And we could have a nice discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of both approaches, perhaps with some amusing/enlightening personal anecdotes?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
DM Entitlement...
- Thread starter Scribble
- Start date
- Status
Aus_Snow
First Post
Brilliant!
Yes, and one thing in cooperative worldbuilding is how to handle things that are a game breaker for one player.
Or in other words: Is the DM allowed to walk away from such a game if it has things in it he absolutely doesn't like, or is that right to walk away reserved for players?
And does one have to justify such dislikes, or is everyone allowed to have fun their way?
I dont see anyone in this thread advocating slavery so of course the GM can walk away.
However, when I game I do so with friends. If a person dislikes something then we are able to sit down and discuss why they dont want a particular element in the game.
That can be as simple as "I dont like it" although I would hope for a bit more detail than that.
For example, in my current game (about 80% created by the players) I started off with the premise that it would be sword and sorcery themed, more Conan than Tolkein. So we have ancient crumbling cities, sinister sneering demonologists, half naked slave girls and looming temples of the serpent god.
Halflings and Gnomes dont fit. Even if they do fit I still cant stand them, they are both utterly pointless and silly races. Yes, my dislike of them is irrational however they still dont mesh well with the genre I had in mind.
I made my views known at the start but was clear, if someone wanted to play one we could accommodate it. The world isnt a static thing neither does it belong to me alone.
If no-one wanted to play one then they would be gone from the game for good.
Tielfings and Dragonborn, not a problem with. Tieflings fit the crumbling urban decadence theme well and the Dragonborn sit nicely as the noble/violent outsider barbarian.
EDIT: At the end of the day it is all about the social contract between the group, the rules (not games rules) that you agree to before you even sit down to start doing anything.
I get the feeling that a number of these problems mostly occur when people play with strangers or with people who they only game with rather than people who are firends beyond the gaming table.
Jackelope King
First Post
Sure, you can walk away if you really want to. But isn't it better to talk about it? If you don't like Dragonborn, for instance, try talking with the players. What if it's the culture of nomadic, noble warriors that really attracts the player and it's the imagery of "dragon people" that turns the DM off? Then you have room to find a good, healthy middle ground. Cut away all the dragonic flavor, make them similar to humans or elves in most ways (including appearance), but have them maintain most of the racial abilities (maybe the breath weapon becomes a one-off spell for a race of nomadic warrior-mages). Everyone winds up relatively satisfied, and everyone wins.
So end of story: talk about it. Work together. It also helps neatly with the whole "the DM does all the work and the players don't do any" issue by, well, getting the players involved.
We already said that we'd work with the players. The whole issue is that some simply do not acecpt that if no compromise can be found the DM can say "sorry, I won't run this game." They really believe and demand that the DM should run a game that's not fun for him.
grickherder
First Post
Then why do you insist on doing this to one of the players-- the DM?
Jackelope King
First Post
You might have missed part of what I suggest when I say that players and the DM/GM should work together. One of the complaints I've seen leveled often (and often in this thread) is that DMs/GMs do all the work, so their opinion just plain counts more than everyone else. I agree, to an extent, that this is indeed the case. The sharehold who invests more in a business gets more of a say in how it's run. If I spend ten hours every week preparing a game and you spend one, I should have ten times the say.
But what I'm saying is that the workload doesn't need to be divided up like this. It's not hard for the DM to ask for help in certain things, to make running the game easier. And once you get past this, everyone starts to have a more equal share of the workload, and everyone becomes more invested in the game, and what is/isn't allowed in the game.
That's what I'm getting at when I say, "It's not my game: it's our game." And that spirit of cooperation coupled with the combined creativity of an entire group really can do wonders for helping to find ways around seemingly insurmountable differences. What you may see as absolutely non-negotiable (no dragonborn, for instance) might be relatively easy to work-around (as I suggested above) if you tap your players for help in solving such a problem. The number of these "It's my way or I'm going home" situations can be reduced if you're willing to work together to come up with a solution that addresses the heart of the problem.
And as I've already said, if at the end of the day, the problem still can't be resolved, then nobody should be forced to play a game they don't want. It's all fun and games, or it's a waste of time. But the other added benefit of the solution I suggest is that there are more people willing to step up and run a game: if one GM can't/won't/just doesn't want to run a certain type of game, someone else who does can stand up and do so. Everybody wins in such a situation, which is why I advocate it so strongly.
