DM Entitlement...

[La Bete]

But I hate the dragonborn as presented, as a widely accepted civilised race that generally suffers no problem in society.

I can call it genre, I can call it not fitting my world, but mainly I dislike DMing a "Sword & Sorcery" game where society acts like it was Sigil.

And that strikes me as a perfectly rational explanation. And if I'm reading Hussar right, so does he.

 

[Fenes]

And that strikes me as a perfectly rational explanation. And if I'm reading Hussar right, so does he.

However, it is purely my personal preference for a world without lizards in civilised society. "I do not want to run such a world, and Dragonborn need such a world or they are just lizardfolk with a breath weapon, or scaly wanna-be drows" is no more or less reasonable than "they do not fit my genre/world".

It boils down to "I dislike Dragonborn, and what they stand for in my eyes".

 

[Hussar]

Okay, you ignored my previous question(s), and I try to keep them simple, but I don't worry as you sort of answered them anyway.

With regard to the above quote, where do you draw the line if you were the DM? If someone comes up with whatever character concept they want, and they can make it fit in your game, since you are DM, do you allow it, or do you draw the line at some point? Or do you allow whatever they can come up with as the player should win?

-wally

Apologies for not answering your question. Not avoiding, just missed it in the scrum.

The point here is, there is no real line to draw. If I can come up with a fairly decent reason why something shouldn't be in the game (and by decent, I mean one that I can honestly believe and the other person can at least acknowledge, if not agree with - yeah, that's vague, but, it's going to come down to situation and not something I can frame completely) then it's gone. If, OTOH, I take an honest look at an idea and the only reason I want it gone is because I don't like it, then, IMO, I should back down and allow it.

In other words, ties go to the player.

That's an interesting view. I'm not sure that I agree 100% with this, but it's not completely without merit.

Of course, as others (obryn?) have noted, the examples of this would be vanishingly small - most DMs would say "I don't want dragonborn/elves/furries because they are unbalanced/inappropriate/covered by another race/too foreign/too normal, etc", rather than a virginity/cheetos-flecked rant of "because they SUXXORS and I HATES them!!11!"

Yes, I do think this is vanishinly small. It did, however, happen to me, as I pointed out above. Many people are painting me with a brush that I am trying to strip DM's of all authority and ram my ideas down their throat. That can't be further from the truth. I'm talking about a very corner case, one that likely won't happen all that often.

Really, I'm addressing this more to DM's than to players. You're right, the DM could lie and there'd be nothing you could do about it. However, if the DM takes an honest look at the element, trying to be as objective as possible, and can't really come up with a compelling reason to ban it, besides "I don't like it", then he should allow it.

Again, IMO.

For example, someone above (Mallus I believe, too lazy to fight the slow boards tonight to look it up) hates tinker gnomes. Loathes them. I wonder though, if the player said, "Ok, how about an gnomish artificer? I really dig the whole Macgyver thing and I can make all sorts of cool toys using the Artificer mechanics", would he still say no?

Remember, all the way along, I've said that the players and the DM should be willing to compromise and find common ground. Where I differ from Jackalope King is that when a deadlock occurs, based solely on taste, the nod should go to the player.

This is why all the ridiculous examples aren't really what I'm talking about. Yeah, if someone is trying to ram something into the game that breaks genre, for example, and does absolutely nothing to try to make it fit genre, then, sure, he's wrong. However, if the player makes an honest effort to fit the concept into the setting, and succeeds to a reasonable degree, then the DM should back off.

Honestly, I think the standard wisdom is that in the case of a deadlock, the DM gets the nod. That's what I'm questioning. Both sides have made compromises, the concept fits into the setting, it's just that the DM really hates something about that concept. In other words, it's the DM's personal hang up. I think that the DM should get over it. The DM gets to control so much of the world. Every single element, other than the PC's. Letting the PC's stake out a claim around their character is not the huge concession that some are painting it to be.

 

[Hussar]

As I said - I can handle lizardmen, I can handle halfdragons, or half-dragon lizardmen. But I hate the dragonborn as presented, as a widely accepted civilised race that generally suffers no problem in society.

I can call it genre, I can call it not fitting my world, but mainly I dislike DMing a "Sword & Sorcery" game where society acts like it was Sigil.

I'll offer the aforementioned characters (half-dragon, lizardfolk, half-dragon lizardfolk) if someone absolutely wants to play a dragonborn, and can handle the reactions of most NPCs to a "scaley freak", but I'll not run a game where he can walk around as Dragonborn can in stock D&D.

For some, that makes me a tyrant.

This is different than how I read Fenes before. ((Since I believe he cannot read this, I'll talk about him in the 3rd person)) It is entirely possible that I misread him and attributed elements that I should not have. If that's true, then, my bad.

If the only change he wants to make to Dragonborn is to make them an outcast race in his setting, then, more power to him. That's not banning the race, that's just changing flavor. Good grief, there's nothing wrong with that. Every setting ever changes the flavor of races. That would completely not be an issue, since he's not actually banning the race.

