I don't know what just happend, but it seems that Ayn Rand corrupted my player!

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I think you identify strongly with the players in the OP's story.

D&D is a game where the GM has been in charge for 40 years.

Anybody who plays where the players have greater control over what the DM must run is the exception, not the rule.

So, you might want to consider that you, and the OP's players are in the minority of the mindset that the DM is obligated to accept the player's proposal.

I don't play D&D, I DM. Nowhere did I say the players have greater control, so that's no really valid.

The last part is just your view. The circles I move in would disagree with you. So you might want to consider that you, do not know nearly as much about peoples gaming philosophies as you think you do? Probably not huh.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Depending on exactly what you mean by "above", I might have to disagree.

If you, as a DM, consider your preferences to out-rule the preferences of your players then I would consider that wrong. That's what I mean by above.

I agree, there is no obligation but if things turn sour you don't start sniping at the players because you believe your position is more justified. In this thread, the players have been used as a scapegoat because people think the DM should hold more clout.

That's not okay by me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me, your rejection of a HR is unreasonable but that's because I view D&D as a cooperative game where I work with my players and that includes accommodating or compromising on their requests. Reserving the right to reject requests, just because I do more "work", is a jerk move. I enjoy the "work" and would never begrudge players because of it.

Since you have no idea if the OP rejected all of the players' proposed HRs or just this one, you have ZERO concept of how much cooperation actually occurred.

And at any rate, cooperation is a 2 way street. "Accomodating and compromising" does not mean saying "yes" to everything. And if I happen to say "no", it is not "authoritarian", nor is it an excuse for rude behavior.

As I said, I do listen to player requests. I don't grant them all, just the ones I can make work. Just because a HR works in one guy's game doesn't mean it works in everyone's. Just because a HR works in one of my campaigns doesn't mean I'll use it in all of 'em.

In this thread, the players have been used as a scapegoat because people think the DM should hold more clout

No, the players are being called out for their rude reaction to a DM rejecting a suggestion. There IS a difference.

I'm cool with player suggestions. I may not agree with all of them, but I'm open to input.

Rudeness, OTOH, is not something I tolerate.

 

[Janx]

The players are not customers. As Umbran said, customers don't participate in shaping the product (with some exceptions).

How about this analogy:
The DM is a host, throwing a party. The players are guests.

It is up to all to ensure that a good time is had, though the work, responsibility, and such are primarily that of the DM/host. The DM also sets the constraints of the party. If a costume party, guests should show up in costumes. If a cheese and wine party, teetotaler lactose intolerant players should choose not to come, to bring their own food, or simply come without partaking, and do so without complaint.

Can a DM host be a bad host? Sure. But it's hardly the guest's prerogative to tell the host what kind of party he should throw.

This post seems to hit the nail on the head. All other rhetoric and strong language aside, the DM is throwing a themed party. It is his house. Be a good guest.

Any other expectation that players have more rights than the host violate the most sacred of all tenets of being a good guest.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

And at any rate, cooperation is a 2 way street. "Accomodating and compromising" does not mean saying "yes" to everything. And if I happen to say "no", it is not "authoritarian", nor is it an excuse for rude behavior.

You have a strange idea of cooperation. Saying "yes" is a golden rule of improvisation, just reflect on that. Saying "no" is uncompromising and thus authoritarian because you expect the players to comply. Being rude to a jerk might not be mature but neither party can claim maturity.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You have a strange idea of cooperation. Saying "yes" is a golden rule of improvisation, just reflect on that. Saying "no" is uncompromising and thus authoritarian because you expect the players to comply. Being rude to a jerk might not be mature but neither party can claim maturity.

The OP wasn't being a jerk from what I can tell. He just didn't want to run the kind of game the players were interested in. It was a playstyle mismatch, he shouldn't have to run a game he has no interest in anymore than they should have to play in a game they have no interest in.

 

[Chris Knapp]

And at any rate, cooperation is a 2 way street. "Accomodating and compromising" does not mean saying "yes" to everything. And if I happen to say "no", it is not "authoritarian", nor is it an excuse for rude behavior.

As I said, I do listen to player requests. I don't grant them all, just the ones I can make work. Just because a HR works in one guy's game doesn't mean it works in everyone's. Just because a HR works in one of my campaigns doesn't mean I'll use it in all of 'em.

If the players at your table all wanted a reload feature, how would you rule?

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

The OP wasn't being a jerk from what I can tell. He just didn't want to run the kind of game the players were interested in. It was a playstyle mismatch, he shouldn't have to run a game he has no interest in anymore than they should have to play in a game they have no interest in.

I've already explained how a certain position, held in this thread, to me is jerky.

I agree, he shouldn't run it but the player shouldn't be targeted for the game turning south. The blame is shared, the DM decided to reject a request that the players felt strongly about and the players decided to leave the game.

He said, she said doesn't really achieve anything and I disagree with the notion that the players harbour entitlement issues when the same issues are represented by the dissenting opinions as well. If the players harbour such issues then so does the DM.

I also disagree with the notion that we are told the whole story but we're at an impasse there because you are choosing to accept it at face value.

 

[I'm A Banana]

FWIW, Ayn Rand has improved my games, via Planescape and the Fated Faction, who have a pretty strong Objectivist streak in them.

Ayn Rand has also enhanced my videogames, via BioShock.

Of course, I can't read her books, for much the same reason that I can't read the Left Behind series, but y'know, that doesn't mean that the big ideas aren't fun to mess with in a fictional setting....come to think of it, much like the Left Behind series...hmmm...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You have a strange idea of cooperation. Saying "yes" is a golden rule of improvisation, just reflect on that. Saying "no" is uncompromising and thus authoritarian because you expect the players to comply. Being rude to a jerk might not be mature but neither party can claim maturity.

Reflect on this: compromise and acquiescence are 2 different things. I should know- I'm an attorney/mediator, and I help people craft compromises that get drafted into contracts for a living.

It is perfectly possible to craft an agreement between parties without them agreeing to every demand of each side...especially if/when the demands are mutually incompatible.

If the OP had instead been asked to include psionics in a LotR game, his refusal to do so would have been no less justified, and labeling his rejection "authoritarian" or "hedonistic" would be no less juvenile.