DM Entitlement...

[Cadfan]

They get to say what goes in or out and "I don't like it" is a valid reason to exclude things.

When dealing with something like a player character race, why is "I don't like it" a valid reason to exclude something?

 

[Mister Doug]

No, I'd say everyone can speak up about how they want the game to work, but the DM is the one with the final say.

A matter of taste, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. DMs make and run the world the players play in. They get to say what goes in or out and "I don't like it" is a valid reason to exclude things.

That's still saying everyone has a say. It's just that some people have more power and authority. Which sounds reasonable. Everyone gets heard and considered, even if their input is eventually rejected. Which is different than just a "my way or the highway" approach to authority. Authoritative rather than authoritarian.

 

[Darrin Drader]

In other words, there's a social contract that players can trust in you, but that part of that relationship is that you are final arbiter. That's less "I am God" and more "I'm the benevolent dictator" complete with some level of consultation with the community who understand that you have ultimate power.

That makes sense. Not the "I'm God and the players can go $#&@ themselves" attitude I read into your first post. Makes sense. Not the social contract at most games I run, but one that matches many I have played at happily.

You have to understand that the origin of this type of thread (not this particular thread per se, but threads like this in general) is a player dissatisfied with the fact that their DM told them no on something and they're looking for some sort of validation for being angry with the DM or trying to strongarm the DM into allowing them something that the DM doesn't want. How many people wrote in to WotC rules support for the explicit purpose of getting a clarification in writing so that they can overrule their DM? I used to work in WotC rules support, and frankly, if someone were to pull that stunt on me, I'd be tempted to bounce them from the game. An unresolved question is one thing, and is a perfectly acceptable use of WotC CS, but as most of these issues require a level of interpretation, attempting to usurp control is entirely unacceptable (the only exception to that, of course, is if they dig up something I had written to a customer back in the day, which had gotten posted online in a vain attempt to settle a messageboard debate, in which case I'd kick myself for agreeing with such munchkinism in the first place).

 

[Cadfan]

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!".

Are you referring to a pre existing campaign setting that pre-dates 4e? Or a new one?

I'll repeat it for the record.

I'm only objecting to the idea that "I hate X" is a good reason for a DM to ban X. Its the most problematic of all the possible reasons to ban something, and it becomes more and more tenuous the more it touches on player characters.

"This setting has existed for some time and I'm not changing it" is not the same as "I hate dragonborn and won't put them in this new setting I'm writing, even if my players want them."

 

[Fenes]

The example wasn't "no one wants it," it was "one player hates it." Do you all kowtow to that player? If not, why not?

As I posted: If no one wants it, and one player hates it, it'll be gone in a second. Why wouldn't we "kowtow" to that player if no one else cares about the maul?

If someone really cares about it, then we'll try to find a compromise. But if that's not possible - though cookies, someone will have to give.

But I am long past the point where I think something should be in the game just because WotC wrote it so, so the maul doesn't have some "default it is in" protection.

 

[Mister Doug]

Responding to this as a literal statement rather than a metaphor, I HATE this attitude.

Nothing fills me with rage faster than someone giving me something I actively DO NOT WANT, refusing to allow me to politely decline, and then pressuring me to express gratitude for it. It makes me want to do the same thing back to them. You know, spend 15 hours painting their house bright pink, then getting SERIOUSLY ANGRY that they're not grateful. What do they mean, they don't like pink? What do they mean, they didn't want their house painted? I DIDN'T WANT THE STUPID MEATLOAF EITHER! Insisting that I not only choke it down, but also pretend that I liked it, thus ensuring that they make the same terrible meatloaf for me again? Its like an act of culinary warfare! It will be responded to in kind!

Rage!

Man, that must have been some terrible meatloaf.

 

[Fenes]

Are you referring to a pre existing campaign setting that pre-dates 4e? Or a new one?

I'll repeat it for the record.

I'm only objecting to the idea that "I hate X" is a good reason for a DM to ban X. Its the most problematic of all the possible reasons to ban something, and it becomes more and more tenuous the more it touches on player characters.

"This setting has existed for some time and I'm not changing it" is not the same as "I hate dragonborn and won't put them in this new setting I'm writing, even if my players want them."

It's the setting I am running my games in since over 15 years - a heavily modified Forgotten Realms with a mixture of 2E and 3E elements.

But even if I would be writing a new setting, I would not write Dragonborn in because I'd hate to DM them. Just as I'd not force a player to play something he'd hate, no one can force me to play something I hate.

And anyone who tells me that I have to play something I hate for the players can go and look up "hypocrite".

 

[buzz]

As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god.

The DM is a person, just like everyone else at the table. Claiming the DM is anything other than that is a recipe for disaster.

If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.

If you're running a Conan game, I'm hoping that you're doing so because you suggested the idea to your gaming group, and they expressed interest, encouraging you to make whatever changes were necessary to accommodate the setting. Unless you're prepping a one-shot for a con or something.

