D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

That is fair. I am not trying to a stereotypical D&D world where cultures (especially differing human cultures) do not matter or humans and other races are, essentially their own monolithic culture. I want cultures to matter. They should affect outlook on the world and shape starting choices on things like class (or class variants) and equipment.

See this is where we see eye to eye... I also love getting indepth with cultures, but in a different way. In one game I ran I had 4 human cultures each at different magic and technological levels (although when one went up the other went down) 2 gnome civilizations (one tinker one illusionsit) and 3 city states ruled by almost all half breeds (muls, half orc and half elf) that were really 1 amalgam race that had human/dwarf/orc/elf ancestry. I then had 3 drow civilizations (although one was based on xendric) Now I had what was normal drawn up for each, and who traded with who. I just would never tell a player from the illusionist gnomes that there was no way I could imagine him having a drow flintlock... even if most people in his socoity never saw one before.

that is also a great example because there were no elves or dwarves in the world, both fled and locked themselves away longago... and if a PC came up and said "Can I be the last elf on the world" I would be wary of the idea, but would have let him or her try to convince me it was a cool idea...

 

[KarinsDad]

I try not to ever play in groups like that... I much prefer groups of friends that can talk and all add to the world...

Many of us play with friends. The point is that friends can add good suggestions and a DM often goes along, the line in the sand though is when the idea of friendship means that the DM has to go along with a suggestion, just because a friend said it.

what makes a person wanting to play a game for fun entitled? that word gets thrown around like it is an insult like calling the person out for doing something wrong... when remember the high crime that person commeted was wanting to have fun playing D&D...

The crime is not wanting to have fun playing D&D. The crime is forcing one person's idea of fun onto other people, especially the DM.

As for entitled, yes, that word is bandied about quite a bit. It does seem to suit the situation though. There's a lot of people whose expectations are that if it is written in a gaming book, then they can do it. That's not how I view the game. I view the game as a shared story where the DM does most of the work setting it up, so HE is entitled to make the rules. The players contribute a lot and the DM is expected to use common sense and make good adjudications, but the players are not entitled to make any of the rules, including which races/classes/spells/feats are allowed. Making a suggestion? Great. Deciding? No.

every game has the same exact rules... that doesn't sound to me like you have much varriaty... I also never said anything about alignment, and almost always play heroic fantasy myself... so I don't see why a Dragonborn isn't heroic fantasy...

Just the way I view it. Dragonborn are monsters in my campaign world. Not much different than Lizardmen. Half Orcs are allowed and only semi-montrous, but most players do not play them because they know that they are basically monstrous creatures that are often shunned by many civilized NPCs, especially in rural areas. I let my players know this ahead of time. Tieflings are monsters.

I have the "good races" and the monstrous races. PCs are not allowed to be monstrous races.

The majority of the races in the MM are monstrous and not allowed as PCs. Minotaurs. Were-creatures, etc.

just to make sure we are clear... this "Whiny self important/entitled person" is someone who wants to play a Dragonborn... I just don't understand how you can hate a fellow player that could be a fun new friend based on such a litte

No, the "whiny self important/entitled person" is someone who wants to play a Dragonborn and makes a deal out of it when the DM says it's not allowed. And, I do not hate that person. You said that, not me.

Wanting to play a given race is fine. Expecting to play a disallowed race or arguing about it? That's what makes someone whiny, self important, and entitled.

Someone who does not believe that the DM should have the final world is also whiny, self important, and entitled. Now, DMs are human and can be heavy handed or make mistakes, but players can vote with their feet if a given campaign gets too overbearing. But most games where the DM disallows some aspects of the game are not heavy handed. They are just as envisioned by the DM.

yet you have no trouble grouping large swath of people who play the same game as you for the same reason as "Whiny self important/entitled person" just because they want to try to play something you don't like

Nope. I am totally ok with anyone wanting to play anything they want. But they might not be able to play it exactly as they like in my game. In my game, I make the rules. I try to be fair, but I don't necessarily let a player come in and coerce me into doing things their way.

it sounds like you are the one getting offended that someone likes something you do not, and you are not interested in gaming with a lot of gamers... I don't get it...

