DM Entitlement...

[Hussar]

Before I get accused of being "creative" in my reading, here's a selection of quotes:

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.

/snippage

In non-food metaphors, the DM is doing the players a favor by running the game instead of playing (as most people prefer playing). Like a good cook, he's best served to find out what his potential customers like to eat, rather than just plop a steaming plate of beef tongue and boiled cabbage in front of them, but it's his kitchen, and ultimately, nobody has to eat what he's cooking, when they could all get out of the player chairs and go cook up something more to their taste and let *him* sit down and sample their fare instead.

I have a simple rule when DM'ing.

Either you agree to all my rules, or I don't DM.

/snip

There are a lot more players then there are DMs. Players are replacable. DMs are not. If you dislike the campaign rules, (try to) find another DM.

You can't tell the DM "I want this, you have to give it to me." You are perfectly allowed to try and ask the DM to make/do something banned, and he's perfectly allowed to say "No."

If it rankles you THAT much...YOU could always start DMing. But then, for most players, that's crazy talk ;p

As I said, the player always has the option of not playing if they don't like the specific terms I put in front of them. As a DM, I tend to weigh arguments made by players fairly and take their point of view into consideration. I am a kind and benevolent god at my table, and that is the way the players like it. At the end of the day though, the tough decisions are mine to make. If I'm not sure about a rule (and yes, it does happen occasionally), I am willing to defer to the interpretation of one of my most experienced players, provided that he is being reasonable and not trying to break the game.

/snip

Well, that's just in the first couple of pages, but, you get the idea.

Reading this, I really have to wonder why some people actually DM. If it's so difficult, and time consuming that you feel such a heavy obligation to do it, why bother?

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, you aren't actually doing anything. You aren't playing the character, you aren't coming up with a backstory, you aren't involved at all, except as a spectator.

I honestly cannot believe anyone would hate a character race so much that it would completely destroy the game to have SOMEONE ELSE, not you, play that race.

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.

Yes, it's perfectly clear. You think your fun is more important than your player's. Since you are the one banning the element, not the player. You are the one who has decided unilaterally that your imagination is better than your player's imagination and that if the player plays something you don't like, your fun would be less, therefore, he cannot possibly play it. Anything which lessens your fun is bad. It doesn't matter that your decision has lessened his fun after all. His fun is irrelavent. The only important thing here is that you are having fun.

Since, if his fun had any relevance at all, you'd compromise and find something that you could both enjoy, rather than unilaterally standing upon the mountaintop and declaring, for no reason other than you don't like it, that element X will is verboten in your game.

 

[Fenes]

Hussar, I will ignore you now since you are simply unable to understand what you actually are saying. You are so wrapped in your own views, judging reasons as valid or invalid, that you miss that you, and just you, are treating another player - the DM - as a servant of the rest. You assume and demand that the DM is there for the players, at his own expense, and has no right to have fun himself, unless his reasons are deemed aceptable by yourself.

That's arrogant and hypocritical.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, I will ignore you now since you are simply unable to understand what you actually are saying. You are so wrapped in your own views, judging reasons as valid or invalid, that you miss that you, and just you, are treating another player - the DM - as a servant of the rest. You assume and demand that the DM is there for the players, at his own expense, and has no right to have fun himself, unless his reasons are deemed aceptable by yourself.

That's arrogant and hypocritical.

I'm unable to understand what I am actually saying? Really.

What I'm saying is that some DM's need to unpucker the control just a smidgeon and allow for the idea that players should enjoy the campaign too. That sitting in the big chair in no way confers the right to beat players over the head with their tastes.

I have repeatedly supported the idea that DM's can and should ban elements in their game. I have repeatedly stated that doing so can be perfectly acceptable and probably is in 99% of cases.

What I personally find unacceptable is the DM deciding that his personal preferences trump anyone else at the table, and if people don't like it, they can leave. There's no room for compromise there. There's just a brick wall that the players cannot possibly overcome.

