DM Entitlement...

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Poor, poor Hussar. So misunderstood. Clearly, if the DM says, "Sorry, Hussar, there are no dragonborn in this world" that would be good enough for him. My error. Because I do see you saying repeatedly that you accept reasons that something might not be allowed in a game. Vampires in mech games. Teletubbies in the Forgotten Realms. You are even willing to say that it's okay if it violates genre conventions.

But "There are no dragonborn in this world" is not one of the things you've agreed is okay, anywhere I can see, unless the world is underwater and they couldn't breathe.

And, see, I have a hard time understanding how a DM can ban a PC race without it being automatically true that they either are not in the world, or that they are in the world in such a way that they can be PCs. It would be rather odd for a DM to ban (say) dragonborn as PCs because he cannot stand them, yet have every third NPC be a dragonborn.

So I question the intellectual honesty of saying "It's okay for the DM to make a world without dragonborn, because he hates them, and ban dragonborn because they are not in the world", but at the same time say, "It's not okay for the DM to ban dragonborn because he hates them" even though the implication of that banning is (very, very, very strongly) that there are no dragonborn in the world.

The "logic" seems.....rather wishy-washy to me. At best.

And I guess some things you said just sorta led me astray. For example, from post #262:

Me: Hey guys, this DM has his sphincter in such a knot about his "vision of the world" that he won't even try to meet me half way despite the fact that I've come up with a plausible explanation about my character. If he's that tight assed about this, imagine what his adventures are going to be like. **Choo Choo!** Let's let him/her go write that fanfic that he's really trying to rope you into and I'll run a game where you get to play the characters you more or less want to play, within reasonable limits set by the parameters of the game and not my personal "artistic vision".​

although I'd swear that the presence or absence of a racial choice has something to do with the way that the world is envisioned by the DM. And it seems to be the DM's "vision of the world" that you are upset about here.

And I guess post 292 sort of makes me wonder how you can say that you accept the DM saying "There are no dragonborn in this world":

Yes, it's perfectly clear. You think your fun is more important than your player's. Since you are the one banning the element, not the player. You are the one who has decided unilaterally that your imagination is better than your player's imagination and that if the player plays something you don't like, your fun would be less, therefore, he cannot possibly play it. Anything which lessens your fun is bad. It doesn't matter that your decision has lessened his fun after all. His fun is irrelavent. The only important thing here is that you are having fun.​

Because there, indeed, we are talking about an element being banned from the game. And being banned from the game means to not exist in the game. And it is rather difficult to understand how it is not okay for an element to not exist in a game, save that the DM says that it does not exist in the game because it does not exist in the world.

See, this sort of thing confuses me. I have a hard time understanding your response, especially when you are talking to Fenes, who has stated that his world has no dragonborn. Which is, apparently, okay, as long as he has said so. Which he has.......so.......

See. Now I feel like a computer having to talk to Captain Kirk. The next sentence is true. The last sentence was a lie.

Because I get that, time and again, you are saying that you only have a problem with banning elements when it is an issue of personal taste. But, isn't "There are no dragonborn in this world" a matter of personal taste? You seem to think so, in post 312:

My only beef is with the idea that the DM's prerogative of creating setting extends to enforcing his personal tastes over the wishes of the players. If the DM bans something and no one cares, well, who cares? But, if the player, who I'm assuming is not being an asshat for the purposes of this discussion, honestly wants to play X because he likes X and can do a good job of playing X and will not abuse the rules and is doing so simply because he likes X, then why does the DM have the right to say "no, my imagination is better than yours"?​

Because here, you are talking about the DM banning something as part of "creating setting". Isn't "No dragonborn in this world" part of creating setting?

Hey, how about Fenes again? He has said that he has a world with no dragonborn, and given you specific reasons why it is genre-breaking for him. If you say that simply saying "There are no dragonborn in this world" is good enough, you must be okay with that, right? Post 317 has the answer:

It's when the DM, like Fenes here, says, "Well, I cannot envisage a society which accepts people with scales, therefore, nothing you the players can say can change my mind and you WILL NOT play this race. If you want to play that race, play in a different game (Ie, get out of my game)."

He has unilaterally decided that his enjoyment of the game hinges on this one single factor and anyone else's enjoyment is secondary. If someone plays a dragonborn, it will make the game less fun for him, therefore, no one shall play a dragonborn.

No matter what.

And people are patting him on the back for it.

That's what absolutely blows my mind about this. He's being 100% unreasonable. No compromise, no attempt to find a middle ground. THOU SHALT NOT PLAY THIS. It doesn't matter if the player tries to come up with a reasonable background, it doesn't matter what the player wants at all. No matter what, no one can play this in his game. For no other reason than he doesn't like it.​

Heck, in post 346 you give an example of your reaction specifically to a world without dragonborn:

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.​

And this stuff confuses me, because one side of your mouth is saying one thing, and the other side seems to be saying something completely different.