I enjoy gaming with most gamers I have ever gamed with. I would game 2 or 3 times a week if the opportunity presented itself. I do not enjoy gaming with entitled people. Anyone who argues with the DM or thinks that everything in the PHB is fair game is not the type of person I enjoy gaming with.

Why does this community (D&D not just enworld) seem to be getting so much harder to come togather... it isn't even just edition wars now, but something bigger. If I walked up to a table at my FLGS and said "Hey can I play" and the DM said sure... then told me every idea I have wont fit his world I may or may not play it... or might try to make minor adjustments to fit it... if they ever said I was "Whiny self important/entitled person" just because I wanted to play a basic character I would be insulted... and I'm pretty sick of how fractured we all are.

It really sounds to me that you feel entitled (there's that word again) to play any class / race in print at any DM's table and if you are not allowed, the DM is the one at fault. The fact that you do not like the DM making minor adjustments to your PC to fit his world is a bit telling.

As for being fractured, we are no more fractured than any other group of people (e.g. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans). If we all thought the same, D&D would be a fairly boring game.

Btw, I have a lot more leeway in my houserules if I am running a game at a FLGS, more than in a home campaign with close friends.

In this thread things that make DMs mad are (not all inclusive) picking the wrong name... picking the wrong sub class... picking the wrong class... picking the wrong weapon/armor that your approved race/class can use... and if you try to say something as simple as "Hey I think it would be cool if" you get labeled "Whiny self important/entitled person"

Only if the DM disagrees and you push the issue. If the DM agrees, no problem. If the DM does not agree and you just drop it, again, no problem.

 

[Elf Witch]

I absolutely agree but I also think its in the DMs best interests to make sure the players understand the genre, tone, ruleset and power level that the campaign will use and some examples of famous characters in TV, Movies or Books that would be appropriate to the setting. That way the players have got some definite guidelines and if they turn up to your Anime Teddy Ruxpin with the drow cleric of Vecna, you can say "In what universe is a Drow Cleric of Vecna similar to Teddy Ruxpin at all?"

You never know though... if the answer was good and/or funny enough and the group agreed, I might allow it.

I just want to focus real quick on the whole concept of compromise. You can't just solve an argument by declaring compromise. If I don't get what I want but you do then that is not compromise. Now the DM has the advantage here because the other players could be all set to play the DM's proposal while you may not. If I write a specific campaign and I'm only going to allow specific things then I don't budge. I would rather just not run the game.

Sometimes there is no compromise and I see that some here just can't accept that.

I realize that you are not speaking at me, there are several people commenting here. For sake of response, I'll pretend you were.

As I pointed out, finding agreement can be a great thing. But for BOTH the players and the DM, simply recognizing that one or the other should walk away is the best option. "Compromise" is not magic bullet. If compromise will make Player A a little more happy and make the other four people at the table a little less happy, then screw Player A. Go Away. Thanks

And, again, Player A should be HAPPY to avoid the frustration. If Player A can't find another game, it isn't the fault of anyone else.
It is easy to accept that sometimes there is no compromise. Some people also need to accept that sometime a lack of compromise is for the best.
If a player's best and final offer is not acceptable. That player is just as much to blame as anyone else and everyone is better off going their separate ways.

If the whole group doesn't think the DM is putting on a game that justifies the table requirements, then the table goes away. It works both ways.

your right in that you can't solve an argument by declaring compromise, you have to work toward a compromise.

your also right that if one person gets what they want and the other gets nothing that isn't compromise...

but again, that means if the DM gets what he wants and the players don't that isn't compromise either...


and as much as SOMETIMES there is no compromise, these threads always make it sound like there is not compromise...

That may be the case, but one of those people is the DM. And with the extra concerns of mastering the rules, understanding what the PCs can do, planning encounters, and everything esle mastering a game requires, I'm going to usually come down on the side of the DM. You simply can't expect to make the DM run something he doesn't want to run or with conditions under which he doesn't want to run. That's a recipe for a bad game.

I disagree it is a group discion that the group needs to come to....


ok... so you and your friends have a set of things you agree on (like mine do) but when you play with others you just expect them to fall in line and bring nothing to the game???

hey that almost makes sense... like you worked with someone...
I have walked out of many games over the years because DMs said things like that...

