DM Entitlement...

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think the idea that players should be accomodated and pleased is wrong - but I take offense at the statement that a player's fun is worth more than a DM's fun. Both have the same rights. Claiming that since the DM has so much more work to cover, handling all NPCs and areas, he has somehow less rights to veto stuff and should just shut up and DM what the players want, even if he hates it, is wrong. And expecting a DM to simply run the game the players want, even if it not fun for himself, is not just wrong but arrogant to boot.

Players should be pleased and catered to, but not at the expense of the DM.

Well put.

And, may I note, I will not game, either as DM or as player, with people who do not respect the DM's right to set ground rules/run the game. If I am a player, and I don't want to game under those ground rules, I don't assume that I am more important than the DM or everyone else at the table. I let them enjoy their game, and find/make another.

Ought to be simple, IMHO.

(And, to Lost Soul & Hussar, none of this means that the DM cannot divide responsibilities/rights with the players to whatever degree he is comfortable doing so. Indeed, it is a declaration that the DM has an absolute right to do so!)


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I really wonder about DM's out there who feel some sort of obligation to run a game and then figure that that obligation somehow entitles them to special treatment.

No one is saying this.

DMing is not (and should not be) an obligation. DMing a game you do not enjoy would be an obligation. Ergo, you should not DM a game that you do not enjoy.

DMs have special rights within the structure of the game because they have special responsibilities. The more a given group distributes those responsibilities, the more it makes sense to distribute those rights.

So, for me to come down with the "Well, I'm the DM, so play my way or the highway" would get me laughed off the table. We're all DM's. Every group I play with is full of DM's. If I pulled this sort of authoritative stuff on my guys, I'd never get to DM at all.

Are you honestly telling me that if you said "I'd like to run the WLD, but without dragonborn PCs....who's in?" that your group would laugh you off the table?!?

IME, the restrictions a DM can place without player rancor is directly related to the amount of entertainment that DM brings to the group. IOW, it is still very much worth it to play in a game with the DM's restrictions, if the DM is good enough. And, for a restriction like "no dragonborn PCs" that DM doesn't have to be very good at all....merely competent.

We don't always see eye to eye, but I would be very, very surprised if "I'd like to run the WLD, but without dragonborn PCs....who's in?" would get you laughed off the table.


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

It's not about players running rough-shod over everything else. It's not about the DM always getting his way. It's about working together and accepting that, guess what? Players can provide really great ideas that could make the game so much better if the DM asked for that sort of assistance and just got over the whole "It's my world, not yours" mindset. Dividing up the workload shouldn't be a last resort for the DM at his wit's end: it should be the first thing a DM does every game. Challenge the players to create and help fill in your world, and they won't let you down. A friend of mine, DMing for the first time with 4e with a group of entirely new players, made the same requests of his players. One of them essentially built him an eldarin society for the first game. Brand new to RPGs, and she basically gift-wrapped the DM this entire society to plop down into his game.

The social contract is that it's the DM's show, but only by the players' whim, and nothing draws the players in like knowing that the world belongs to them too.

 

[Hussar]

No one is saying this.

I think a lot of people are saying this actually. Some people are even going so far as to point fingers at edition for this. Like we never saw this in any other edition. Complete Humanoids ring any bells? Unearthed Arcana Drow perhaps? Yeah, those things were added to the game because no one ever asked to play them.

DMing is not (and should not be) an obligation. DMing a game you do not enjoy would be an obligation. Ergo, you should not DM a game that you do not enjoy.

I guess I'm just easier to please. The idea that someone playing a race or a class that I personally don't like would somehow destroy the game for me is beyond my sphere of experience. I loathe elves. Hate them. Always have. Yet, I know lots of people who like to play elves. Should I carte blanche ban them from my game, knowing that I'm pissing all over someone else's shoes, or should I simply step back, realize that someone is playing their own character and I can keep my greedy fingers to myself?

DMs have special rights within the structure of the game because they have special responsibilities. The more a given group distributes those responsibilities, the more it makes sense to distribute those rights.

Partially agreed. Sure, I have special responsiblities as the DM. I have to create the campaign and adventures after all. However, I choose to take on those responsibilities. No one is forcing me. I am under no obligation to do so. So, just because I do more work, I get to enforce my personal aesthetics on everyone else?

I don't think so. Like I said, as DM, I get to control 99% of the game. I have no real issues letting players have that other 1%.

Are you honestly telling me that if you said "I'd like to run the WLD, but without dragonborn PCs....who's in?" that your group would laugh you off the table?!?

IME, the restrictions a DM can place without player rancor is directly related to the amount of entertainment that DM brings to the group. IOW, it is still very much worth it to play in a game with the DM's restrictions, if the DM is good enough. And, for a restriction like "no dragonborn PCs" that DM doesn't have to be very good at all....merely competent.

We don't always see eye to eye, but I would be very, very surprised if "I'd like to run the WLD, but without dragonborn PCs....who's in?" would get you laughed off the table.


RC

Sure, I could say, "No dragonborn PC's". No problem. However, when one of the players says, "Hey, I really, really want to try this dragonborn, I have this idea for how he can fit into the setting and this backstory to explain his existence. I really want to play this." and I say, "Nope, no dragonborn, you either play something else or leave" I'd get laughed off the table. Instant player revolt.

And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me. If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.

 

[EATherrian]

Sure, I could say, "No dragonborn PC's". No problem. However, when one of the players says, "Hey, I really, really want to try this dragonborn, I have this idea for how he can fit into the setting and this backstory to explain his existence. I really want to play this." and I say, "Nope, no dragonborn, you either play something else or leave" I'd get laughed off the table. Instant player revolt.

And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me. If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.