And the funny thing about that "Naval campaign" conversation you mention in post 352 is that, when I suggested that the DM was within his rights to disallow a warforged ninja in a Pirates of the Carribean game because it did not fit the genre/setting, you argued that this was not a good enough reason. In fact, here you characterize my position as

The DM is infallible. His tastes trump all, 100% of the time, players be damned.​

So, again, this confuses me. I am not sure who you are being dishonest with. Me? Yourself? One of us, certainly. Or so it seems to me with my admittedly feeble grasp of language and logic. Certainly there is something here where 2+2 is not adding up to equal 4.

But, then again, this thread is littered with posts by several folks pointing out the same thing to you, and being blithely ignored.

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

Can you explain to me how you jump to this conclusion?

How does "The DM can, and sometimes should, say No" mean that the DM cannot say Yes?!?!?!

Or is this simply more "Woes!" like the "Woes! The mean DM said I can't play a dragonborn in his game!"?!?!



RC

 

[rounser]

The complaint against dragonborn specifically comes mostly from old-school players who don't like the idea of monstrous races walking around fully integrated into "normal" society.

That's one justification. Another is that the concept is lame, the artwork is ugly, and the name sounds contrived. They shouldn't be in the core. But wait, we have a tide of...questionable flavour material...entering the core on the horizon, like goliaths.

Can you see where the wyrm is turning? Splatbook crap is now THE GAME, not just an optional part of it with the core as a safe haven. And people with opinions like Hussar's are not an accident - because it's core and in the artwork there's a sense of entitlement to this tidal wave of lame. Abandon ship.

 

[SableWyvern]

I don't understand why this is so controversial.

As a DM, I'm entitled to run or not run anything I want in any fashion I want (within the law). The players that are part of the group are entitled to play or not play whatever it is that I ultimately decide to run.

Somewhere in all that, if there is to be a game, everyone needs to find some common ground. As a DM, I need to decide how much leeway I'm willing to give any individual player before I'm no longer running a game I'm happy with.* The players need to decide if the options available to them allow them to play a character they're happy with in a setting and style they'll enjoy.

However, there's no objective point where any particular option or lack thereof becomes too restrictive or too open. Where the line rests will vary from group to group, game to game and player to player.

*Edit: Even if this decision is arrived at by group consensus, the GM still needs to be happy with the ultimate outcome. I don't know why any GM would agree to run a game if he's not comfortable with the style or rules, and if the group agrees to play something he doesn't want to run, then he would be better of stepping aside so that someone more comfortable with the concept can run it. If the group expects the GM to run it anyway, then what we have is arrogant player entitlement. At the very least, if the GM agrees to run such a game, the rest of the group should recognise and appreciate that the GM is generously and selflessly going the extra mile and deciding to limit his fun for the sake of the others.

 

[pemerton]

Can you see where the wyrm is turning? Splatbook crap is now THE GAME, not just an optional part of it with the core as a safe haven. And people with opinions like Hussar's are not an accident - because it's core and in the artwork there's a sense of entitlement to this tidal wave of lame. Abandon ship.

I don't fully follow this. Unless you are talking about playing in offical contexts - RPGA, tournaments etc - then THE GAME is whatever the gaming group agrees to play. WoTC, simply by placing a logo saying "core" on a rulebook, can't force a group to agree to use that material. If all the group agree that it is lame, then presumably they won't use it. If one person likes it and another does it, then negotiation and compromise ensue.

In any event, as far as I can see, the only remedy for the sense of "entitlement" that you decry appears to be WoTC to not produce new material. Unfortunately, that's kind of their raison d'etre.

 

[rounser]

In any event, as far as I can see, the only remedy for the sense of "entitlement" that you decry appears to be WoTC to not produce new material. Unfortunately, that's kind of their raison d'etre.

No. All they had to do was to keep the core game core, and keep their hexblade warforged dire flail specialists in some splatbook that can be easily ignored. Unfortunately they've gotten greedy, and the experimental splat is mixed up with classic mythological stuff, so they can sell more books. Unfortunately, they're taking down D&D's implied setting with this maneuver. It'll be wombat stew (children's book about a stew where everything from old boots to hair and toenail clippings go in the stew alongside real food).

 

[Lanefan]

Gak! It's 1:50 a.m. here and you lot are still typing faster than I can read!

A few random notes:

- I as DM am not necessarily saying "my imagination is better than yours", but what I *am* saying is "better, worse, or the same, it's my imagination that came up with this world and that's what this game is going with".

- Believe it or not, I actually had a player who wanted to play a Jedi in my based-on-FR Riveria game. I said no; Jedi don't exist in this setting, and then watched with some amazement as she managed over time to almost build one anyway: spec. Fighter with glowing sword, used a wish to become psyonic (and was almost there anyway; would have got it naturally with one more level), then rolled ridiculously high on the ability charts. Bingo! As close to a Jedi as you could ever hope for. Problem was, the Jedi she was trying to match was Episode-3 Anakin, meaning the character was well on his way to bat-guano evilness...