I once took a whole group of 5 PCs with me, because when I asked if I could be a paladin (2e if it matters) the answer I was given was "I read this novel once where Palidens where complete saints, and no one can be a saint, so all Paliden's are NPCs" Then when I said I would play a duil classed Fighter/Cleric and just say I was a holy knight he through a small fit "I said no palidens don't try to rules lawyer me" When I walked so did all but his best friend...

So when a Player says "Hey I've got a cool idea to add to the world" your answer is no, no matter what if it involves something like this... something as simple as a variant clergy?!?!? I will never understand that thought process. At least hear them out...

WOW... just wow I can't believe anyone could be so set in there ways they can't imagine at least one or two people in a city would be different on naming, dress, class, or weapons...let alone a whole culture or nation...
so (and I am honestly asking for clarification here) you have a nation that all use long swords and long bows, so what no one there ever uses an AXE or a scimitar?

Heh, I find it rather revealing the different examples given.

[MENTION=6777224]Hard[/MENTION]coreD&Dgirl gave the example of playing a straight out of the Bo9S Swordsage. No BAUS races and a no special rules for the class. Sure, it's from a supplement, but, we're not talking about something that requires any extra work from the DM, other than knowing what the class does.

OTOH, [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s example is a player who is trying to force the DM to allow him/her to play a character that blatantly violates every single (perfectly reasonable) requirement that the DM has laid down. And then adds in characterisation of the player of "whining" and completely immature.

No real conclusions here, but, it's funny to me to see the difference in examples. The automatic presumptions of player=whiney, immature git vs the poor, downtrodden, under appreciated DM who's just trying to do his/her job.

It would be nice in these kinds of conversations if people could at least try to assume good faith on all sides of the table.

Then again, threads like this just make me very happy for the group I have. No one tries to "break" anyone else's game, while, at the same time, the DM is perfectly willing to trust that the player will do his/her best to make sure that whatever character gets played will fit within the campaign being played. So our Shardmind works in Darksun and the Minotaur Bard works in Dragonlance and the Kobold bard works in the World's Largest Dungeon.

It's a table situation that I've really come to treasure when everyone at the table just trusts everyone else.

right (and again I am really trying to understand what your saying, and not trying to argue with you or prove a point) I understand that there are places that as a socoity didn't use something... I just can't understand any large population including PC classes and not one of them ever picked up X weapon...


I try not to ever play in groups like that... I much prefer groups of friends that can talk and all add to the world...

what makes a person wanting to play a game for fun entitled? that word gets thrown around like it is an insult like calling the person out for doing something wrong... when remember the high crime that person commeted was wanting to have fun playing D&D...



every game has the same exact rules... that doesn't sound to me like you have much varriaty... I also never said anything about alignment, and almost always play heroic fantasy myself... so I don't see why a Dragonborn isn't heroic fantasy...


just to make sure we are clear... this "Whiny self important/entitled person" is someone who wants to play a Dragonborn... I just don't understand how you can hate a fellow player that could be a fun new friend based on such a litte


yet you have no trouble grouping large swath of people who play the same game as you for the same reason as "Whiny self important/entitled person" just because they want to try to play something you don't like

it sounds like you are the one getting offended that someone likes something you do not, and you are not interested in gaming with a lot of gamers... I don't get it...


Why does this community (D&D not just enworld) seem to be getting so much harder to come togather... it isn't even just edition wars now, but something bigger. If I walked up to a table at my FLGS and said "Hey can I play" and the DM said sure... then told me every idea I have wont fit his world I may or may not play it... or might try to make minor adjustments to fit it... if they ever said I was "Whiny self important/entitled person" just because I wanted to play a basic character I would be insulted... and I'm pretty sick of how fractured we all are.

In this thread things that make DMs mad are (not all inclusive) picking the wrong name... picking the wrong sub class... picking the wrong class... picking the wrong weapon/armor that your approved race/class can use... and if you try to say something as simple as "Hey I think it would be cool if" you get labeled "Whiny self important/entitled person"

transtemporal I agree that the DM needs to be clear about what he wants to run and the tone and what he is going to allow. When I ran my Vanderhelme campaign which is a homebrew I wrote up a one page history of the world. I explained to my players that there would be low divine magic because the gods have been kept out of the world and that the main divine magic was from the druids.

