DM Entitlement...

[Mallus]

I'm not criticizing the fact that you dislike dragonborn. I'm criticizing the idea that disliking a player character race is a carte blanche reason to ban it, sans any other motivation for doing so.

I'm going to quote you Cad because I think you're saying what I want to better than me.

When players and DM's come into conflict over setting elements, the DM should think long and hard about denying the players input. They really need to ask themselves 'does my banning X this make the game better?'. 'Does the inclusion of X really make the game difficult/unpalatable to run?'

DM's should try, as much as possible, to avoid enshrining their arbitrary likes and dislikes into setting law.

 

[Scribble]

You always have the option of leaving if you don't like it.

I chose not to play when a friend wanted to do some Ars Magica to try out the troupe roleplaying aspect of the game. The troupe roleplaying aspect does not appeal to me so I declined.

Its a game, not an obligation.

Umm that's not what I'm saying.

Of course a player can opt out. So can the DM. It's a fun past time, not something you HAVE to do. What I'm objecting to is the idea that the only answer is if you don't ike it go away.

Opting out is a lot different then being told do it or leave.

 

[Halivar]

I'm criticizing the idea that disliking a player character race is a carte blanche reason to ban it, sans any other motivation for doing so.

Even kender?

 

[Mister Doug]

I don't see a difference.

The player in my game gets heard, I listen to their request, consider it but usually say something like "I understand you want X, but as I said before I'm not allowing X in my game for Y reasons and I'm sticking by that." The player can then decide whether he wants to play in my game without X or choose not to play in my game. He ultimately has the choice of my way or the highway.

Am I authoritative or authoritarian?

To me, the authoritarian DM is one who says that the way he runs the game is the way it is, and there will be no discussion. There is no hearing out of players, no desire for their input, and no recourse for them but to accept your decree or leave. "You want to play a dragonborn? Bite me."

The authoritative voice is one that has reasons, but a final say. "I understand you want to play a dragonborn, and I get why. But ultimately, I still don't see it working in my game. Let's talk about another way of approximating the things you said you wanted."

I work as an academic advisor at a large public research university. Part of my job is to enforce regulations and requirements (even when I think they aren't particularly reasonable.) I know others in my profession who are authoritarian: "you must do this because it's the rule, and because it's a rule and we made the information public to all students, I don't need to do anything to accommodate you. You need to accomodate us!" While this is technically correct and a possible approach, my experience is that it just makes everyone defensive, intractable, and irrational. Listening, explaining reasons, and explaining where limits of flexibility exist (and why) works much better, even with students, staff, and faculty who are notoriously difficult. Giving reasons and listening people offers some level of choice, even when the degree of choice is largely illusory. That allows people to feel heard, feel as if they can make meaningful decisions, and thus that they can accept those things they cannot change.

 

[Mark]

Whether the person serving as DM is facilitating or organizing things for the group is irrelevant.

We disagree as you already understand so we'll have to leave it at that on this point.

Their role in the game gives them absolutely no special privilege outside of the game.

The way you word this seems strange. My point is that the added effort the DM takes on as responsibility allows for the DM to make more decisions in regard to the meta-gaming situation. As an example, if the DM prefers to game from their own home, it is certainly their right to wait to run their game until they have players that agree to play at the home of the DM. The DM is not under any obligation to run the game somewhere else because of some odd sense of democracy among the players. In-game, if the DM does not feel that they would have a good time running a game with some aspect, let's say they want to run a game with no human PCs, then they are within their right to wait until they can gather players who are willing to play under this restriction. I am really not sure how it is that anybody who is a player is going to force a DM to run a game they prefer not to run.

They need to be communicative and respectful, just like everyone else, and just like they would in any other social situation in which they didn't want to get kicked in the nards.

While everyone here agrees with the first part of that weird and threatening statement, I think the last portion fails to uphold the promising beginning on which you embarked. (Edit - One might even contend that any situation that might so readily lead to a nard-kicking is not based on mutual respect.)

"The DM is god" is dysfunctional BS. Period.

I do not believe that "The DM is god" is anyone's contention in this thread so your point is moot as far as I am concerned. Why the hyperbole?

 

[Halivar]

I do not believe that "The DM is god" is anyone's contention in this thread so your point is moot as far as I am concerned. Why the hyperbole?

I'm not trying to stoke any fires here, but I think those exact words were, in fact, used earlier in the thread.

 

[Mark]

I'm not trying to stoke any fires here, but I think those exact words were, in fact, used earlier in the thread.

People often bring it up as a strawman.


*edit* I stand corrected. Apparently Darrin Drader believes it is the case. Okie doke, Buzz. Go get him!

 

[Mister Doug]

I'm not trying to stoke any fires here, but I think those exact words were, in fact, used earlier in the thread.

Yes, but I think that it's become clear on reading Darrin's follow-ups that the meaning of those words wasn't quite as harsh as they seemed on first read.

 

[Scribble]

I do not believe that "The DM is god" is anyone's contention in this thread so your point is moot as far as I am concerned. Why the hyperbole?

Mark:

As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god. The DM creates the world, the adventures, the DM sometimes cheats to make the encounters more interesting or enjoyable. Without the DM there is no game. So if the DM says that X race or class does not appear in this campaign world, that's just the way it is. Players who push issues like that with me get ejected from the game, which is also my right.

DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group

 

[Fenes]

For me it is quite simple: I have a range of games I play. Some genres I do not play. "The kind of world where Dragonborn as described in 4E are in is not a genre I want to play - I dislike the "and all are happy neighbors, reptilian warrors and humans and elves".

I am willing to accomodate people wanting to play a specific character quite a bit, but not to the point in playing in a setting where Dragonborn as WotC wrote exist.

There are lizardman, there are halfdragons, there are halfdragon lizardmen, but they are not common, not wildly accepted among civilised countries.

Trying to tell me I have a problem just because, for me, dragonborn break my genre, is the same as telling me I have a problem just because Spelljammer doesn't really jive with my Sword and Sorcery genre. Both bring with them assumptions and rulings that I dislike.

And I really have better things to do than play a game I dislike. I am a bit too old to spend my spare time on things I do not like.