DM Entitlement...

[Scribble]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

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.