DM Entitlement...

[SableWyvern]

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]

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.

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.))

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.