Anyone playing a cleric would be the first cleric in hundreds of years who cast spells. I told what races were allowed and what classes were banned. I banned as PCs warlocks, half ocs and dwarves but allowed spellscales, Irda, drow ( in my world they were not evil and they were called twilight elves). Elves an half elves were the only race who could have psionic abilities but the full elves could not do arcane magic. I asked that the PCs be either good or neutral no evil and I asked them to answer this question why would Bahmut call you to serve him in a war to bring the gods back.

This was not a typical DnD world. I wanted to try something different. And my players were on board and enjoyed it. But I was upfront about what I wanted to do.

Sailor Moon Thank you because so many people think compromise means giving in or worse everyone gives and no one is happy but hey as long as they are equally miserable then it is okay.

The DM does have the right to say what is allowed in his world if he doesn't want a class or race because he feels that they don't fit then why should he have to compromise. I have to wonder why with all choice available some players feel if I can't play X then my fun is ruined. Again if the player does not like and thinks he won't have fun why does the DM have to change unless he wants to he is not obligated too. I played in a AD&D game that came to a crashing halt because the DM would not compromise and allow evil PCs, he said bluntly that he hated running those kind of games and he would not do it. The game ended and some of us went with him to play a game that had no evil PCs the rest started an evil campaign. In the end there was no compromise other than split up and have separate games. We all stayed friends and played other campaigns together.

BryonD You summed up that very well I wanted to add that sometimes it is best for the players and DM to part not that anyone is bad or wrong but because their playstyles don't mesh.


HardcoreDandDGirl I think you are missing what some of are trying to say. We are not saying that compromise is not a good thing but we are saying that you can't always reach it in away that keeps the game fun for everyone and it is naive to think you can. Some playstyles don't mesh well. Again if the players and DM can't come to something that works for all of them then compromise is not the answer not playing together is the answer.

And here I am thinking that these threads have the assumption that not being able to always come to a compromise is a bad thing. A compromise that makes people unhappy is not a good thing.

I like players who add to the world too as long as it does not conflict in a major way with the world I have designed. As a DM I tend to be a yes DM and do everything I can to make a player happy with his PC but there are times I have to say no. I have designed prestige classes made exceptions to classes to bring their PCs closer to what they want. But sometimes there is no way and I think players need to accept that with good grace.


billd91 I have played in games where the DM caved and did things that he didn't want to things that really changed his world and not one of those games ended well. You could tell the DM was not happy. He stopped prepping he often canceled games and in one game in the middle of the session he just stopped and said sorry I can't do this anymore and packed up. If one player is unhappy that is more manageable than if the DM is unhappy.

Hussar I do think it is bad faith when a DM says no evil and a player goes ahead and makes an evil character. I also think that it is whiny behavior when they moan and complain about it when the DM says no. I have seen players act like children throwing a tantrum over things like this. Go back and read that one reason many don't want splatbooks is because they don't want to deal with the players who get pissy when they are told things like core and X books only.

HardcoreDandDGirl example of how a DM said no paladins in his world and instead of accepting it and finding another class to play out of the other choices instead tried to do an end round the DM by making a fighter cleric that for all intent purposes a paladin. That would royally piss me off as a DM and a player. Now I don't what else went on and why the other players walked as well but on the surface I think it was wrong if that was the only thing the DM was banning.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

The crime is not wanting to have fun playing D&D. The crime is forcing one person's idea of fun onto other people, especially the DM.

but when one person (on either side of the DM screen) says "Can we talk about it" and the other side says "No my way or the highway" I don't understand how it matters whitch side of the screen your on.

As for entitled, yes, that word is bandied about quite a bit. It does seem to suit the situation though. There's a lot of people whose expectations are that if it is written in a gaming book, then they can do it. That's not how I view the game. I view the game as a shared story where the DM does most of the work setting it up, so HE is entitled to make the rules. The players contribute a lot and the DM is expected to use common sense and make good adjudications, but the players are not entitled to make any of the rules, including which races/classes/spells/feats are allowed. Making a suggestion? Great. Deciding? No.

I see it very differently, the DM is just another player of the game, and as such is no more or less entitled to anything. He has final say of rules when there is a despute, but the social contract means he has to at least try to hear out the other players. He is also not supposed to try to force anything anywhere...

