DM Entitlement...

[ProfessorCirno]

Hussar, you're missing the question.

The question is, what is so damnably difficult about just making a new character when it's apparent the DM doesn't like the one you're trying to push on him like some cliched drug dealer?

All your posts are backing up this idea of "My character is the most important part of the game." That's the problem everyone else here has. It's not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But isn't it better to talk about it? If you don't like Dragonborn, for instance, try talking with the players.

Eventually, a decision will be made, and it will be made by the DM. If the player still doesn't like the DM's call, what then?

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."

While there are examples of great shared world stories- Thieves' World and Wild Cards spring immediately to mind- the quality of collaborative fiction generally decreases as the number of collaborators increases.

It makes it more difficult to maintain a cohesive feel to the setting. It also makes it difficult to hide things that may need to be hidden from the players.

This isn't to say that I don't value player input. I value it highly.

My best campaign ever was a superhero campaign set in 1900- the 1900 as might have been imagined by Verne and Wells. The campaign lasted 3 years.

The player input came in 2 forms: 1) PC design & backgrounds and 2) table talk related to the game world. They did NOT have a say in the initial campaign design, but their running commentary provided inspiration for at least 40% of the adventures that followed the initial story arc.

 

[Imp]

Hussar. You're specifying a hard case, requiring a hard rule (yes/no), and then being appalled at how hard it looks when people choose one of those hard rules.

I mean, something like dragonborn, among friends, that's usually going to be discussed around the table and everyone will have a pretty good idea of what everyone's point of view is before anyone even gets to the point of developing a character. Even in 3e when a player might spring a monster PC concept on the group you'll probably have a general idea of how receptive the campaign is to outlandish PCs, and heck you'd probably have come up with a way to fit the strange PC in the campaign (actually, if you didn't, and you'd been playing a while in my campaign, I'd question my own DMing) – you're going past a whole lot of soft decision-making to get to a hard point.

Similarly, it's not really possible to isolate banning something "just because you don't like it" from whatever other reasons simply because people are pretty good at coming up with rationales for their decisions – the DM makes a world without elves, the DM doesn't like elves, chicken, egg, chicken, egg.

 

[pemerton]

While there are examples of great shared world stories- Thieves' World and Wild Cards spring immediately to mind- the quality of collaborative fiction generally decreases as the number of collaborators increases.

To the extent that RPGing resemble the authoring of fiction, it is perhaps closer to improvisational theatre than to short story writing.

Or to put it another way - except in a very railroady game, the players are not simply the audience for the GM's story.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Let us say that I am playing an alien (from Aliens) in the Forgotten Realms. The DM (and other players) now have to accept the implication that this is possible. They might also have to accept the implication that Predators are possible. The DM, in particular, has to role-play the response of every single NPC to this thing foisted on the game by myself.....and that is, no matter how you slice it, 90% of the work of making a character fit into the setting.

Or perhaps I want to play a Teletubby. Apart from my going "La la" with my character, repeatedly, throughout every game session, the DM is really going to have his work cut out for him when I convince the other PCs to accompany me to Teletubby Land. Because, I reason, how can there be Teletubbies without Teletubby Land?

Or I pull out the Book of Erotic Fantasy and decide I am playing a character whose focus cannot be fully described here due to the Eric's Grandmother rule. And that is how I am going to focus my character, every game. After all, it's the source of his power. This still implies no work for the DM? He should, maybe, say Yes to my character concept, and then gimp me in actual play?

What about your choice of race forces the DM to do anything?

The DM has to decide whether or not you can enter towns, and deal with a split party if you cannot. The DM has to decide whether or not you take penaties to certain things, everyone hates me, whatever, and deal with the whining when you complain that the DM has tacitly vetoed your concept after the fact because he is being gimped in actual play. No matter how you slice it, playing the reaction of the world to a character always requires more effort that playing that character, assuming any sort of cohesive setting at all.

I'm the one who has to accept the consequences of my choice

Agreed. And one of those consequences might be that the DM says No.

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?

The DM never has to run a game including elements he doesn't like, just as the players never have to play in a game including elements they don't like.

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.

So, you argue that no player can say "No, I hate games without dragonborn, you can't play it" while arguing that the DM cannot say "No, I hate games with dragonborn, so I will not run one"?

Colour me confused.



RC

 

[Hussar]

Let us say that I am playing an alien (from Aliens) in the Forgotten Realms. The DM (and other players) now have to accept the implication that this is possible. They might also have to accept the implication that Predators are possible. The DM, in particular, has to role-play the response of every single NPC to this thing foisted on the game by myself.....and that is, no matter how you slice it, 90% of the work of making a character fit into the setting.

Nice strawman first off, but, let's run with it.

Ok, why? Why do I have to assume that there might be Predator's present? Nothing about Alien assumes they are. The DM is certainly not forced to. But, I'll come back to this in a second.

Or perhaps I want to play a Teletubby. Apart from my going "La la" with my character, repeatedly, throughout every game session, the DM is really going to have his work cut out for him when I convince the other PCs to accompany me to Teletubby Land. Because, I reason, how can there be Teletubbies without Teletubby Land?

Or I pull out the Book of Erotic Fantasy and decide I am playing a character whose focus cannot be fully described here due to the Eric's Grandmother rule. And that is how I am going to focus my character, every game. After all, it's the source of his power. This still implies no work for the DM? He should, maybe, say Yes to my character concept, and then gimp me in actual play?

What about your choice of race forces the DM to do anything?

I have repeatedly stated that players who are being ass hats deserve to be pelted with dice. Straw man arguments are not helping. The player is being an ass hat. You can remove any of these elements simply, without having to resort to a "I just don't like it."

