DM Entitlement...

[buzz]

Who said anything about the "DM is god" applying to anything outside the game?

You did, Darrin (among others). Seriously, when you talk about ejecting people from the game, refusing to consider the interests of other people in the group, or it being "their game", you're talking about meta-issues that involve the social dynamic of the group. A group could certainly have an existing agreement to take what the current DM dishes out, no questions asked (i.e., they're happy with that setup), but assuming that being in the role of DM in a D&D entitles a person to this agreement is ridiculous.

As an example, if the DM prefers to game from their own home, it is certainly their right to wait to run their game until they have players that agree to play at the home of the DM. The DM is not under any obligation to run the game somewhere else because of some odd sense of democracy among the players.

Obviously, no one is required to do anything they don't want to do, save for death and taxes. But assuming you're part of a regular group, and care in any way about the other people in that group, the guy who's DMing that night has no right to anything you state above.

In my current group, I DM a lot lately. It would be totally unreasonable for me to demand that we play at my house. I'm one of the furthest away from everyone else, which makes it harder on everyone than playing at one other guy's place, especially for the guys who have kids. I don't have kids, and I don't have, say, the collection minis that the other guys do, so I play where it's most convenient for everyone.

Being DM that night gives me no right to do otherwise. Were I do act that way, the group would collapse pretty quickly.

Now, none of this isn't to say that courtesy is out the window. If someone is going to greater effort to make the game happen (and it's not always the DM, by far), we're going to be appreciative of that.

We're also considerate of everyone's schedules and tastes. E.g., if it's feasible to move a session a few hours early and to our buddy's place so that he can participate while he's taking care of his daughter, we do that. If a player wants to use a variant rule for their PC, I'm going to hear them out, even if the ultimate answer is no. And I'm going to explain why I'm saying no.

Again, I find it strange that people see the D&D group dynamic as so black-and-white. It's not a choice between that night's DM being either a tyrant or a doormat. It's about collaborating with people who are invested in each other's fun. A healthy social dynamic cannot exist if one person's fun is prioritized over everyone else's.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Now, I'd agree with that. Using your specific example, yes, the player is being entirely unreasonable. The DM has allowed for the race, although he has changed some of the flavor of the race to fit with his setting and the player does not accept that whatsoever. Yes, that's a bad player.

But, that's not what's being discussed here. A closer situation would be:

DM: I am banning dragonborn.
Player: Well, how about I come up with a reptilian warrior with a breath weapon with a background that fits in your campaign.
DM: No. Absolutely not. I hate dragonborn and if anyone plays one, I will NOT DM. I cannot possibly run a game with a dragonborn in it, regardless of any other factors.

Do you think this is an example of a DM exercising his prerogatives in a positive fashion?

 

[Mallus]

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.

Well put. I tried to stress this earlier, but did it less clearly, less, umm, well.

The focus shouldn't be on rights, it should be on what works to make the campaign better. My gradual evolution into a DM that ran 'open' settings that welcomed player input had nothing to do with a change of thinking about player rights, edition, or a decrease in my interest or attachment to my homebrews. It was all about what worked better. Now I welcome the challenge of a player that wants to introduce something I don't particularly like. My experience has taught me that the compromise (and creative effort inherent in that) will make the game better. Bigger and richer.

Brand new to RPGs, and she basically gift-wrapped the DM this entire society to plop down into his game.

It's great when that happens, isn't it?

In my current 3.5/AE campaign, I got a new nation, it's culture, and the whole end-game --with attendant expansion of the setting's base cosmology-- from a single new player (not to mention all the terrifically entertaining play), whose character pretty much ran contrary to the setting's original PC design specs (specifically, a broadly-talented mage in a world of specialized magicians). Briefly, I considered banning the concept. Then I decided to trust the player. I'm happy I did...

re: the whole 'I hate X' thing...

I have trouble understanding how a single (or a few) game element can ruin the D&D experience for some people. I can't but read that as hyperbole. I mean, I have my preferences, some strong, some odd, but I can't imagine the presence of a few game elements I don't like (kender, Dragonborn, psionics, the occasional foray into powergaming) spoiling a campaign I play in. I know this is tantamount to arguing taste, but it seems to me some tastes are needless, even counter-productively, particular...

The hallmark of D&D play for me is the variety of pleasures it offers, from the ridiculous to the sublime, frequently simultaneously, so when balanced against that, a small set of unpalatable in-game elements, mechanical and otherwise seem easy to overlook. Entertainment-wise, I'm still coming out ahead.

I mean, there are plenty of reasons not to enjoy a campaign, and roughly all of them are the other people you're playing with...

 

[Fenes]

Now, I'd agree with that. Using your specific example, yes, the player is being entirely unreasonable. The DM has allowed for the race, although he has changed some of the flavor of the race to fit with his setting and the player does not accept that whatsoever. Yes, that's a bad player.

