DM Entitlement...

[Obryn]

I guarantee you that I can say "No dragonborn" without being laughed off the table, so there is probably some variance.

Again, that's a parody.

If a player suggested a Dragonborn character, you'd work with them to try and find something similar (either thematically or mechanically) that works for both of you, right? Say, "I don't have those. How about a lizard-man?" or something like that?

Because really, that's what everyone is actually saying.

-O

 

[CountPopeula]

Again, that's a parody.

If a player suggested a Dragonborn character, you'd work with them to try and find something similar (either thematically or mechanically) that works for both of you, right? Say, "I don't have those. How about a lizard-man?" or something like that?

Because really, that's what everyone is actually saying.

-O

I agree here, I think, in a way, both sides have made it seem like the DM is sitting there, in his cape, taking the advice he read in his hackmaster's guide to heart, being a jerkweed. I don't know if that this has ever happened.

 

[Fenes]

Again, that's a parody.

If a player suggested a Dragonborn character, you'd work with them to try and find something similar (either thematically or mechanically) that works for both of you, right? Say, "I don't have those. How about a lizard-man?" or something like that?

Because really, that's what everyone is actually saying.

-O

No. Some say that the players has the right to play a Dragonborn, if the DM is just banning dragonborn because he hates them, but is allowing half-dragon lizardfolk.

 

[Obryn]

No. Some say that the players has the right to play a Dragonborn, if the DM is just banning dragonborn because he hates them, but is allowing half-dragon lizardfolk.

OK. Want to point me at a post that specifically says this?

-O

 

[Fenes]

OK. Want to point me at a post that specifically says this?

-O

There are lots of posts that state that if the DM bans something just because he dislikes it he is being a jerk. You cannot have missed them. And they kept coming up after countless examples of how one would try to work with players first to handle things.

I'd point you at them, but I ignore the poster since this thread.

 

[Spatula]

OK. Want to point me at a post that specifically says this?

Just about every post by Hussar and Cadfan in this thread? They both say repeatedly that "personal taste" isn't a valid reason for excluding some element from games.

 

[Spatula]

I would also point out that 4e has not actually lost any races, other than half orc, which is truly a mythologically void race,

Half-orcs, like a lot of early D&D bits, originated with Tolkien. Where are fire-breathing humanoid reptiles that are fully integrated into human society from?

(I say this with no particular animus towards Dragonborn)

 

[Hussar]

I think that's where the confusion lies. You agree that there should be some back-and-forth and discussion to determine what is appropriate and to try to make what might seem at first blush to be inappropriate. When it's determined that something just can't be made to fit after this work, that's not really a veto (which is understood in common parlance to be a little more unilateral).

EDIT: To use Hussar's lexicon, a player who won't engage the DM and be willing to compromise would be labeled an "asshat", and should "be pelted with dice". The question is whether a DM can be similarly labeled and assaulted for refusing to engage the player and compromise, or at least try to help the player figure out a way to make a character work for everyone.

Bingo. This is precisely the argument I'm making.

The problem that arises is the idea that the DM choosing not to run a particular game is considered an "attempt to destroy the game for others, or an attempt to force them to play as he likes." So far, correct?

Because, if it is correct, that offers a premise that can be rationally examined.

No. That is not the premise. You are offering additional elements. "The DM choosing not to run a particular game" is not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing, Does the DM have the right to enforce his personal preferences over the preferences of a player or players, regardless of reason?

I don't think so. I think there are numerous perfectly legitimate reasons for saying no, but, "I don't like it" is not one of them.

Half-orcs, like a lot of early D&D bits, originated with Tolkien. Where are fire-breathing humanoid reptiles that are fully integrated into human society from?

(I say this with no particular animus towards Dragonborn)

True. But, appearing in Lord of the Rings does not make you mythological.

Are you saying a race descended from dragons, an ancient empire fallen into ashes, has no mythological resonances?

Again, just to reiterate. My only, single issue, is when the DM has decided that his preferences trump the players, when no other issue is on the table. When it simply comes down to "I like it" vs "I don't like it", I think "I like it" should win, regardless of which side of the screen people sit on.

RC - In the discussion about warforged ninja, I came up with a perfectly reasonable backstory that fit into the setting - the warforged was actually a construct designed to pilot a damaged ship that wandered for years before foundering. Over the years of wandering it gained a small sense of sentience and becomes the PC. ((The story I wrote in that thread was longer )) How is that breaking POTC genre?

Wally - When a DM has decided that his preferences trump the players, how is that not declaring "my imagination is better than yours"? When the DM has unilaterally, without any recourse, decided that no matter what, something that he personally cannot or will not envisage or imagine will exist in his campaign, he has expressly declared that his imagination trumps all. That's the same as declaring "My imagination is better than yours" IMO.

I probably should have been clearer up front about this: my advice to players would be work with the DM and accept when they no. My advice to DM's --which is what I've tried to offer in this thread-- however, is not to say no.

Quoted for troothiness. This is precisely what I'm trying to say.

 

[Hussar]

So am I to understand that now "Sorry, no dragonborn. They don't fit in my world" is suddenly good enough for you?!?!?! Because, I could swear we went through pages where it was not.

Point to the quote please.

I've repeated myself so many times in this thread. It simply stuns me that people insist on attributing stances that I have not taken. I've taken to reiterating my position with every post in the hopes that some people will get it. Apparently its started to work. Just not well enough.

 

[Hussar]

In case anyone thinks I don't practise what I preach, here's a little anecdote.

I don't like elves. Never have. I strongly dislike the idea that a quasi-imortal race runs around with much shorter lived races and never sits back and takes a break. But, my dislike of elves pales before my loathing of ninjas. My hat of ninja no no limit. I really, really don't like ninjas.

So, when one of my players approached me with a character concept of elf ninja, I was less than impressed to say the least. I tried cajoling him into choosing another race/class, but, he was adamant that this was the concept that he wanted to play. He really liked the idea. So, I sat back and looked at my campaign, which was fairly open ended at the time and I couldn't really think of any particular reason why an elf ninja couldn't exist in the setting. Nor was there any compelling mechanical reason for banning the character.

So, I caved. I let him have the PC. And he had a great time with it.

Apparently, according to some in this thread, I made the wrong decision.