DM Entitlement...

[hanasays]

A lot of times when my DM has stated special rules like that, they're usually ones I agree with. Generally this is because I've been in campaigns with a player who made that type of rule necessary. I also tend to only play campaigns run by DMs I like, and I don't participate in campaigns run by DMs I dislike. The DMs I like usually play with the same mindset that I do, and therefore, I agree with most of their judgements. If I like someone as a person, but not as my Dungeonmaster, I just politely bow out of the campaign.

Having been on the other side of the table, I can understand why some DMs would make special rules. Sometimes, you get a nightmare player (somebody you can't exclude because they're so-and-so's girlfriend/boyfriend/your-mother's-friend's-kid) and they do something that upsets everybody else in the game so much that you want to make sure that it never happens in another game again.

When I create special-case rules like that, it's not usually because I'm an authoritarian control freak. It's because I want to make sure the game runs smoothly and everyone enjoys it, and even though I trust my players, I want the rule in place to protect everybody (including the other players) just in case somebody really really really wants their girlfriend/boyfriend/mother's-friend's-son to hop in mid-campaign.

 

[S'mon]

I have now read through all 15 pages.

In conclusion:

Hussar calls GMs like us "asshats".

I think players like him are asshats.

finis

 

[Umbran]

I think players like him are asshats.

finis

And I think you're rude.

finis

 

[hanasays]

Is any of this worth being nasty and defensive over? Does it really matter whether or not you personally agree with how a DM has decided to run the game he or she is hosting if, in the end, everybody has fun?

I don't see the point of arguing about whether the DM's decision is right or wrong. Some DMs do things that irk some players. Just because a DM is running a campaign doesn't mean you are obligated to play in it, or play by his or her house rules. If you don't like how the DM handles the rules, don't argue... just find another DM.

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

I’m a lenient DM when it comes to what’s on the Ban List. Usually it’s either for genre reasons (European knights in an ancient Egypt themed game) or for mechanical reasons (Nightsticks are right out), but sometimes it is for the dreaded “I don’t like it” reason (psionics and the “east meets west” party). In the past when someone made a compelling case, I’ve relented on those restrictions, and I’ve usually come to regret it almost every time. Nowadays I don’t give in, even if someone has come up with a thirty page back story to try and justify it.

Among my regular group of friends this never becomes an issue, because they know why I have this policy, and when I play in the games they run I don’t pester them to run something on their Ban List because I know they have a reason for it being on the list.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

Not entirely. His version includes the added argument that in the example given, the DM is being unreasonable and, in his words, an "asshat". In this conclusion, he is simply wrong. If you want to set the parameters of the game, then you sit behind the DM screen and run the game. For someone who is running the game to ban something even if it is only because he does not like it is perfectly reasonable.

It is the player who expects otherwise who is being unreasonable and obnoxious.

 

[Obryn]

Not entirely. His version includes the added argument that in the example given, the DM is being unreasonable and, in his words, an "asshat". In this conclusion, he is simply wrong. If you want to set the parameters of the game, then you sit behind the DM screen and run the game. For someone who is running the game to ban something even if it is only because he does not like it is perfectly reasonable.

It is the player who expects otherwise who is being unreasonable and obnoxious.

No, like I said before - the fundamental thing that happens in both cases is the same. You're not playing in each other's games.

The only difference is whether or not he approves of the reasons for your doing so. Which, like I said, hardly matters unless you need him to approve of your style of gaming.

-O

 

[ProfessorCirno]

No, like I said before - the fundamental thing that happens in both cases is the same. You're not playing in each other's games.

The only difference is whether or not he approves of the reasons for your doing so. Which, like I said, hardly matters unless you need him to approve of your style of gaming.

-O

His disaproval isn't the problem. His statements that we're horrible bad asshat DMs is the problem.

 

[Obryn]

His disaproval isn't the problem. His statements that we're horrible bad asshat DMs is the problem.

So it's not his disapproval of your DMing style, it's his opinion of your DMing style?

I really don't see the difference here.

-O

 

[SableWyvern]

So it's not his disapproval of your DMing style, it's his opinion of your DMing style?

I really don't see the difference here.

-O

I'd say its not about his opinion/disaproval so much as it is the implication that his opinion/disaproval carries objective weight and can be applied as a universal truth.