But, that's not what's being discussed here. A closer situation would be:

DM: I am banning dragonborn.
Player: Well, how about I come up with a reptilian warrior with a breath weapon with a background that fits in your campaign.
DM: No. Absolutely not. I hate dragonborn and if anyone plays one, I will NOT DM. I cannot possibly run a game with a dragonborn in it, regardless of any other factors.

Do you think this is an example of a DM exercising his prerogatives in a positive fashion?

No, that wouldn't be one - assuming that not just the background, but the character itself fits the campaign.

But as should be clear now - my hatred for Dragonborn comes from the way their background turns the setting into a "all us PC races are happy friends, even the scaly ones cause the book says so"-setting. A setting where humans have no problems with reptilians simply is not a setting I want to run since it implies a lot of changes to their society that I do not want. I like a grittier setting, with more xenophobia, and more conflicts and prejudice with other races.

I also think that the background of the Dragonborn is their defining characteristic, since they're just lizardmen without a breath weapon instead of a tail stat wise.

 

[Mallus]

But as should be clear now - my hatred for Dragonborn comes from the way their background turns the setting into a "all us PC races are happy friends, even the scaly ones cause the book says so"-setting.

Instead of hatin' on them, why not just change their background story? DIY...

In our new setting the Dragonborn are co-responsible for ending the world and a particularly unsavory Non-Governmental Organization wants to commit genocide against them.

 

[Fenes]

I have trouble understanding how a single (or a few) game element can ruin the D&D experience for some people. I can't but read that as hyperbole. I mean, I have my preferences, some strong, some odd, but I can't imagine the presence of a few game elements I don't like (kender, Dragonborn, psionics, the occasional foray into powergaming) spoiling a campaign I play in. I know this is tantamount to arguing taste, but it seems to me some tastes are needless, even counter-productively, particular...

Because sometimes, that single thing causes wide changes to the whole setting, which in turn make it not fun anymore.

Consider as an example a player wanting to play a jedi in a Forgotten Realms campaign. The DM offers a modified psywar class or class/PrC combo and a background that fits in the Realms. But the player doesn't want that, He wants to play a jedi, from Star Wars, crashed with a spaceship.

Now, while the mechanics would be not that much of a problem, and the lightsaber itself not that odd, for me, the assumption that "somewhere out there, there is the galaxy, full of space ships, and the force, and hyperspace", and the conclusion that the force also works on the realms, and technology such as spaceships would work, would ruin the setting - especially if the player also expects to use class abilities that "summon" other star wars friends, i.e. wants his background to show up in game.

Or another example:
Consider a player who wants to play a christian priest in the Realms. He doesn't want to play a cleric following a realms god, he wants to play a cleric following God. The one true god. He expects the DM to change the setting so that his god is the one god, and the rest are false gods, since his background demands it. And he expects to be able to convert the masses and start a church.

Can you see where I come from? I am not talking or ranting about a player wanting to play an exotic character, I am talking about a player demanding massive changes to the setting and genre just so he can play his concept perfectly.

Some may not consider those changes significant enough, but for me, and I assume for many others, such changes are significant enough to turn a fun setting into something one does not want to run.

As I explained, I don't have a problem with lizard warriors with breath weapons. I have a problem when I should be DMing a campaign where such folk is part of the established civilised society, happily mingling with humans and dwarves and elves and halflings, and not some alien race from the fringe.

 

[buzz]

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.

You're painting the hypothetical player in your example as an irrational jerkwad, though, so I'm not sure how useful this is to the discussion.

Is it such a hurdle to accept that it's a two-way street?

Do we really think this "god" dynamic would be acceptable in any other social context? Are gamers really this maladroit?

 

[Fenes]

Instead of hatin' on them, why not just change their background story? DIY...

In our new setting the Dragonborn are co-responsible for ending the world and a particularly unsavory Non-Governmental Organization wants to commit genocide against them.

As I said, I am not opposed to that - although, as I said and honestly believe, the background is all that makes a Dragonborn a Dragonborn, and not a lizardman with some halfdragon ability.

So, by changing the background of the dragonborn, I am actually banning them, and replacing them with a lizardman variant.

 

[Mister Doug]

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.

Bingo.

 

[Ourph]

When it all comes down to it, in the end, when all debating and argument is done...the player is replaceable. There are a lot of players, and there are not a lot of DMs.

There may be a larger pool of players than DMs, but IME, the pool of good players is rather limited. A DM who takes sitting behind the DM screen as an excuse to become a dictatorial jerk will likely not end up with the cream of the crop, but the dregs of the barrel. Some people might not have a problem with running a game for the dregs as long as they are appropriately submissive, but, as D&D is a social activity, I personally prefer to run games for people I like and get along with.