I liken it to someone hosting a dinner party. If the host is preparing a specific type of meal and someone starts making requests for all manner of accomodations, well, maybe they should skip this meal. If the host is preparing something for a group of fiends they know well, then they'll likely plan in accommodations as they are going to be more concerned about bringing together and spending time with friends. But it is totally up to the hosts on how what accommodations they are willing to make and guest that are not interested are free to decline the invitation. Nobody is in the wrong here. That's just how nearly all informal social engagement work.
I certainly see the merits in the dinner party analogy, but it also has its limits, because:
1. Many DMs run for at least some players they didn't know well beforehand. Most of my groups have been like that. And, of the people I personally know, most groups they've played in have included at least one such person. Anecdotes aren't data, but like...what I have available to me says this is hardly uncommon. If you're preparing dinners for people you
don't know, it's probably wise to avoid things like pork, given there's quite a few people who won't eat it.
2. The "guests" at this ~~D&D game~~ dinner arrangement aren't just getting a single, one-off meal. They're getting, in some sense, a once-a-week meal plan indefinitely (and most want that to be "many months" at least.) If we tweak the analogy so that it becomes "hey, come over and have dinner at my place
once weekly for a year," doesn't that profoundly change the meaning of refusing to consider the dietary needs and preferences of the "guests"?
3. If you're going out
seeking people to come to a party, I don't see how that reduces the need to be accommodating. If anything, it would seem to me that nothing changes on that front. If you
don't know what preferences your guests might have, the wise course is to prepare for likely ones. E.g. when you're planning a party for something like a class of students, there's a good reason "pizza party" is so popular--just picking a couple of common flavors
So, while there is something to consider with the "host making something" concept, there are issues with the analogy that, when fixed, seem to reverse the conclusions we should draw from it. Note that I am
not rejecting the argument by analogy in principle. I am accepting it, but noting that it left out something very important.
Who defines what is "reasonable request?" How is any of this is enforced? Who is forcing these people play this game?
Like if you say that you want to play a centaur and I say that I considered it but it is still a no as I don't think they fit the feel of this setting and I am allergic to the centaurs anyway, then what? How will you force me to run a game with centaurs in it? How will I force you to play in a game without centaurs in it? Why is this even desirable?
Then it sounds to me like, in this hypothetical, you've come to a conclusion without any effort to discuss it or find a solution, and thus it is pretty clearly on you for that. From where I'm standing, this could be summarized as, "I thought it over, I'm completely against it and won't discuss it further."
Entitled players who want to do their own thing irrespective of the style of game exist, but are a tiny minority, as are dictatorial DMs who want players to act out roles in their story. And both are easily dealt with by the simple expedient of not playing with such people.
As for BG3, there was a huge amount of forum whining about how terrible it was during early access. But it was a small number of people making a heck of a lot of noise. Larian had the courage to ignore them, and the rest is history.
Though it's worth noting, you can play everything in the PHB. So it's not like the game is particularly limiting...especially compared to the kind of stuff already floated in this thread.
Except that in your case it's totally acceptable.
Nope. I literally said otherwise upthread.
So I have to ask. Is there any restriction that's acceptable?
Yes. Though I expect that to come from people having adult, respectful conversations with one another, well in advance, and with an actual effort to sell people on it, rather than the usual way this is presented, the whole "alright, you get none of those things, take it or leave it."
EDIT: please don't give the non-answer "compromise" because your definition of compromise is the DM says no dragonborn, the player says they want to play a dragonborn so they do. It's not a compromise.
Except that that's
literally not what I said, and I said opposite things repeatedly.
See, folks, how twisting words is only a problem when I do it. Other people doing it to me is just fine! I can literally spend entire posts talking about how people should propose alternative approaches and heed counter-proposals, and still be characterized as "nope, I have to exactly play this specific thing with 100% of the attendant stuff and if you don't accommodate absolutely all of that you're a horrible person."
It's quite
fun to be vilified for the things people frequently do in this thread.
