see a world of difference.

A DM who refuses to compromise in the makeup of his campaign is merely setting the boundaries within which the players will play.  He is constructing the RPG's analogous structure to the gridiron in football, the ring in boxing...the walls around the sandbox.  He is setting the level of the playing field.

He is no more an asshat than the rules board of a given sport.  He is no more an asshat than the game designer who included this race or excluded that class in a revision of the game or campaign setting.

The DM who is railroading his players has an ending in mind that his players cannot alter_ by definition._

The former is not the macro version of the latter.  A good DM can set up his game world and run a very unstructured campaign, and will even let the player's actions have real and permanent consequences.  A bad one will constantly funnel his players into his predetermined encounters, one after another.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2008)

> The former is not the macro version of the latter. A good DM can set up his game world and run a very unstructured campaign, and will even let the player's actions have real and permanent consequences. A bad one will constantly funnel his players into his predetermined encounters, one after another.




Is that really so different from the DM who will funnel his players into his predetermined choices, one after another?

Look, again, I'm only stating this when the reason is when the DM doesn't like something.  If the DM has other reasons, then fine.  No problems.

I keep going around in circles on this and everyone seems to want to paint the picture larger than it is.  This is not about setting up a campaign.  This is not about the DM having authority over his campaign.  I agree that the DM should have authority over his campaign.

I question, in this one very limited circumstance, if that authority should extend over forcing players to play something else, simply because the DM doesn't like it.

When a game designer excludes a race in a setting, typically its done because that race doesn't fit in that setting, not because the writer simply hates that race.  Conan d20, for example, excludes all sorts of things.  I don't think, however, that the writers hate the things that Conan d20 excludes.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in conclusion, because I'm getting tired of having to constantly restate my point.  Either you get it or you don't.  

When 
there is a deadlock during character creation between the player and the DM
AND the only problem the DM has is he or she doesn't like element X,
AND no other issues exist,
AND all players and the DM are being reasonable,
AND there has been honest attempts by both parties to compromise

Then and only then should the DM bow to the wishes of the player and allow the element.

**The above is a simple expression of opinion.  It in no way reflects your game.  It is simply how I play.  I offer it as an alternative to the standard wisdom of the authority a DM has over a game.**


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2008)

> Is that really so different from the DM who will funnel his players into his predetermined choices, one after another?



Yes.  No qualifier.


> Look, again, I'm only stating this when the reason is when the DM doesn't like something. If the DM has other reasons, then fine. No problems.




We got that.


> I keep going around in circles on this and everyone seems to want to paint the picture larger than it is.




No, we're not.



> This is not about setting up a campaign.




Yes it is.



> This is not about the DM having authority over his campaign.




Yes it is.


> I question, in this one very limited circumstance, if that authority should extend over forcing players to play something else, simply because the DM doesn't like it.




Again, we got that.  We think that the authority _does_ and _should_ extend to the DM saying that X is not permitted- *for whatever reason* (barring personal animus)- thus, forcing the player to either play something else or walk away.  Politely.



> When a game designer excludes a race in a setting, typically its done because that race doesn't fit in that setting, not because the writer simply hates that race. Conan d20, for example, excludes all sorts of things. I don't think, however, that the writers hate the things that Conan d20 excludes.




4Ed excluded gnomes because someone (OK, many someones) disliked them.  So were other races and classes that people liked...they were merely outvoted in a popularity contest.

They didn't disrupt the setting and got axed anyway.

One RPG- Talisantha, if I properly recall- famously had ads that said "NO ELVES!"  Again, not all that disruptive, but it was a decision based in part on the _explosion_ of Elf races in D&D at the time.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> So, in conclusion, because I'm getting tired of having to constantly restate my point.  Either you get it or you don't.
> 
> When
> there is a deadlock during character creation between the player and the DM
> ...



Perhaps the disconnect (for me, anyway) is that your situation doesn't actually exist, so people are maybe trying to fit it onto different situations that could plausibly happen, in order to understand what you're talking about.

What I mean is, if everyone is reasonable, how does the situation ever get past the "compromise" phase?  Taking choice of player races as an example, there's no character concept except one that can't be represented by a human (the exception being a character whose defining characterisitic is true inhumanity, such as warforged).  Anything else is just a different human culture in a rubber suit.  And most settings will have lots of different possible human socities.

So, a player wants to play an elf, but there are no elves in the gameworld.  The DM suggests a similar culture of another race in the setting (which maybe didn't exist until they work to create it).  Or maybe the player really just wanted the Dex bonus that elves get, so the DM suggests a mechanically similar race.  The only way this becomes an impasse is if the player has to have a character that has pointy ears, which isn't being reasonable IMO - "pointy ears" isn't a character concept.

Admittedly, classes are a bit trickier, in that it's not necessarily as easy to re-skin the flavor bound up into them.  e.g. the monk class just doesn't fit into medieval europe, if you're going for a slightly more "historic" feel relative to the normal D&D hodgepodge.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2008)

> So, in conclusion, because I'm getting tired of having to constantly restate my point. Either you get it or you don't.
> 
> When
> 
> ...




We get it.  We don't agree.

When

    * there is a deadlock during character creation between the player and the DM
    * AND the only problem the DM has is he or she doesn't like element X,
    * AND no other issues exist,
    * AND all players and the DM are being reasonable,
    * AND there has been honest attempts by both parties to compromise

The player should back down and select something to play from the options the DM has presented or walk away.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2008)

Fair enough DannyA.  I can agree with that.  Honestly, I would walk away, in all likelihood.

I'm glad you brought up gnomes in 4e though.  Gnomes in 4e aren't banned.  They are removed from the core choices, but, you can still play a gnome in 4e.  That, to me, is perfectly acceptable compromise.  They've taken choices which they didn't like, and put them in the background, and added choices that they did like. However, as a player, I can still play a gnome if I choose to do so, despite the fact that it's something the game designer (or DM) may not like.

Spatula - I already gave an example where it happened to me.  As did Reynard.  Both of us hated elf ninjas.  Yet, we bowed to our player's wishes and in both cases, it improved the game.  So, I don't think it will never happen.  It might be rare, but, not never.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 28, 2008)

I think this has probably run its course now. Everyone has made their points and expressed their views, and there is a bit of a deadlock.

If someone strongly feels that there is more to be said here, then do email me (using the link below), but in the meantime I'm closing the thread.

Regards,


----------

