DM Entitlement...

[Cadfan]

Would you force a player to play a dragonborn, even if the player did not want to play a dragonborn? If you'd not do that, why expect the DM to play a world he doesn't like, i.e., one with Dragonborn?

See, its all a question of boundaries. You see "world with dragonborn in it" as a valid "world I don't like," which the DM can then reasonably avoid. I see it more like my analogous "room with plaid shirts in it," where the plaid shirt isn't MY plaid shirt, isn't MY business, and if I have a problem with it I am indicating nothing other than my own psychosis.

To continue with food metaphors: If I dislike tabasco sauce, and the presence of tabasco sauce in my food means my enjoyment of a meal is diminished, then it doesn't mean I have a problem - it simply means I dislike tabasco sauce.

I'd analogize it more to you having a problem with tabasco sauce in MY food, and using the fact that I'm eating it on YOUR dinner table to try to ban it.

There's no sense of perspective needed at all. It's simply a matter of taste and playstyle. Some of us dislike some stuff, and its mere presence turns a game we like into something we dislike.

Right. But the question is, how much does something you dislike have to directly involve you before you've got standing to complain about it? As a DM, I've dealt with all kinds of PCs that I didn't particularly like. Some were outright annoying. I could have banned the aspects of them that I didn't like (half orcs, half elves, Thiefy-McStealsalot character types, etc), but at some point I have to concede at least some minimal ground to my players. And I think their characters are a good line to draw.

Look, try to spin it around.

If the DM has the right to ban half orcs because he dislikes them so much that he actually doesn't like campaign worlds where half-orcs exist, what about a player that just plain doesn't like two handed mauls? He thinks they're dumb. Can he veto an NPC that wields one?

Of course we'd never think that he could. But his interest, honestly, is exactly the same as that of the DM. He just plain doesn't like them, and wants them gone. He doesn't have a better reason than the DM. He doesn't have a worse reason. He just wants them to go away because that's how he feels and that's that.

Normally the reason we let DMs make these kinds of rulings, and we don't let players, is because the DM sees a bigger picture. He may have plot reasons for a ruling, or genre reasons, or whatever. But in this case he doesn't have any of that: he's got a hate-on for dragonborn or whatnot. And his hate-on isn't any more or less legitimate than any other hate-on. He just happens to have more power.

And using that kind of power to make that kind of arbitrary ruling is a perfect example of what I'd call an illegitimate sense of entitlement.

 

[Scribble]

Whoa... This thread took off over night!

I'm kind of amazed by the idea that it's either DM entitlement or Player entitlement- No one should have 100% power over the game. It's a group activity! I think the I control everything attitude promotes games of everyone vrs the DM or the DM vrs everyone else... Instead of a group "we're in this to have fun" mentality.

I guess the disconnect for me is the I've made this game, and if you don't like it you can go home, or make your own game... I just don't get that. If everyone goes home, you're not going to play "your game" anyway!

The dinner party thing brouight up earlier fits in. People say you made the dinner so people should just come eat it. Huh?

Maybe it's because I don't just enjoy the game, but also the act of being with my friends? To me the dinner party would be-

Hey guys I'm thinking about throwing a dinner party... I'm thinking mexican, you guys interested?

Example- Just before 4e came out I was running a future sort of space-cyber punk campaign. One of my players wanted his character to have mutations. I wasn't really using the mutation stuff, so I said:

"eh, mutations don't really fit into the vision I had of the world... I'm not really planning to include them." His responce was:

"Fair enough, but you did include genetic modification right? And a lot of genetics and cloning? Can we re-flavor some of the mutations to be more like genetic modifications?"

I let him roll with it. He had a definite vision of what he wanted to do with his character. We even worked out a "group" in the campaign world that had a religion based aroubnd the idea of bizarre genetic modifications...

Compromise. In my opinion it can make a good game great.

 

[Mallus]

Over the past few years I've had nothing but smashing success opening up my campaign world --a collaboration to begin with-- to player input, handing out bushels of narrative control/authority, and basically taking the game in directions I never expected to. Sharing 'creative control' with your players just makes the game world bigger and richer than one cooked up by a single person.

That said, I'm going to make one, lone argument for campaigns run in a more "authoritarian DM' style. Not all settings are kitchen sinks. Sometimes the best parts of the play experience are rooted in a cohesive world. It's hard to play a good Arthurian Romance when Warforged ninja keep leaping from the shadows.

Sometimes keeping tight setting control isn't about the DM's unwillingness to share power. It's really about the DM playing to their strengths and trying to offer the best campaign they can. If the DM's strength is offering a specific theme and/or setting, I don't mind having my input restricted.

Then again, with a game like D&D, which lends itself to broad kitchen-sinking play environments, that DM better be selling something really damn good before I give my god-given right to cheap puns and absurd characters...

 

[Fenes]

I'd analogize it more to you having a problem with tabasco sauce in MY food, and using the fact that I'm eating it on YOUR dinner table to try to ban it.


If the DM has the right to ban half orcs because he dislikes them so much that he actually doesn't like campaign worlds where half-orcs exist, what about a player that just plain doesn't like two handed mauls? He thinks they're dumb. Can he veto an NPC that wields one?

Of course we'd never think that he could. But his interest, honestly, is exactly the same as that of the DM. He just plain doesn't like them, and wants them gone. He doesn't have a better reason than the DM. He doesn't have a worse reason. He just wants them to go away because that's how he feels and that's that.

If no one wants to have those mauls in game, then they'd be gone faster from my game than I can type the sentence to our house rules doc. Why would I insist on keeping something in game if no one wants it, but someone hates it? I'd have a mental problem if I'd acted like that.