Just the way I view it. Dragonborn are monsters in my campaign world. Not much different than Lizardmen. Half Orcs are allowed and only semi-montrous, but most players do not play them because they know that they are basically monstrous creatures that are often shunned by many civilized NPCs, especially in rural areas. I let my players know this ahead of time. Tieflings are monsters.

again it seems odd to me that every world you run is the same, and no one could ever pitch you an idea to run a slightly different style...

No, the "whiny self important/entitled person" is someone who wants to play a Dragonborn and makes a deal out of it when the DM says it's not allowed. And, I do not hate that person. You said that, not me.

I still don't get this... I'm not seeing talking about "Hey I have this fun idea for your game" to be "Making a deal out of it" especially when it is just something as small as a race...

Wanting to play a given race is fine. Expecting to play a disallowed race or arguing about it? That's what makes someone whiny, self important, and entitled.

again with this "No discussion" "My way or the highway" thinking that seems to fit your "whiny, self important, and entitled" lable then the player that just wants to talk about it...

Someone who does not believe that the DM should have the final world is also whiny, self important, and entitled.

That is CRAZY BONKERS.... of course the DM can be questioned... the Title of DM isn't some god given infallible perfect title... it is just the girl or guy sitting across the table from me. Why can't everyone question him, and heck maybe even show him a new way to look at something...

Now, DMs are human and can be heavy handed or make mistakes, but players can vote with their feet if a given campaign gets too overbearing.

you would rather everyone let everything build up until they walk then question the judgment of there DM... not even just you as a DM, but in general you feel that ANY DM anywhere and time can only be "voted with there feet" not just "Hey I disagree with x because of Y"

I enjoy gaming with most gamers I have ever gamed with. I would game 2 or 3 times a week if the opportunity presented itself. I do not enjoy gaming with entitled people. Anyone who argues with the DM or thinks that everything in the PHB is fair game is not the type of person I enjoy gaming with.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here...

It really sounds to me that you feel entitled (there's that word again) to play any class / race in print at any DM's table and if you are not allowed, the DM is the one at fault. The fact that you do not like the DM making minor adjustments to your PC to fit his world is a bit telling.

I have 0 problem with the DM making minor adjustments to my PC... but I have a big problem with them basicly laying out a set of rules and if you dare question them even a little being labled entitled...

Only if the DM disagrees and you push the issue. If the DM agrees, no problem. If the DM does not agree and you just drop it, again, no problem.

there is 0 room in your thought here for a discussion at all. It is if you disagree with the DM you walk away or sit there and put up with it until you walk away... what about the idea that maybe you could talk to the DM and share your thoughts and then maybe work out something... maybe even the DM might learn to like something new... or not, the option to walk should be a last resort... but not the only...


Are DMs so insecure that they can not even consider there might be a different way then there's?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

transtemporal I agree that the DM needs to be clear about what he wants to run and the tone and what he is going to allow. When I ran my Vanderhelme campaign which is a homebrew I wrote up a one page history of the world. I explained to my players that there would be low divine magic because the gods have been kept out of the world and that the main divine magic was from the druids.

Anyone playing a cleric would be the first cleric in hundreds of years who cast spells. I told what races were allowed and what classes were banned. I banned as PCs warlocks, half ocs and dwarves but allowed spellscales, Irda, drow ( in my world they were not evil and they were called twilight elves). Elves an half elves were the only race who could have psionic abilities but the full elves could not do arcane magic. I asked that the PCs be either good or neutral no evil and I asked them to answer this question why would Bahmut call you to serve him in a war to bring the gods back.

This was not a typical DnD world. I wanted to try something different. And my players were on board and enjoyed it. But I was upfront about what I wanted to do.

now you see here is a great example... lets say you sat at a FLGS to run your world every Wednesday night... I came by and said "Cool is there an open seat for a player" and you said sure and gave me a brief bit of this and I asked if I could be a warlock, and you said "Not this time, but if you become a regular maybe next campaign" that is even a compromise... but "I don't ever allow those" isn't especially if you went on to say that about a large % of the classes

Sailor Moon Thank you because so many people think compromise means giving in or worse everyone gives and no one is happy but hey as long as they are equally miserable then it is okay.

since I'm the one pushing compromise I have to say I think that is a very jaded way of looking at it... give and take until BOTH parties are happy is compromise... give and take until both are miserable, that is just a waste of time.

