DM Entitlement...

[Jackelope King]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?