And, he's even given a reason that I said I found perfectly acceptable - Sword and Sorcery genre. 4e D&D is NOT S&S by default. He's entirely right. In a S&S genre game, Dragonborn as written do not fit. Certainly not as an accepted race by the community at large.

Now, I would also argue that EVERY non-human race would not be accepted by the community at large in S&S genre, but, it's not my game, and I don't care all that much.

Now, fallen empire reptile men fit perfectly in S&S. Conan had them in spades. So, they're a marginalized race with reaction penalties.

I was under the understanding that he was outright banning them, but, allowing lizard folk with breath weapons. Kinda wondered what the difference was.

I think this was entirely my misreading of Fene's point. Again, very sorry.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

Yes.

The players can elect to play in the game or not, as their preference dictates.

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.

You are wrong.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

Sure, you have every right not to play in the game.

And as DM, I'd say "don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out". If you want a game with dragonborn (or whatever other element you want that the DM doesn't like and wants to exclude), then you take up the role of DM and run the game. Otherwise either play and accept the restictions the DM has imposed, or don't play.

But to claim the DM is being unreasonable here? That's a volume of player entitlement that is staggering in its audacity and obnoxiousness.

 

[Barastrondo]

Honestly, I think the standard wisdom is that in the case of a deadlock, the DM gets the nod. That's what I'm questioning. Both sides have made compromises, the concept fits into the setting, it's just that the DM really hates something about that concept. In other words, it's the DM's personal hang up. I think that the DM should get over it. The DM gets to control so much of the world. Every single element, other than the PC's. Letting the PC's stake out a claim around their character is not the huge concession that some are painting it to be.

I don't really believe in a cut-and-dried "the player should win" or "the DM should win" principle that applies in every case. Though your argument does make sense in the name of player empowerment, it also kind of puts the DM in a position where he's running a game for a character that he doesn't like. That's not a great thing. In the worst-case scenarios, yeah, that means that an unfair DM might have a stake in watching the unwanted player character fail, and start stacking the deck against him. But even in the best-case scenarios, that means the DM is probably not going to be as enthusiastic about providing interesting opportunities, NPCs and challenges customized to your player.

So for instance, if you love gnomes and your DM hates gnomes, but allows your character anyway, you get to play a gnome. But will you get to interact with NPCs who react to you the way you'd hoped they would? Will they laugh at your gnomish jokes? Will you see another gnome NPC that the DM enjoys playing? Will you see another gnome NPC at all?

I think RPGs as a whole are best served when both the person running the game and the players are all enthusiastic about the source material. Now, it may be that a player can take a hated concept and be a "breed ambassador," so to speak, convincing everyone else that it's more fun than they thought. But honestly, I think it's better to have characters that your friends enjoy, not just ones they tolerate, in the same sense that it's preferable to have a game that your players enjoy rather than tolerating. Enthusiasm adds so much more to a game for everyone involved. It would be good for the DM to be able to be enthusiastic about something he hates but is willing to let a player play anyway, but human nature being what it is, it can't always happen. And the more work you have to put into a game, the more helpful enthusiasm (or the more crippling its lack) can be.

So I come down lightly on the side of the guy running the game, just for reasons of sheer pragmatism: if my character is something the DM hates, I don't think I'm going to get maximum fun out of the session. At that point I'm not sure if I'd be better off if he agrees to let me play that character or if I come up with something else I like to play.

 

[Mercule]

I can call it genre, I can call it not fitting my world, but mainly I dislike DMing a "Sword & Sorcery" game where society acts like it was Sigil.

This. If there is no difference in how the races react to one another, then just stick with human as the only PC race.

 

[Obryn]

Sure, you have every right not to play in the game.

And as DM, I'd say "don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out". If you want a game with dragonborn (or whatever other element you want that the DM doesn't like and wants to exclude), then you take up the role of DM and run the game. Otherwise either play and accept the restictions the DM has imposed, or don't play.

But to claim the DM is being unreasonable here? That's a volume of player entitlement that is staggering in its audacity and obnoxiousness.

Erm, have you noticed you're agreeing with him completely?

Him: If my DM didn't allow X and wouldn't hear any reasonable arguments, I'd leave and not play.

You: If my player demanded to play X and wouldn't take no for an answer, I'd tell him to leave and not play.

The only thing you're disagreeing on is whether or not he approves of the way you run your game. Which, I'd hope, is irrelevant to you.

-O

 

[wally]

Erm, have you noticed you're agreeing with him completely?

Him: If my DM didn't allow X and wouldn't hear any reasonable arguments, I'd leave and not play.

You: If my player demanded to play X and wouldn't take no for an answer, I'd tell him to leave and not play.

The only thing you're disagreeing on is whether or not he approves of the way you run your game. Which, I'd hope, is irrelevant to you.

-O

Actually, I think you are correct for them on how things are now, but I think what one of them is saying is that if the DM says no, just because he doesn't like it, then he still has to run for that player with what that player wants.

-wally