- A few years prior, this same player wanted to play a vampire and presented a lengthy and compelling case for such. I said no, both for power reasons (at then-party-levels a vampire as opponent would have had a field day, so I wasn't about to allow one as a PC) and for practicality reasons (the party would have had to become completely nocturnal as vampires don't function very well in the daylight).

- "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for a DM to ban something, regardless how it's presented. If I ever run 4e the first things to go will be Dragonborn and Tieflings, replaced with Hobbits and Part-Orcs...and while I can easily enough couch it in terms of setting, the real reason is simple personal preference; I don't like half-dragons and half-demons in earlier editions either. On the flip side, "I do like it" is a perfectly valid reason for a DM to allow something the game or setting otherwise wouldn't have, such as Warforged in the Realms or firearms in Greyhawk.

Players, on the other hand, can't do this...in my game. They can do what they like in their own game, should they choose to run it....

- I can understand why things have to be more cut and dried when you're gaming with people you don't otherwise know...but I've been lucky, and never had to be in this situation. For my current game, I had the wonderful luxury of being able to, out of a fairly large and diverse pool, invite the players I wanted...those who I knew would entertain me and would appreciate my (not always successful) efforts to entertain them in return...and the result so far has been pure gold! Complete in-game mayhem, mind you, but pure gold!

There'd be more, but it's late and my memory is shutting down for the night...

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

I'm not really "critisizing" anyone... I couldn't care less about how they play their games as long as they're happy and their group is happy. I'm just trying to understand what promotes the mindset because it's different from my own. I'm also offering an idea that I have that seems to work well, and has led to some great games.

That said, the same can be said from the opposite side as well: Without the players there is no game.

Truly without both "sides" there is no game.

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

Really it's not the idea that the DM can or cannot "ban" something. It's the question of why, if that ban is at odds with a player's enjoyment of the game, do some feel the ONLY answer is "they can leave." As opposed to talking with the player as to WHY they're at odds with it, and seeing if the DM should reconsider. (For the good of the game as a whole.)

As GM I may not have time to engage in a long discussion and thought process with a player pre-game about why I'm not allowing Dragonborn. I may just need to say "No Dragonborn" and have them respect my decision. Now as it happens, having ploughed through this thread I have had lots of time to think about how I could accommodate Dragonborn IMC. I've come up with: "They look human, except for their reptilian eyes, oddly pointed teeth, and some have scaly patches of skin. Mechanically they are by the book".
So a player could now play one without busting up my setting's thematic elements. But if a player had come to me 20 minutes before the game started with wanting to play a Dragonborn, I wouldn't have had time to think through that. I've had just had to say "No". If the player is dead set on playing a dragonborn, I respect their decision to leave. I wouldn't be happy if they tried to 'gank' the other players, though.

 

[S'mon]

. My single, solitary issue is with the idea that the DM has the right to say, "My imagination is better than yours".

Does the GM have the right to say "I prefer my imagination to yours"?

It's not about whose ideas are objectively better. It's about the GM's personal preference for the game he wants to run.

 

[Hussar]

RC - How can you quote so much, spend so much time, and still not get it when everyone else does?

THE ONLY ISSUE AT STAKE FOR ME IS WHEN THE DM'S ONLY REASON FOR BANNING IS HE DOESN'T LIKE IT.

Is that clear enough. Hell, in the bits you quote, I actually say that repeatedly. That you choose to ignore that and argue against things I'm not actually saying leads me to think you are deliberately misconstruing things.

It's funny really. This is a thread about DM Entitlement. I suggest (strongly perhaps) that one very small limitation be placed on DM's authority - that DM's should not unilaterally enforce their tastes on the group without any other reasons - and people are crying and gnashing teeth to the point where some have put me on ignore.

I'd say that DM Entitlement is pretty prevalent around here. I'm talking about one very minor point. There are a million reasons to ban stuff from the game. "I don't like it" all by itself, is not IMO, one of them.

There RC, is that crystal clear enough. I tried typing slowly and not using any big words.

-----

I have one problem with the food analogies that use restaurants. When I go to a restaurant, I'm spending what, three hours tops? When I play a campaign, I'm going to be spending hundreds of hours with this character. Shouldn't things lean on the player's side when trying to find a character they want to play?

Again, with the proviso, that the ONLY ISSUE IS ONE OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE. If there are ANY OTHER ISSUES, then I have no problems with the DM banning material. None. Zip, zero, zilch. Nada. I no way do I advocate limiting DM's authority when he has any other reason than "I don't like it"

((I absolutely hate that I have to repeat this line IN EVERY FREAKING POST, but, apparently I'm not being clear enough.))

 

[Fenes]

Does the GM have the right to say "I prefer my imagination to yours"?

It's not about whose ideas are objectively better. It's about the GM's personal preference for the game he wants to run.

Obviously, for some, only the player has the right to say "my imagination is better than yours".