HardcoreDandDGirl I think you are missing what some of are trying to say. We are not saying that compromise is not a good thing but we are saying that you can't always reach it in away that keeps the game fun for everyone and it is naive to think you can. Some playstyles don't mesh well. Again if the players and DM can't come to something that works for all of them then compromise is not the answer not playing together is the answer.

Of course compromise can't always be reatched, but some people seem to not want to even entertain the idea... like if they gave an inch anywhere it would be the worst thing ever. There are times you can't reach a compromise, but very few times you can't atleast try first..

And here I am thinking that these threads have the assumption that not being able to always come to a compromise is a bad thing. A compromise that makes people unhappy is not a good thing.

and isn't really a compromise... see above.

I like players who add to the world too as long as it does not conflict in a major way with the world I have designed. As a DM I tend to be a yes DM and do everything I can to make a player happy with his PC but there are times I have to say no. I have designed prestige classes made exceptions to classes to bring their PCs closer to what they want. But sometimes there is no way and I think players need to accept that with good grace.

there are times you have to say no, there are even times that it means a player will need to walk. However again I'm not saying everytime it happens... just for god sake try to talk to the person...

billd91 I have played in games where the DM caved and did things that he didn't want to things that really changed his world and not one of those games ended well. You could tell the DM was not happy. He stopped prepping he often canceled games and in one game in the middle of the session he just stopped and said sorry I can't do this anymore and packed up. If one player is unhappy that is more manageable than if the DM is unhappy.

I have seen that, but I also have seen DMs who said No psionics ever be shown it isn't that bad, and then continue on for years not having a problem with psionics... ok that was 1 DM...

HardcoreDandDGirl example of how a DM said no paladins in his world and instead of accepting it and finding another class to play out of the other choices instead tried to do an end round the DM by making a fighter cleric that for all intent purposes a paladin. That would royally piss me off as a DM and a player. Now I don't what else went on and why the other players walked as well but on the surface I think it was wrong if that was the only thing the DM was banning.

I'm not sure I get why it would piss you off... as I said at the time, if I pitched a fighter/cleric he would be fine with it, but because it was my back up way to play a holy knight he flipped... it is kinda the whole reason his game fell apart he could never be reasoned with at all. Me showing that his problem with Paliden was not really a problem with paliden the class (or else the fighter/cleric would be fine) was the final straw. If he just said no fighter cleric and I just was a cleric of war with plate a sword and sheidl would that also be wrong? I just don't get it

com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz/
noun
noun: compromise; plural noun: compromises

• 1.
  an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
  "an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both"
  

  synonyms:

  agreement, understanding, settlement, terms, deal, trade-off, bargain; Moremiddle ground, happy medium, balance "they reached a compromise" give and take, concession, cooperation "a happy marriage needs compromise"

  antonyms:

  intransigence

  
  
  • a middle state between conflicting opinions or actions reached by mutual concession or modification.
    "a compromise between commercial appeal and historical interest"
    
    
    
  • the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.
    "sexism should be tackled without compromise"
    
    
  
  
  
  

verb
verb: compromise; 3rd person present: compromises; past tense: compromised; past participle: compromised; gerund or present participle: compromising

• 1.
  settle a dispute by mutual concession.
  "in the end we compromised and deferred the issue"
  

  synonyms:

  meet each other halfway, come to an understanding, make a deal, make concessions, find a happy medium, strike a balance; give and take "we compromised"

  
  
  • archaic
    settle (a dispute) by mutual concession.
    "I should compromise the matter with my father"
    
    
  
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  accept standards that are lower than is desirable.
  
  
  
  

when I say compromise I mean settle a dispute by mutual concession."in the end we compromised and deferred the issue"

synonyms:

meet each other halfway, come to an understanding, make a deal, make concessions, find a happy medium, strike a balance; give and take

 

[KarinsDad]

but when one person (on either side of the DM screen) says "Can we talk about it" and the other side says "No my way or the highway" I don't understand how it matters whitch side of the screen your on.

I am all for the DM listening. I do it all of the time as a DM.

But if my campaign world has set houserules that I let everyone know ahead of time and a new player comes in and thinks that I should change, yup, pretty much my way or the highway.