The DM has to decide whether or not you can enter towns, and deal with a split party if you cannot. The DM has to decide whether or not you take penaties to certain things, everyone hates me, whatever, and deal with the whining when you complain that the DM has tacitly vetoed your concept after the fact because he is being gimped in actual play. No matter how you slice it, playing the reaction of the world to a character always requires more effort that playing that character, assuming any sort of cohesive setting at all.

Yup. You're right. Exactly like the DM has to determine how the world reacts to EVERY OTHER PC in the game. He has to determine how the world reacts to the "allowed races" as well. How is this any different?

Again, assuming the player isn't being an asshat. Asshats need to be pelted with dice. On either side of the screen.

Agreed. And one of those consequences might be that the DM says No.


The DM never has to run a game including elements he doesn't like, just as the players never have to play in a game including elements they don't like.

So, you argue that no player can say "No, I hate games without dragonborn, you can't play it" while arguing that the DM cannot say "No, I hate games with dragonborn, so I will not run one"?

Colour me confused.

RC

No, I argue that the DM should not say, "I hate X, therefore my personal preferences trump yours. No matter what compromises you make, no matter what elements you bring up, you cannot have this. Not because there is anything mechanically wrong with it, or even genre issues. Solely because I don't like it."

Look, take these two hypotheticals (and look ma, no screwing around with totally bogus examples):

1.
Player: I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
DM: Well, I don't really like the idea of ancient dragonborn empires. It doesn't fit in my campaign. How about you keep the dragonborn racial stuff, but, we rebrand it so that it fits in my campaign?
Player: What? No way! I insist that you keep dragonborn exactly as they are in the PHB.

This player is an asshat. He deserves to be pelted with dice. The DM tried to compromise and the player is being a jerk. Everyone, I hope, agrees that this is a bad player.

2.
Player: I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
DM: Oh man, I hate that crap. No, not in my game.
Player: Well, I really like them. I like the idea of them. I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with? Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world. He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner. He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home. Hrm. Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly? That might work.
DM: No way. You absolutely cannot play a dragonborn no matter what. It's my game and if you don't like it, there's the door.

Now, me, I'd be out the door. Any DM who had his sphincter that puckered about something like this would be one I'd never want to play with. But, apparently, several people here would pat him on the back and congratulate him for being a great DM.

Do I have that right?

The question is, what is so damnably difficult about just making a new character when it's apparent the DM doesn't like the one you're trying to push on him like some cliched drug dealer?

No, to me that's not the question. My question is, why is it so damnably difficult for the DM to give that tiny little inch to make his player happy? Just because he's in the big chair does not give him the right to beat the player over the head with his personal preferences.

Again, assuming no one's being an asshat.

 

[Papa-DRB]

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?

While I do not agree with your premise, I was willing to listen up to this point. I the DM doesn't have to do anything? Who plays all the NPCs that have to interact with your character? Who has to worry perhaps about a split party? Who has to potentially change a module that I am running because of something "wierd" in your character? etc, etc.

The DM does a bloody lot of work and it is players like you who make the job very difficult. I'm outta here, goodbye thread....

 

[racoffin]

<snip>

No, I argue that the DM should not say, "I hate X, therefore my personal preferences trump yours. No matter what compromises you make, no matter what elements you bring up, you cannot have this. Not because there is anything mechanically wrong with it, or even genre issues. Solely because I don't like it."

<snip>

2.
Player: I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
DM: Oh man, I hate that crap. No, not in my game.
Player: Well, I really like them. I like the idea of them. I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with? Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world. He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner. He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home. Hrm. Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly? That might work.
DM: No way. You absolutely cannot play a dragonborn no matter what. It's my game and if you don't like it, there's the door.

Now, me, I'd be out the door. Any DM who had his sphincter that puckered about something like this would be one I'd never want to play with. But, apparently, several people here would pat him on the back and congratulate him for being a great DM.

Do I have that right?

No, to me that's not the question. My question is, why is it so damnably difficult for the DM to give that tiny little inch to make his player happy? Just because he's in the big chair does not give him the right to beat the player over the head with his personal preferences.

Again, assuming no one's being an asshat.

I suppose it is as damnably difficult for the DM to give in as the player. In the above example (#2), the player knows before he launches into the questionable backstory that the DM absolutely despises dragonborn, but he pushes the point anyway, and, if your words afterwards are any example, is then going to not play because the DM didn't give in.

Assuming no one is being an asshat, we have a player that despite being told that a race/class/prestige class/piece of equipment/spell/whatever isn't availiable is still going to try to cram that whatever into the campaign.

That, more than anything, seems to be a pretty good example of being an asshat.

So what is the "good" reason for the player to have whatever the forbidden item is, if we remove "because I wanna have it!" as a rational excuse? You've mentioned previously that the DM shouldn't use "Because I don't like it" as a valid reason not to allow it. So what is the good reason for it to be reintroduced?

I suppose I am one of the "bad" DMs. I give the players a pretty detailed list of what is and isn't allowed, and I tend to frown pretty heavily on games of "What if" when players try to get around it. I've had a few people walk away from the table over it, usually friends of a friend who have successfully managed to get their way in other games and are horrified and shocked when it doesn't work in our game.

 

[Mercule]

And this is a legitimate use of DM authority?

Absolutely.

By the social contract of my current group, my original group, and almost every group I've participated in between.

Your group may have a different social contract, but that doesn't make it any more or less valid. The "DM is god" contract is no more tyrannical than the alternative is a hippy love-in.

 

[ExploderWizard]

(and according to 1st edition, and now 4th edition the game CAN be run without a DM! hehe)

4th edition says this. 1st edition never did. You might be confusing the suggestions for randomly generated dungeons to mean this but that isn't the same thing.