Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2583286" data-attributes="member: 18280">I really do not mean to take away a key element of your agument.&nbsp; I just don't see where your key element fits into any of the examples that either of us has put forth (either in your initial examples, or in your responses to my examples).&nbsp; Are you then saying that the DM can say &quot;No&quot; if not doing so will impede the DM's fun?&nbsp; Is this a reasonable justification?Might it not be equally fair to say that the DM is saying, &quot;I have created what I think will be a fun setting.&nbsp; It took me more than three weeks of solid effort to possess.&nbsp; I am presenting this to you for free, because I really think this'll be fun for everyone willing to try it.&nbsp; Would you like to try it?&quot;Follow it with:Player 1:&nbsp; &quot;Can I play an elf?&quot;
DM:&nbsp; &quot;Sorry, no.&nbsp; I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present.&quot;
Player 1:&nbsp; &quot;Oh.&nbsp; Well, I really only like to play elves.&nbsp; So, I think I'll pass.&quot;
DM:&nbsp; &quot;That's cool.&nbsp; I think Bob might be running a more core-assumption game.&quot;Suddenly, no one is being selfish.Follow it with:Player 1:&nbsp; &quot;Can I play an elf?&quot;
DM:&nbsp; &quot;Sorry, no.&nbsp; I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present.&quot;
Player 1:&nbsp; &quot;Stop being so lazy.&nbsp; I'm sure you can fit an elf in there somehow.&quot;Suddenly, the player is being selfish.Follow it with:Player 1:&nbsp; &quot;Can I play an elf?&quot;
DM:&nbsp; &quot;Sorry, no.&nbsp; I don't like you well enough.&quot;Suddenly, the DM is a dink.&nbsp; (Not 100% sure that selfish covers this example well enough.)Follow it with:Player 1:&nbsp; &quot;Can I play an elf?&quot;
DM:&nbsp; &quot;Sorry, no.&nbsp; There are no elves in this setting.&quot;And....what?&nbsp; Three weeks of work, the DM's enjoyment of the setting, and (perhaps) something hidden about the setting are put up against one player's idea of what would be fun.&nbsp; Is the DM allowed to say no?&nbsp; Is the DM required to rethink his setting?&nbsp; Going back to your &quot;key element&quot; does &quot;the DM should be having fun, too&quot; justify his saying no?&nbsp; Is anyone actually being selfish in this example (I would argue they are not)?Back up a second here.&nbsp; What made these particular players &quot;his group&quot;?&nbsp; Why does he have any obligation to them?Certainly, if this DM wants these players to play in his game, then he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in.&nbsp; Conversely, if a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, then that player has to play in a game that this DM is running.&nbsp; There is no obligation on either side.It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation.In other words, if I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I offer one to you, I am not selfish because you don't like chocolate chip cookies.&nbsp; If I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I know you don't like them, so I offer them to someone else, I am still not selfish.&nbsp; If you, however, demand that I consult you prior to baking cookies, you are selfish.Perhaps I am missing some way in which the cookie example does not apply?RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2583286, member: 18280"] I really do not mean to take away a key element of your agument. I just don't see where your key element fits into any of the examples that either of us has put forth (either in your initial examples, or in your responses to my examples). Are you then saying that the DM can say "No" if not doing so will impede the DM's fun? Is this a reasonable justification? Might it not be equally fair to say that the DM is saying, "I have created what I think will be a fun setting. It took me more than three weeks of solid effort to possess. I am presenting this to you for free, because I really think this'll be fun for everyone willing to try it. Would you like to try it?" Follow it with: [INDENT]Player 1: "Can I play an elf?" DM: "Sorry, no. I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present." Player 1: "Oh. Well, I really only like to play elves. So, I think I'll pass." DM: "That's cool. I think Bob might be running a more core-assumption game."[/INDENT] Suddenly, no one is being selfish. Follow it with: [INDENT]Player 1: "Can I play an elf?" DM: "Sorry, no. I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present." Player 1: "Stop being so lazy. I'm sure you can fit an elf in there [I]somehow[/I]."[/INDENT] Suddenly, the player is being selfish. Follow it with: [INDENT]Player 1: "Can I play an elf?" DM: "Sorry, no. I don't like you well enough."[/INDENT] Suddenly, the DM is a dink. (Not 100% sure that selfish covers this example well enough.) Follow it with: [INDENT]Player 1: "Can I play an elf?" DM: "Sorry, no. There are no elves in this setting."[/INDENT] And....what? Three weeks of work, the DM's enjoyment of the setting, and (perhaps) something hidden about the setting are put up against one player's idea of what would be fun. Is the DM allowed to say no? Is the DM required to rethink his setting? Going back to your "key element" does "the DM should be having fun, too" justify his saying no? Is anyone actually being selfish in this example (I would argue they are not)? Back up a second here. What made these particular players "his group"? Why does he have any obligation to them? Certainly, [B][I]if[/I][/B] this DM wants these players to play in his game, [B][I]then[/I][/B] he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in. Conversely, [I][B]if[/B][/I] a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, [I][B]then[/B][/I] that player has to play in a game that this DM is running. There is no obligation on either side. It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation. In other words, if I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I offer one to you, I am not selfish because you don't like chocolate chip cookies. If I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I know you don't like them, so I offer them to someone else, I am still not selfish. If you, however, demand that I consult you prior to baking cookies, [B][I]you are selfish[/I][/B]. Perhaps I am missing some way in which the cookie example does not apply? RC [/QUOTE]

Verification