DM Entitlement...

[Hussar]

I blame the internet.

Look, I'm not trying to preach from the mountain here. I'm not trying to say, empiricly that my way is best.

What I'm saying, is that, in my opinion, it is far better to let the ties go to the player. When the only issue at stake is my personal dislike of a concept, I should suck it up and let the player have what he wants.

Now, I do think that when a DM, who absolutely will not compromise (a detail that gets left out when some people quote me), bans something because he doesn't like it, he is an asshat. Not because he banned something, but because he absolutely will not compromise and his only justification is his personal preference.

I think it comes from the fact that the worst DM's I've ever had all did this. Every one of them decided that their personal vision was primary and all other visions were inferior and should be ignored.

THAT'S the kind of DM I call an asshat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I'm saying, is that, in my opinion, it is far better to let the ties go to the player. When the only issue at stake is my personal dislike of a concept, I should suck it up and let the player have what he wants.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but obviously, many would disagree on this point.

Now, I do think that when a DM, who absolutely will not compromise (a detail that gets left out when some people quote me), bans something because he doesn't like it, he is an asshat. Not because he banned something, but because he absolutely will not compromise and his only justification is his personal preference.

I'll disagree. (And no, your details aren't being missed.)

The only asshat DM is one who bans something because he dislikes the player personally.

Any other reason- be it whim, carefully reasoned decision or even a random die roll- is a valid reason for banning something from a game.

He's free to compromise if he wishes, but it is not a requirement, and his willingness to compromise (or lack thereof) does not make him any less a quality GM.

 

[Hussar]

And this is where we disagree DannyA. I think a DM who refuses to compromise is a bad DM. The game should be about everyone at the table, not just the guy in the big seat. To me, there's no difference between banning something on a whim and, say, creating railroading dungeons.

After all, a railroad is a DM's way of saying, "I hate all other endings, so, this is the way things are going to be."

To me, being able to compromise is the hallmark of a good DM. When I think of good DM qualities, inflexible is not on the list.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me, there's no difference between banning something on a whim and, say, creating railroading dungeons.

After all, a railroad is a DM's way of saying, "I hate all other endings, so, this is the way things are going to be."

Really? Really? Because I see a world of difference.

A DM who refuses to compromise in the makeup of his campaign is merely setting the boundaries within which the players will play. He is constructing the RPG's analogous structure to the gridiron in football, the ring in boxing...the walls around the sandbox. He is setting the level of the playing field.

He is no more an asshat than the rules board of a given sport. He is no more an asshat than the game designer who included this race or excluded that class in a revision of the game or campaign setting.

The DM who is railroading his players has an ending in mind that his players cannot alter by definition.

The former is not the macro version of the latter. A good DM can set up his game world and run a very unstructured campaign, and will even let the player's actions have real and permanent consequences. A bad one will constantly funnel his players into his predetermined encounters, one after another.

 

[Hussar]

The former is not the macro version of the latter. A good DM can set up his game world and run a very unstructured campaign, and will even let the player's actions have real and permanent consequences. A bad one will constantly funnel his players into his predetermined encounters, one after another.

Is that really so different from the DM who will funnel his players into his predetermined choices, one after another?

Look, again, I'm only stating this when the reason is when the DM doesn't like something. If the DM has other reasons, then fine. No problems.

I keep going around in circles on this and everyone seems to want to paint the picture larger than it is. This is not about setting up a campaign. This is not about the DM having authority over his campaign. I agree that the DM should have authority over his campaign.

I question, in this one very limited circumstance, if that authority should extend over forcing players to play something else, simply because the DM doesn't like it.

When a game designer excludes a race in a setting, typically its done because that race doesn't fit in that setting, not because the writer simply hates that race. Conan d20, for example, excludes all sorts of things. I don't think, however, that the writers hate the things that Conan d20 excludes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in conclusion, because I'm getting tired of having to constantly restate my point. Either you get it or you don't.

When

• there is a deadlock during character creation between the player and the DM
• AND the only problem the DM has is he or she doesn't like element X,
• AND no other issues exist,
• AND all players and the DM are being reasonable,
• AND there has been honest attempts by both parties to compromise

Then and only then should the DM bow to the wishes of the player and allow the element.

**The above is a simple expression of opinion. It in no way reflects your game. It is simply how I play. I offer it as an alternative to the standard wisdom of the authority a DM has over a game.**

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is that really so different from the DM who will funnel his players into his predetermined choices, one after another?

