DM Entitlement...

[Mark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.