Raven Crowking
First Post
IME, over 90% of all players respect the DM's authority enough that they don't try to tank a game when they can't get their way, and the other (less than) 10% aren't worth playing. If the DM says "no dragonborn" and a player is set on elements X, Y, and Z from that race that player's creativity has already been tapped by the DM if the player wants those elements. The DM has enough to do prepping the game without also making the players' characters for them. This is not to say that DM cannot or should not be open; only that the onus for fitting those elements into what is known about the world is on the player wanting them. This is not to say that the DM cannot or should not suggest a compromise if he or she thinks of one....merely that doing so is not primarily the DM's responsibility (nor the DM's primary responsibility!).
Saying that the DM has ultimate authority in any game he/she runs does not in any way, shape, or form suggest that the DM should not discuss things with players. Interestingly enough, although saying the DM has ultimate authority means just that....in the final say, the DM decides what gets into his/her world.....again and again "counter" examples are put forth which are agreements between players and DM. So long as everyone agrees (either because the players say OK to the DM, or because the player who wants an exception convinces the DM that it is a good [or okay] idea), there is no need for ultimate authority to be exercised.
Give me an example where the DM remains unconvinced, and really believes that element X shouldn't be in the game, but where the DM must or should say Yes, and then you have an argument for DM entitlement. Until then, not so much.
Even with collaborative worldbuilding, once the world is in motion, decisions that have made are going to preclude other decisions. Or do those who think the DM should never say (or have the power to say) No automatically accomodating when one player pulls out the Book of Erotic Fantasy and wants his character to rely heavily on the rules therein?
Of course, just as a player may make a "dream character" and then seek out a game that will accomodate him, so may a DM make a "dream campaign setting" and then seek out players to whom this setting is interesting.
RC
Saying that the DM has ultimate authority in any game he/she runs does not in any way, shape, or form suggest that the DM should not discuss things with players. Interestingly enough, although saying the DM has ultimate authority means just that....in the final say, the DM decides what gets into his/her world.....again and again "counter" examples are put forth which are agreements between players and DM. So long as everyone agrees (either because the players say OK to the DM, or because the player who wants an exception convinces the DM that it is a good [or okay] idea), there is no need for ultimate authority to be exercised.
Give me an example where the DM remains unconvinced, and really believes that element X shouldn't be in the game, but where the DM must or should say Yes, and then you have an argument for DM entitlement. Until then, not so much.
Even with collaborative worldbuilding, once the world is in motion, decisions that have made are going to preclude other decisions. Or do those who think the DM should never say (or have the power to say) No automatically accomodating when one player pulls out the Book of Erotic Fantasy and wants his character to rely heavily on the rules therein?
Of course, just as a player may make a "dream character" and then seek out a game that will accomodate him, so may a DM make a "dream campaign setting" and then seek out players to whom this setting is interesting.
RC
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
I know this is OT, but, how is a race of demonic half breeds, a warrior reptile race and elves mythologically void? I'd say that these are pretty mythologically, and certainly genre, filled.
I would also point out that 4e has not actually lost any races, other than half orc, which is truly a mythologically void race, since all 3e races are still playable.
Adding =/= restricting in most dictionaries.
But you aren't working with the players. You have absolutely, 100% banned a race, for no other reason than you dislike the race. What compromise have you made?
But, the DM isn't actually doing anything. That's been my point all the way along. I'm the one playing the character. I'm the one who has to make it fit into the setting. I'm the one who has to accept the consequences of my choice - perhaps I cannot enter towns, I take penaties to certain things, everyone hates me, whatever. What is the DM "having" to do? What about my choice of race forces the DM to do anything?
Note, again, I'm only talking about a situation where the only issue is the DM's preference. In all other situations, the DM is most certainly entitled to have his way. It is only in this one, single situation, where the DM is forcing his personal tastes on the player.
Just as a question, what if two players want to play something that the DM doesn't like? Does it matter? Does it matter that the DM is putting his tastes ahead of more than one player? Or is it only OK when he's forcing his tastes upon one player?
RC said:
I thought I just had for the past three pages. I feel when the DM's only reason for banning an element is his own personal tastes, then the DM should not force his tastes on other players. Doing so is entirely DM entitlement. No player can do so. No player can turn to another player and say, "No, I hate X, you can't play it". Only the DM can do so. And, IMO, doing so is an abuse of his authority.
- Status