You seem to want to tell other people where to drive and what to eat. If someone invites you to a dinner party do you suggest they call everyone being invited and make sure everyone has a say in what the host prepares?

If someone invites me to a dinner party, I'd assume they are not going to wait until I show up to tell me that it's a costume ball, or a wine-tasting, or something kinky. Not to mention, not cop some sort of "The Party-Planner is God" attitude if I then decide to leave, or refrain from, say, drinking because I'm an alcoholic/allergic/religious/whatever.

I think it's evident that this whole attitude looks rightfully ridiculous when applied outside of gaming. Good hosts don't demand; they accommodate and inform.

It's in most ways the DM's game.

Then they should have fun playing by themselves.

This discussion seems to come up a lot on ENWorld, and, every time, irrational extremes are painted of the two supposed sides of the debate. I.e., it's a choice between either tyrannical, "love it or leave it" dictator DMs, or abusive players demanding that the DM be a doormat/puppet for their amusement.

I'm sorry, but real life isn't like that.

(If yours is, I hope you get out of that group, pronto.)

Gaming is a social activity. Different RPGs may divvy up their roles and responsibilities in different ways, doling out more donkey work to some players over others, but this doesn't change the fact that playing an RPG is a collaborative and creative act shared among a group of human beings. The idea that one player's in-game role gives them some sort of privileged meta-game/social position is utterly ludicrous. Healthy social interaction does not involve people being either subservient or autocratic.

In D&D, the DMs job is to create adventures, adjudicate rules, and run the opposition. The players' jobs are to create (typically) and run their PCs in reaction to the opposition and color presented by the DM. They (DM and players alike) don't do this because they are required to do so; they do this because they want to do so. It's a game, and hopefully they are all participating because they want to be there and play it with each other.

Claim that any participant has a right to make meta-game/social demands, and we're not talking about gaming anymore; we're talking about unhealthy social BS.

No person in the DM role has a right to unilaterally ban rules or demand players do X or Y. Similarly, no person in a player role has a right to demand that the DM run a specific game or allow rule options they want.

However, hopefully everyone in the group has respect for themselves and their fellows. And respect means being willing to consider, e.g., the DM's idea about banning halflings from the upcoming campaign, or one player's interest in playing an artificer even thought it's still in beta-test. It's not about never being able to say "no." It's about saying it in a healthy social context.

I dunno. Painting the question in absolutes is fruitless, IMO. I read various posts here and shudder to think what being in some of these game groups must be like.

 

[Scribble]

You have to understand that the origin of this type of thread (not this particular thread per se, but threads like this in general) is a player dissatisfied with the fact that their DM told them no on something and they're looking for some sort of validation for being angry with the DM or trying to strongarm the DM into allowing them something that the DM doesn't want.

I know you said "not this particular thread," but still. I'm almost always the DM for my group. My Games generally run the longest in our group. This thread in particular was in NO WAY styarted because a DM told me no...

It was started because as a DM, it seems almost alien to me to see posts by DMs feeling they can ban things, and care not one whit about player input.

It just seems really really odd to me. It's a game I'm playing with my friends. Yes, as the DM in game I'm expected to be the ultimate arbiter of the rules, and yes when designing a campaign there will be some details that I will include based on my own tastes and likes sure... But the idea that if those ideas bother my players they should have no say- it's MY story , and if they don't like it they can take their dice and go... WOW...

The idea that it's MY game, and players should feel lucky to be a part of it... Also seems WAY odd to me.

It's a game... Something I do with my friends in order to have fun. I don't DM as a burden to my fellow players so that they might not have to suffer the rigerous role of DM... I do so because it's fun. I enjoy creating the adventures, and seeing everyone have fun playing through them.

Working together with your players to ensure everyone enjoys the game as much as possible does not mean you're "giving in" to your players, or giving them "control."

it just means you're playing a game together. Expecting one part to have (to quote E.T.) Ultimate power, in my opinion seems silly, and somewhat petty.

If it works for you though great. Who am I to say how you should or shouldn't play. I was just trying to offer advice that seems to make better games for me... Collaberation, communication, and compimise. (Works with other relationships too!)

 

[Voadam]

When dealing with something like a player character race, why is "I don't like it" a valid reason to exclude something?

I see this as self evident.

"I don't like vancian magic" is a reason not to include vancian magic in your campaign.

"I hate dragon men" is a reason to not include dragonborn as an element that will show up in every game the PC is there.

It is the same as any other player option. Are psionics in or out? If the DM hates psionics he can validly choose to exclude them from the player options available in the game he is running.

The DM has to deal with the player chosen options every game making banning player options you don't like dealing with even more reasonable to me than NPC only things that might show up only once or twice at a DM's discretion.

Choices need to be made about what is included or excluded. I do not see any reason to say a DM who chooses to exclude something he hates is making an invalid choice.