DM Entitlement...

[Fenes]

Right. I'll repeat myself.

Having a system like that relies upon everyone having reasonable boundaries for what sorts of things they feel they can proclaim to be beyond the pale for inclusion in the game. If everyone took the attitude of the DM who freely proclaims, "I hate X, so not only won't I make it an important part of my campaign, but even if my players want to use it themselves, I won't allow them, even when there are no coherent or objective reasons to deny them other than my own hatred of X," the system would break down.

The system only needs players who do not have to have something in game that another cannot stand. How "logical" such a taste or distaste is has absolutely no weight. If a player hates a maul, and wants it banned, for no other reason than hate, and if no one loves the maul, then it gets banned, simple as that, and all have fun.

You simply do not accept that "I hate this" is a very reasonable reason to not want something in play. Why you are so convinced that you know better what is fun and acceptable for others I do not know.

All I know is that when I plan a campaign, I aim to make it fun for all that take part. If someone hates something, I'll not use it - I won't try to educate him that he's stupid for hating it. That would be the same as me trying to tell people that they should order themselves pizza with tuna despite them hating tuna, just because it's not rational to hate tuna.

 

[Mercule]

Heh. I just realized something that might drive a few people nuts.

IMC, I eliminated elephants. None to be found, at all, in my setting.

Why? A thought struck me several years back that D&D worlds differ from Earth mainly by adding stuff. I thought, "Why not remove a couple of things, too?"

But, I supposed that makes me a maladjusted jerk.

 

[Imp]

Careful, Hussar'll come crusading to your table to gank your players.

Heads down, everyone!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

In this thread, some people weren't allowed to play a character they wanted, and all the harbored bitterness of all the years comes out

NOBODY IS KICKING PLAYERS OUT OF THEIR GROUP. STOP SAYING THEY ARE.

What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call. You can play in his game. Or you can choose not to. If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM. But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game. If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.

I almost feel like this entire thread is three or four people just trolling us.

 

[Emirikol]

This seems pretty odd to me. D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?

What a wonderful topic!
The problem arises thus: A DM decides to change the D&D rules, but has no "campaign reality" to base it on. For example: banning half-demons and dragonspewed without having a campaign reason why.

Personally I believe in a DM's right to change whatever the heck he wants in a game and shove it down his players' throats for absolutely arbitrary and selfish reasons. If his players dont' like it, they can look elsewhere for a game. Afterall, there are enough players in the world (and a DM shortage), that more players should probably start stepping up and offering to DM once in a while. Also, it's the Dm who stepped up and offered leadership to run the game. He's the one that's doing most of the work in the game. It's the DM's job to decide, to lead, and to uh..er..make stuff happenate. He's the decider. ..but of course nobody wants to play in that game..so it doesn't matter how many players there are

That said..game groups tend to have more ease of running when the DM works it out with his players and they come to an agreement and work cooperatively. For instance, character backgrounds and long-range plots. I'd be pretty disappointed if my DM didn't give me some help with my background, and also if I was the DM and my player didn't give two craps about his background and I had to do it all too.

In the long run of my gaming experiences, I've run into too many Dm's who didn't offer me ENOUGH background and ENOUGH house-rules-cooperation.

jh

..

 

[Darrin Drader]

In this thread, some people weren't allowed to play a character they wanted, and all the harbored bitterness of all the years comes out

NOBODY IS KICKING PLAYERS OUT OF THEIR GROUP. STOP SAYING THEY ARE.

What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call. You can play in his game. Or you can choose not to. If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM. But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game. If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.

I almost feel like this entire thread is three or four people just trolling us.

Got it in one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call. You can play in his game. Or you can choose not to. If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM. But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game. If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.

QFT.

I've had dozens if not hundreds of PC concepts barred from this campaign or that...I just make different PCs.

About the only time I got ticked off about not playing a particular PC in a particular 2Ed campaign it was because another player (NOT the DM) complained that my PC was "superman" when we used the same PC creation rules...and were in fact playing the same class. After 15 minutes of his whining, I tore up my PC sheet in his face and generated another PC.

 

[grickherder]

What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call. You can play in his game. Or you can choose not to. If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM. But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game. If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.

I almost feel like this entire thread is three or four people just trolling us.