As I have stated, main problem with Dragonborn is the implied asumption that they are in the world and I have to run them as npcs or react to their presence as pcs. That is trying to force tabasco sauce into my meal.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So rather than bemoaning how heavy the head is which wears the crown, I think it's much better to talk to the players and ask for help or contributions. Stop thinking of it as "your world" and start thinking of it as "our world".

I agree with this. The problem comes when there are players that do not want to put any effort into helping create a world and just want to whine when they can't use X Y and Z from splatbooks 1,2 and 3.

 

[Mallus]

The problem comes when there are players that do not want to put any effort into helping create a world and just want to whine when they can't use X Y and Z from splatbooks 1,2 and 3.

For these people I recommend spitting Mountain Dew in their faces.

(I mean, speaking with them openly and without rancor. Yeah, that's it.)

 

[Hjorimir]

Normally the reason we let DMs make these kinds of rulings, and we don't let players, is because the DM sees a bigger picture. He may have plot reasons for a ruling, or genre reasons, or whatever. But in this case he doesn't have any of that: he's got a hate-on for dragonborn or whatnot. And his hate-on isn't any more or less legitimate than any other hate-on. He just happens to have more power.

And using that kind of power to make that kind of arbitrary ruling is a perfect example of what I'd call an illegitimate sense of entitlement.

There is no "sense of entitlement," the DM is entitled to make rulings (all rulings) in his or her campaign as they are simply in charge and without them there is no game. Conversely, the player is entitled to opt out of a campaign and take his or her dice elsewhere. It really is as simple as that.

Now, a good DM, who provides a great gaming experience and finds ways to please the players, will have the more dynamic campaign with a greater level of participation. So the temptation should already be there for the DM to work with the players. That said, if a DM, for example, hates dragonborn so much that it affects the quality of his or her participation, it is wise to not allow the race as its mere presence can adversely affect the entire campaign. While a player's dislike of the dreaded two-handed maul doesn't have as far reaching consequences. Simply, the two are not equal for that fact alone.

If a DM isn't enjoying a campaign, he or she may not put the requisite prep time in as the interest fades. This is going to bring the enjoyment down in a big hurry. I'm actually doing my players a service when I take steps to ensure the game is pleasing to me becuase its very survival depends on it. Seriously, how many of you have seen campaings you were enjoying die because the DM wasn't into it? I'm guessing this ranks amongst the very top in reasons why a campaign ends (probably right behind scheduling conflicts...but maybe even above).

 

[Obryn]

Of course - I said a compromise is what people should strive for. But there are things that can ruin a game for me because they ruin the whole setting. Firearms in D&D is one thing. Dragonborn are another thing. I can handle lizardmen, half dragons, half-dragon lizardmen (provided the group is willing to deal with the consequences of travelling around with a freak who will attract as much attention and trouble as a drow, i.e. an attention hogging PC), but I do not have a place for an entire race of reptilian mercenaries that is accepted by default by the civilised countries. My setting is far too xenophobic for that.

It's the background of the race, and the assumptions it implies for the setting that are my main beef with them. That and I consider them a purely marketing gimmick with no appeal at all compared to the lizardmen, or half-dragons.

So, um... Why not call them a half-dragon, and let the player play it?

There's a difference between a player saying, "I'd really like to play X" and saying "X exists all over the place and we're everywhere!" The former is a pretty reasonable request, assuming X isn't the Brokenmaster from the Broken Book of Brokenness.

-O

 

[Fenes]

So, um... Why not call them a half-dragon, and let the player play it?

There's a difference between a player saying, "I'd really like to play X" and saying "X exists all over the place and we're everywhere!" The former is a pretty reasonable request, assuming X isn't the Brokenmaster from the Broken Book of Brokenness.

-O

As I said, I'd let him run a half dragon or lizardman, or half-dragon lizardman (if no one else has a problem with that). But the dragonborn as presented in the 4E material (which I consider defined by their fluff, stats are just stats)?

It simply does not fit my world. If a player wants to play a reptilian warrior, there's a number of options. But if a player expects me to add an entire race, and change my setting so much that the Dragonborn as presented by WotC can be played (as opposed to playing the lone freak reptilian "good exception" aka Drizzt)?

No. No place for their background in my setting. I don't have an old dragonborn empire, I don't have roving bands of dragonborn mercenaries, and I especially do not have large amounts of people who accept a dragonborn race as part of civilisation. And no one is going to tell me "you have to place that race and culture in this world!".

 

[Obryn]

There is no "sense of entitlement," the DM is entitled to make rulings (all rulings) in his or her campaign as they are simply in charge and without them there is no game. Conversely, the player is entitled to opt out of a campaign and take his or her dice elsewhere. It really is as simple as that.

Is it really as simple as that?

Even if it is, is this really ideal?

I mean, assuming a limitless pool of players and a limitless pool of DMs, I suppose it could be. But in reality, when the people I game with are my actual friends and I keep a constant (but slowly shifting) group of players from one game to another, I think a little flexibility on both sides of the screen is called for.

I'm actually doing my players a service when I take steps to ensure the game is pleasing to me becuase its very survival depends on it. Seriously, how many of you have seen campaings you were enjoying die because the DM wasn't into it? I'm guessing this ranks amongst the very top in reasons why a campaign ends (probably right behind scheduling conflicts...but maybe even above).

You know, I've ended campaigns before, but it has never, ever been because a player wanted to play a class or race that was out of synch with my carefully-crafted setting.

I'd say a sense of perspective would be warranted in this case...

-O