D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Caliban]

Creativity is also born from being creative.

You get a lot more creative if you start with the question "How am I going to get this to work" then you do from the question "No, you cant do that".

One of the perks of being a DM is that you get to set the ground rules for the game. You should solicit and consider input from your players, but ultimately it's your call. If they don't like it, tell them to run the game instead so you can play for once.

Besides, creativity doesn't just apply to the DM. Sometimes the onus will be on the players to be creative. "How am I going to get this concept to work with a different race?" rather than "My DM is a meanie, I'm gonna complain on message boards until I get what I want!"

 

[Shasarak]

One of the perks of being a DM is that you get to set the ground rules for the game. You should solicit and consider input from your players, but ultimately it's your call. If they don't like it, tell them to run the game instead so you can play for once.

I got no problem with that. After all it is not as if being a DM is not so difficult that a 10 year old can not do it.

Besides, creativity doesn't just apply to the DM. Sometimes the onus will be on the players to be creative. "How am I going to get this concept to work with a different race?"

Ideally the Player and DM should be working together, like in a real game with real people rather then the Internet example of two caricatures shouting "No, You!" at each other.

As an example I remember reading the story of Gygax allowing his Players to play Balrog and Vampire characters in his games. Should we not aim to raise our DM games to that level rather then being content with mediocrity?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You should solicit and consider input from your players, but ultimately it's your call. If they don't like it, tell them to run the game instead so you can play for once.

Are you aware that this makes it sound as though you view the DM and players as two separate entities that are in conflict with each other? Like you are not actually a single group working towards shared goals.

..."My DM is a meanie, I'm gonna complain on message boards until I get what I want!"

Do you think that characterizing people that would prefer their DM work with them to incorporate things they enjoy into their shared gaming experience as though they are making childish complaints helps make your opinion seem more reasonable?

 

[billd91]

Ideally the Player and DM should be working together, like in a real game with real people rather then the Internet example of two caricatures shouting "No, You!" at each other.

As an example I remember reading the story of Gygax allowing his Players to play Balrog and Vampire characters in his games. Should we not aim to raise our DM games to that level rather then being content with mediocrity?

Can we can the badwrongfunitis or at least the casting of aspersions at people who play differently from you?
Bottom line is you can't force the DM to run a game he doesn't want to run. And if that game he doesn't want to run is one with dragonborn, or kender, or sorcerers, or tieflings, that's his right. The players can either play or not play, he can't force them play in a game they don't want to play either. So if they're at loggerheads, someone's got to give. In those situations, I have to side with the DM. After all, without someone willing to DM, there's no game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

As an example I remember reading the story of Gygax allowing his Players to play Balrog and Vampire characters in his games. Should we not aim to raise our DM games to that level rather then being content with mediocrity?

There is actually another good Gygax example of what a DM can do when their player wants to incorporate something in the game which the DM feels doesn't fit - Murlynd, and his gun.

Gygax wasn't a fan of incorporating that kind of technology, and had decided that in his setting that gunpowder just didn't work (if I recall, the explanation was something about the magic permeating the world making it so that the combination of ingredients that make up gunpowder just didn't result in such an explosive compound). So when this character, Murlynd, popped back into the world fresh from (if I recall) Arizona in the late 19th century with a six-gun on his hip, Gygax didn't say "Nope. Not happening. No guns, no way."

What he did do was give hand-wave and say "oh, those aren't guns, they are magic wands," and let them keep on looking and working just like guns except by way of magic rather than gunpowder.

 

[Shasarak]

Can we can the badwrongfunitis or at least the casting of aspersions at people who play differently from you?

No, not really. I just call them as I seem them rather then just complaining online about my "big meanie" DM.

Bottom line is you can't force the DM to run a game he doesn't want to run. And if that game he doesn't want to run is one with dragonborn, or kender, or sorcerers, or tieflings, that's his right. The players can either play or not play, he can't force them play in a game they don't want to play either. So if they're at loggerheads, someone's got to give. In those situations, I have to side with the DM. After all, without someone willing to DM, there's no game.

And if there is no one willing to Play then there is no game so I guess it is PS4 gaming tonight?

 

[Lanliss]

No, I am saying that if you as a DM have a player that wants to play a Dragonborn and you can not (or will not!) fit one into your world then you are a Lazy DM.

How would you describe this "hypothetical" DM?

I have looked, long and hard, for a way to fit Dragonborn in my world. I am on the cusp of getting them worked out as a culture, but they were previously unplayable. If a player has wanted to play them, I would have said no. This world has been entirely my construction, and I cannot shove a random Dragonborn in just because a player is feeling entitled. I have been lucky enough that they showed no such interest yet, so there was no such confrontation.

to describe such a DM is situational. In my case, I have slowly built my own world, from the ground up. My players specifically refused to help in any way, saying they just wanted a world to play in, not put work into making one. I would describe myself, and a DM like me, as perfectly competent (in that particular area at least. My competency in other areas is questionable). It is a different discussion of it is a published world, and a players absolute favorite race is Dragonborn. then there is a reasonable argument for including the race against the DMs preferences, IMO. At that point, a description is pointless, as the situation either works out, or it doesn't. Either side could be labeled as lazy, obstinate, or childish, by the other.

My point however, is that simply not including a race is not "laziness", by necessity. There can be any number of reasons for an exclusion or change, and if it is not a players own world, I don't see why they would get the trump card to choose what does or does not belong in it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Creativity is also born from being creative.

Tautologies are indeed tautological, but that's not really a counterpoint? Creativity doesn't arise ex nihilo from the vacuum of human consciousness fully-formed and ready to execute. It's always a process of mastery, problem-solving, contrast, etc.

You get a lot more creative if you start with the question "How am I going to get this to work" then you do from the question "No, you cant do that".

Sure, but this cuts in all directions.

If the DM says "I think it'd be fun to play a game where there are no cantrip-using PC's," then the player can say, "No, you can't do that" and that campaign doesn't fly or they can say "How am I going to get this to work?" and get creative.

Both are really fair responses, because not everyone finds the same kinds of things fun.

 

[billd91]

No, not really. I just call them as I seem them rather then just complaining online about my "big meanie" DM.

Then by all means, let's rather complain about gamers who look down their noses at others who play differently.

And if there is no one willing to Play then there is no game so I guess it is PS4 gaming tonight?

Or someone else picks up the DMG and runs the game. If a player is so keen to play something the initial DM won't run, they can run the game and include as many dragonborn, kender, tieflings, or whatever they want.

 

[Caliban]

Are you aware that this makes it sound as though you view the DM and players as two separate entities that are in conflict with each other? Like you are not actually a single group working towards shared goals.

Perhaps to you. I can't help how you misinterpret or redefine things to suit your agenda.

Do you think that characterizing people that would prefer their DM work with them to incorporate things they enjoy into their shared gaming experience as though they are making childish complaints helps make your opinion seem more reasonable?

Except that's not what I did. Again, I can't help it if you choose to interpret things in some way other than what is intended.