I agree with that. If they can explain to me how to fit their idea into my setting I'll agree with them. On the second point, I hate drow and therefore in my world there usually aren't any drow. I do have fallen or 'dark' elves that look like other elves except for their eyes. I had someone want to play a Drizz't clone and I let him as much as I could, but I explained that there wasn't perfect correlation between the drow and my dark elves, and he'd have to expect that most civilized people would treat him badly if not attack him on sight. He still insisted, and it turned out to be an interesting role-playing exercise. I think he was upset that he couldn't be a pure Drizz't clone and that the rules of the world were consistent in that evil races aren't treated well by the normals. They don't have time to find out if your an angsty outcast. You're a threat until you prove yourself, if you can. So maybe I see both sides of the issue. Heck when I play I don't even make a character until I know what the DM is looking for, so I'd never go in with a character that didn't sync with their vision.

 

[Hussar]

it's not about players running rough-shod over everything else. It's not about the dm always getting his way. It's about working together and accepting that, guess what? Players can provide really great ideas that could make the game so much better if the dm asked for that sort of assistance and just got over the whole "it's my world, not yours" mindset. Dividing up the workload shouldn't be a last resort for the dm at his wit's end: It should be the first thing a dm does every game. Challenge the players to create and help fill in your world, and they won't let you down. A friend of mine, dming for the first time with 4e with a group of entirely new players, made the same requests of his players. One of them essentially built him an eldarin society for the first game. Brand new to rpgs, and she basically gift-wrapped the dm this entire society to plop down into his game.

The social contract is that it's the dm's show, but only by the players' whim, and nothing draws the players in like knowing that the world belongs to them too.

qfmft

 

[Whisper72]

Well let me add my voice to the chorus. I am of a mind that, naturally, if a DM is to have any fun, s/he needs to have players who are also having fun. So off the bat, any really asinine behaviour is out of the question in any case.

That said, in the end, the DM is god, judge and jury of the game. S/he is (and I am speaking generalities here) the one who has invested the most in the game in terms of time, money and thought. It is the ideas of the DM that form the driving force behind the game at the end, whether this is with player input or not.

So, does this mean that a DM is primus inter parus, yes certainly it does, with great responsibility comes great power so to say, and this gives the DM certain entitlements. All within the limits of accepted human behaviour and with the understanding that if the DM is an idiot, the players can simply sack the DM. However, once the position of DM is awarded and accepted, then it should be understood by the players that from that moment on, the DM is the boss of what does and does not go in the campaign.

 

[LostSoul]

Well put.

And, may I note, I will not game, either as DM or as player, with people who do not respect the DM's right to set ground rules/run the game. If I am a player, and I don't want to game under those ground rules, I don't assume that I am more important than the DM or everyone else at the table. I let them enjoy their game, and find/make another.

Ought to be simple, IMHO.

(And, to Lost Soul & Hussar, none of this means that the DM cannot divide responsibilities/rights with the players to whatever degree he is comfortable doing so. Indeed, it is a declaration that the DM has an absolute right to do so!)

Yeah, I agree with you - though I'd say that it's not just the DM's right; everyone in the group has the same rights to work out the rules just by virtue of being peers.

It's like...
Adam: I am going to run WLD but I don't want dragonborn - they just rub me the wrong way.
Bob: Damn, I was hoping to play a dragonborn warlord.
Colin: I could run the new Dungeon AP with dragonborn, if that's cool.
Adam: Yeah, I don't have a problem playing in a game with dragonborn. Though I would really like to run WLD.
Bob: Well, maybe we can alternate nights - WLD one week, Dungeon AP the next week.
Colin: I'm cool with that.
Adam: Me too.

and not...
Adam: I am going to run WLD but I don't want dragonborn - they just rub me the wrong way.
Bob: Damn, I was hoping to play a dragonborn warlord.
Colin: I could run the new Dungeon AP with dragonborn, if that's cool.
Adam: Hey, I'm the DM here! What I say goes. We're playing WLD without dragonborn. If you don't like it, leave.

edit: or this either...
Adam: I am going to run WLD but I don't want dragonborn - they just rub me the wrong way.
Bob: No dragonborn? You can't just do that - look, they're in the book. You have to run WLD with dragonborn even if you don't want to.

 

[Steely Dan]

I'd get laughed off the table.

There seems to be a lot of laughing off the table around your parts.

Hey, I do know what you're saying – I detest dragonborn with every fibre of my soul (starting with the way they look), but in my upcoming homebrew, one of my players is dying to play one, so we have worked at a compromise – Nagaborn (there are no dragons in this world), so, slight cosmetic change, and swapped out the breath weapon with another racial power, done.

 

[Fenes]

If you go over the views in this thread, it's more like:

DM: I don't want Dragonborn in my world, I consider their background silly, trite, and unfit for the genre I prefer. But you can play a reptilian or halfdragon or half-dragon reptilian character. You can even make up your society as you want. But I do not want to have the Dragonborn background (Old Empire, accepted civilised race) since I do not like the "all player character species are accepted in this utopia" setting it presumes. If you're gonna play a reptilian PC you'll have to deal with hostility from most humans and other civilised races because lizards are simply not trusted as peaceful, civilised beings. You know, like in most fantasy books we've read, and in most settings of this very game we played.
Player: Screw you, you've got a mental problem! I want to play Dragonborn like they are in the holy writ of WotC, and you should be glad to run that!

I am biased, but I do not think in this example the DM is at any fault, or has any mental problem, or shows any intolerance or unwillingness to compromise.

I'd even go as far as to say that any player who is unwilling to accept this compromise - which basically offers Dragonborn in all but name and part of the background - is not a player whose presence will enhance the game.