In fact, a person who has been given my houserules and wants me to change is almost by definition a troublemaker.

The core game has about 540 class/race options. My game has about 440 class/race options.

Are you telling me that the class/race option you want that just happens to be one that is disallowed in my game and that the other 440 options are not enough, and I am the unreasonable person here?

BS.

I see it very differently, the DM is just another player of the game, and as such is no more or less entitled to anything. He has final say of rules when there is a despute, but the social contract means he has to at least try to hear out the other players. He is also not supposed to try to force anything anywhere...

Sorry, but the DM is not just another player of the game. He's the one doing the heavy lifting. You want a very open game, you DM. Simple as that.

again it seems odd to me that every world you run is the same, and no one could ever pitch you an idea to run a slightly different style...

I did not state that someone could not pitch me an idea. You said that. I said that I might not agree to do it. Do you actually read what I write?

I still don't get this... I'm not seeing talking about "Hey I have this fun idea for your game" to be "Making a deal out of it" especially when it is just something as small as a race...

Small to you. Big to me as DM. The Dragonborn will be killed on sight in most of the towns and cities of my world, so as a player, I doubt that you would have fun with that.

again with this "No discussion" "My way or the highway" thinking that seems to fit your "whiny, self important, and entitled" lable then the player that just wants to talk about it...


That is CRAZY BONKERS.... of course the DM can be questioned... the Title of DM isn't some god given infallible perfect title... it is just the girl or guy sitting across the table from me. Why can't everyone question him, and heck maybe even show him a new way to look at something...

Players can question all they like. They can make suggestions all they like.

Where I draw the line is when they think that the DM does not have the authority to say no.

I do not label the player that just wants to talk about it as "whiny, self important, and entitled". I label the player as "whiny, self important, and entitled" once the DM makes his final ruling and the player still won't let it go and wants to still talk about it.

you would rather everyone let everything build up until they walk then question the judgment of there DM... not even just you as a DM, but in general you feel that ANY DM anywhere and time can only be "voted with there feet" not just "Hey I disagree with x because of Y"

You are the one who has "walked out on many games over the years". I've only ever walked out on one in 35+ years of gaming (I have quit a few games after determining that they were not for me, but I always gave them a chance first).

Who sounds more entitled here? You or me?

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here...

I have 0 problem with the DM making minor adjustments to my PC... but I have a big problem with them basicly laying out a set of rules and if you dare question them even a little being labled entitled...

I never once said that. I said, the DM should listen, but it's the DM decision. Harping on it after the DM has decided is where one gets the entitled label.

there is 0 room in your thought here for a discussion at all. It is if you disagree with the DM you walk away or sit there and put up with it until you walk away... what about the idea that maybe you could talk to the DM and share your thoughts and then maybe work out something... maybe even the DM might learn to like something new... or not, the option to walk should be a last resort... but not the only...

You are putting words into my mouth. I have said on numerous occasions that the DM should listen and should have a discussion.

Are DMs so insecure that they can not even consider there might be a different way then there's?

Are players so insecure that they can not even consider playing a game where their pet idea is not going to happen?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

But if my campaign world has set houserules that I let everyone know ahead of time and a new player comes in and thinks that I should change, yup, pretty much my way or the highway.

In fact, a person who has been given my houserules and wants me to change is almost by definition a troublemaker.

The core game has about 540 class/race options. My game has about 440 class/race options.

Are you telling me that the class/race option you want that just happens to be one that is disallowed in my game and that the other 440 options are not enough, and I am the unreasonable person here?

BS.

your the unreasonable one if you think I need to read through 100 class/race options that are disallowed before saying "Can I play X" and even more so if you think 100 is a small number 20%ish

Sorry, but the DM is not just another player of the game. He's the one doing the heavy lifting. You want a very open game, you DM. Simple as that.

or play with the DMs who are willing to work with players... well I have DMed I play a lot more, and I still see DMs as just another player...

I did not state that someone could not pitch me an idea. You said that. I said that I might not agree to do it. Do you actually read what I write?

did you read what your wrote... DMs make rules players can vote with there feet...

Small to you. Big to me as DM. The Dragonborn will be killed on sight in most of the towns and cities of my world, so as a player, I doubt that you would have fun with that.

maybe the player would love to hide in the shadows in towns and 'let there guard down' in the wilds...