Yes. No qualifier.

Look, again, I'm only stating this when the reason is when the DM doesn't like something. If the DM has other reasons, then fine. No problems.

We got that.

I keep going around in circles on this and everyone seems to want to paint the picture larger than it is.

No, we're not.

This is not about setting up a campaign.

Yes it is.

This is not about the DM having authority over his campaign.

Yes it is.

I question, in this one very limited circumstance, if that authority should extend over forcing players to play something else, simply because the DM doesn't like it.

Again, we got that. We think that the authority does and should extend to the DM saying that X is not permitted- for whatever reason (barring personal animus)- thus, forcing the player to either play something else or walk away. Politely.

When a game designer excludes a race in a setting, typically its done because that race doesn't fit in that setting, not because the writer simply hates that race. Conan d20, for example, excludes all sorts of things. I don't think, however, that the writers hate the things that Conan d20 excludes.

4Ed excluded gnomes because someone (OK, many someones) disliked them. So were other races and classes that people liked...they were merely outvoted in a popularity contest.

They didn't disrupt the setting and got axed anyway.

One RPG- Talisantha, if I properly recall- famously had ads that said "NO ELVES!" Again, not all that disruptive, but it was a decision based in part on the explosion of Elf races in D&D at the time.

 

[Spatula]

So, in conclusion, because I'm getting tired of having to constantly restate my point. Either you get it or you don't.

When

• there is a deadlock during character creation between the player and the DM
• AND the only problem the DM has is he or she doesn't like element X,
• AND no other issues exist,
• AND all players and the DM are being reasonable,
• AND there has been honest attempts by both parties to compromise

Then and only then should the DM bow to the wishes of the player and allow the element.

Perhaps the disconnect (for me, anyway) is that your situation doesn't actually exist, so people are maybe trying to fit it onto different situations that could plausibly happen, in order to understand what you're talking about.

What I mean is, if everyone is reasonable, how does the situation ever get past the "compromise" phase? Taking choice of player races as an example, there's no character concept except one that can't be represented by a human (the exception being a character whose defining characterisitic is true inhumanity, such as warforged). Anything else is just a different human culture in a rubber suit. And most settings will have lots of different possible human socities.

So, a player wants to play an elf, but there are no elves in the gameworld. The DM suggests a similar culture of another race in the setting (which maybe didn't exist until they work to create it). Or maybe the player really just wanted the Dex bonus that elves get, so the DM suggests a mechanically similar race. The only way this becomes an impasse is if the player has to have a character that has pointy ears, which isn't being reasonable IMO - "pointy ears" isn't a character concept.

Admittedly, classes are a bit trickier, in that it's not necessarily as easy to re-skin the flavor bound up into them. e.g. the monk class just doesn't fit into medieval europe, if you're going for a slightly more "historic" feel relative to the normal D&D hodgepodge.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, in conclusion, because I'm getting tired of having to constantly restate my point. Either you get it or you don't.

When

* there is a deadlock during character creation between the player and the DM
* AND the only problem the DM has is he or she doesn't like element X,
* AND no other issues exist,
* AND all players and the DM are being reasonable,
* AND there has been honest attempts by both parties to compromise


Then and only then should the DM bow to the wishes of the player and allow the element.

We get it. We don't agree.

When

* there is a deadlock during character creation between the player and the DM
* AND the only problem the DM has is he or she doesn't like element X,
* AND no other issues exist,
* AND all players and the DM are being reasonable,
* AND there has been honest attempts by both parties to compromise

The player should back down and select something to play from the options the DM has presented or walk away.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough DannyA. I can agree with that. Honestly, I would walk away, in all likelihood.

I'm glad you brought up gnomes in 4e though. Gnomes in 4e aren't banned. They are removed from the core choices, but, you can still play a gnome in 4e. That, to me, is perfectly acceptable compromise. They've taken choices which they didn't like, and put them in the background, and added choices that they did like. However, as a player, I can still play a gnome if I choose to do so, despite the fact that it's something the game designer (or DM) may not like.

Spatula - I already gave an example where it happened to me. As did Reynard. Both of us hated elf ninjas. Yet, we bowed to our player's wishes and in both cases, it improved the game. So, I don't think it will never happen. It might be rare, but, not never.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think this has probably run its course now. Everyone has made their points and expressed their views, and there is a bit of a deadlock.

If someone strongly feels that there is more to be said here, then do email me (using the link below), but in the meantime I'm closing the thread.

Regards,