You nailed it. Totally nailed it.

And the funny thing is that those trolling are doing it from some sort of stance of a moral high ground. As if the DM's aesthetic decisions are somehow subject to their approval and if they're not accommodated, the DM is somehow the unreasonable one. Laughable really. And sad too, given that it's even been expressed by one of them that they'd ruin a game if the DM didn't budge and comply with their wishes or satisfy them with a reason they found acceptable.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. I just realized something that might drive a few people nuts.

IMC, I eliminated elephants. None to be found, at all, in my setting.

Why? A thought struck me several years back that D&D worlds differ from Earth mainly by adding stuff. I thought, "Why not remove a couple of things, too?"

But, I supposed that makes me a maladjusted jerk.

Careful, Hussar'll come crusading to your table to gank your players.

Heads down, everyone!

Nice. Misinterpret what I said.

My question would be, why did you ban X? Did you ban X simply because you didn't like it? Is there any other reason, other than your personal preference, that you banned X? If there is no other reason, other than your personal preference, why does your imagination get to trump mine?

Why does sitting in the DM's chair confer the right to say, "My imagination is better than yours"?

In this thread, some people weren't allowed to play a character they wanted, and all the harbored bitterness of all the years comes out

NOBODY IS KICKING PLAYERS OUT OF THEIR GROUP. STOP SAYING THEY ARE.

'scuse me? You might want to reread the thread. Numerous posters, including those above me who are patting you on the back, have emphatically stated that they would kick players out of the group for trying to play something they didn't like.

What IS being said is that, when all is said and done, the DM makes the call. You can play in his game. Or you can choose not to. If you literally cannot play the game without using your own special magic character, the problem runs much deeper in you then it does with the DM. But if that's true, you can just walk away and join a different game. If that's NOT true, then you just make a new character and join the game.

I almost feel like this entire thread is three or four people just trolling us.

Let's reverse it. If you, as DM, cannot play the game because someone's character bugs you just that much, the problem runs much deeper in you than in the player. Posters here have clearly stated that they would refuse to run any game which has dragonborn in it. Not for any other reason than because they feel their imagination is better than everyone else's.

To me, THAT'S the issue. That's the entire issue. Why does being the DM allow you to unilaterly enforce your tastes on the group? To the point where you can outright ban any element, for no other reason than your personal taste, and if any player objects to this, they should leave the table.

Sorry, I don't agree. The DM should voice his tastes. And, 99% of the time, his tastes are likely going to trump for any number of reasons. But, if the only justification you have for banning something is, "Well, I don't like it", then you have overstepped your powers as DM.

There are a thousand perfectly good reasons for banning something in the game. It breaks genre conventions (Vampire characters with Battlemechs), it spoils the challenges of the campaign (using warforged in a jungle exploration campaign where survival and disease are main issues), it is physically impossible or at least very, very difficult (dragonborn in an aquatic campaign). On and on and on. There are loads of perfectly valid reasons for banning material from the game.

"I just don't like it" is not one of them.

 

[Fenes]

I think Hussar simply doesn't get that a player has no right to play in a given game by a DM. Just as a DM has no right to have a player play in his game. It's not like there's someone forcing them to play together.

If they can't come to an agreement of what's fun and what's not fun then there is no game where both take part - there may be two or more games where one of them takes part.

And even if it is useless, I'll try once again to explain to Hussar why my "aesthetics" trump anyone else as far as I am concerned:

It's not me deciding how someone has to play, it's me deciding what sort of game I will be taking part in. I decide what I have fun with, how much I'll be compromising, and for what reasons. I decide how and with whom I spend my spare time.

Not anyone else.

If something is not fun for me I'll not do it. That doesn't mean it's not fun for someone else, or that it is wrong. But no one, no one has the right to force me to do something I do not like in a game.

So, basically, it's the difference between "I will play a game I have fun with, you are invited to take part, but I will not bend on the following points" and "you have to play MY game".

No DM here said that they'd force a player to play in their game - it was always an invitation to play, not a demand. However, the other side tries to tell us that the DM has to play the player's way.

I think it's clear who here thinks his fun is worth more than another's fun. And it's not the DM who won't play a game that's not fun for him - it's the player who expects and demands that the DM plays an unfun game so he has fun.