Players can question all they like. They can make suggestions all they like.

then why can't they ask for a change in your rules?

Where I draw the line is when they think that the DM does not have the authority to say no.

the DM has as much authority as the players give him...

I do not label the player that just wants to talk about it as "whiny, self important, and entitled". I label the player as "whiny, self important, and entitled" once the DM makes his final ruling and the player still won't let it go and wants to still talk about it.

but you made your final ruling before meeting your next player... so can they try to talk you out of it?

You are the one who has "walked out on many games over the years". I've only ever walked out on one in 35+ years of gaming (I have quit a few games after determining that they were not for me, but I always gave them a chance first).

Who sounds more entitled here? You or me?

you... entirely you... I have never said "Here is my ruleing if you don't like it walk" I am WAY more likely to say "Ok, if not x how about Y"

I never once said that. I said, the DM should listen, but it's the DM decision. Harping on it after the DM has decided is where one gets the entitled label.

how could you listen when your mind was made up about some races/classes before meeting your next player... you can't even imagine one would say "Let me pitch you this Dragon born" and you would give him or her a fair shot... you just want to say "No Dragon born"

You are putting words into my mouth. I have said on numerous occasions that the DM should listen and should have a discussion.

then you go on to say "But 100 things are already no"

Are players so insecure that they can not even consider playing a game where their pet idea is not going to happen?

I've never meet one... but then again I normaly say things like "Not normally, but whats your idea" and/or "You know what I like the idea but maybe we can tweak it to make it fit" not "No dragonborn no way no how"

 

[prosfilaes]

Dragonborn are monsters in my campaign world. ...

The majority of the races in the MM are monstrous and not allowed as PCs. Minotaurs. Were-creatures, etc.

Dragonborn are not monsters. They did not debut in the MM, they debuted in the PHB, because WotC knew that people wanted a draconic PC race. You're twisting their nature in making them monsters, and it's a frustrating choice to take a race specifically designed as a PC race and make them NPC monsters.

The crime is not wanting to have fun playing D&D. The crime is forcing one person's idea of fun onto other people, especially the DM.

...

Someone who does not believe that the DM should have the final world is also whiny, self important, and entitled. Now, DMs are human and can be heavy handed or make mistakes, but players can vote with their feet if a given campaign gets too overbearing. But most games where the DM disallows some aspects of the game are not heavy handed. They are just as envisioned by the DM.

So the crime is not wanting the DM to have the DM's fun. Because If you do not believe that the DM should have the final word, this is not a style difference, you are a bad person. If you do not like how the DM runs their game, you are whiny for complaining or for leaving.

Players can vote with their feet, period. If they don't like what's presented to them and the DM doesn't want to change it, they don't have worry about whether the DM is overbearing or not, they can just leave.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

some one brought up evil PCs... that is a great example

what I think it should be:
PC: can I be Lawful Evil
DM: I don't run evil PCs...
PC: How come?
DM: I don't like PC vs PC conflict and I want to run a game where you help people.
PC: What if my evil PC didn't hit either of those problems?
DM: I don't see how...
PC: Well I'm kinda thinking Tyr from ANdromina or Jane from Firefly... I have a reason to work with the PCs, and I'm not stupid... I need them.
DM: I don't know if that would work for long
PC: what if we set up a whole redemption arch... My character has a connection to another PC, if they agree and we make sure to play up the Lawful expect.

What would suck (in my mind)
PC: can I be Lawful Evil
DM: I don't run evil PCs...
PC: How come?
DM: Because I said so let it go
PC: well maybe we could work it out
DM: NO, if you want to play a monster go else where
PC: Well I don't want to play a...
DM: Stop being a whiny, self important, and entitled person and get out!
PC: Look I just want...
DM: Leave I have ruled....

 

[prosfilaes]

Are players so insecure that they can not even consider playing a game where their pet idea is not going to happen?

Are DMs so insecure that they can not even consider playing a game where their pet idea is not going to happen? If someone is tired of playing humans (with pointy ears) is playing under someone who only lets his players play characters that are humans (with pointy ears), and the player quits, I see no reason to heap insults on the player; he was under no obligation to continue playing a game that wasn't providing him what we wanted.