I find it very strange that when a player decides unilaterally that his tastes should trump, he gets ejected from the game, but, when a DM does it, he gets a pat on the back.

Note, I am only talking about situations where the only issue is personal taste. I am not making any universal statements whatsoever. I am coming down on this one, single, solitary issue - personal preference.

 

[3catcircus]

But, you aren't actually doing anything. You aren't playing the character, you aren't coming up with a backstory, you aren't involved at all, except as a spectator.

Jeebus...

I've silently observed this thread until now.

Who do you think has to try and shoehorn in each players' characters with convoluted nonsensical backstories that bear no semblance to anything close to possible? Ever wonder why so many campaigns start out in the local inn? Because a DM will present a theme for a campaign, get agreement from the players, and then they go off and create characters that have not one iota of commonality or compatibility with each other or the campaign.

Example: a military-themed campaign where all of the players are in the local King's army? Guaranteed that one or more players will throw down a character who is of a different race than is prevalent in that kingdom, or is a "spy for the enemy king's army," or "got drafted and hates the army" or "is a pacifist" or "I'm the commander, so I get all these perks and get to boss around the other PCs." Not once will any of the players actually - oh - read anything the DM may have provided to them on the army rank structure, or who their commanders are, or what weapons/armor they are issued.

Yes, it's perfectly clear. You think your fun is more important than your player's. Since you are the one banning the element, not the player. You are the one who has decided unilaterally that your imagination is better than your player's imagination and that if the player plays something you don't like, your fun would be less, therefore, he cannot possibly play it. Anything which lessens your fun is bad. It doesn't matter that your decision has lessened his fun after all. His fun is irrelavent. The only important thing here is that you are having fun.

Since, if his fun had any relevance at all, you'd compromise and find something that you could both enjoy, rather than unilaterally standing upon the mountaintop and declaring, for no reason other than you don't like it, that element X will is verboten in your game.

It is no fun for the DM when the players are unwilling to compromise either. Fact of the matter is that if the DM bans one or more elements, the players still have everything else available to them. More often than not, the players whine about something being banned because it suddenly prevents them from using some completely broken "build." Too often, players waste a bunch of time coming up with some impossible character design that requires that the DM allow them to have a combination of race, character classes, feats, and magic items that they feel they are entitled to. You want that deathmaster psycho build that dishes out 1000 damage each hit if you have the right feats and character classes and the minor artifact sword? Work for them. If the DM bans one element in the beginning of the campaign that "wrecks" your design - too bad - pick something else.

Bottom line is that the DM is banning something that applies equally to everyone, while players think only of themselves when they whine about some element that isn't allowed by the DM.

In my own campaigns, going forward, I'm banning all D&D psionics. The only psionics I'm allowing will be the Spycraft 1.0/Shadowforce Archer psionics, modified for D&D. Why? Because I am sick of having psionic characters that are completely overpowered relative to magic-using characters in my campaign world. If I were using Dark Sun, I'd keep the D&D psionics, but I'm not, so they get ditched. Does that mean I have a sense of entitlement? No - it means I am levelling the playing field for all of the players. That is within my rights as DM to do so.

 

[Hussar]

In my own campaigns, going forward, I'm banning all D&D psionics. The only psionics I'm allowing will be the Spycraft 1.0/Shadowforce Archer psionics, modified for D&D. Why? Because I am sick of having psionic characters that are completely overpowered relative to magic-using characters in my campaign world. If I were using Dark Sun, I'd keep the D&D psionics, but I'm not, so they get ditched. Does that mean I have a sense of entitlement? No - it means I am levelling the playing field for all of the players. That is within my rights as DM to do so.

150% agreed.

Just to repeat myself. I am ONLY talking about situations where the ONLY ISSUE is the DM's personal preferences. ONLY. Not anything else. Not one iota, slightly tinged, mildly colored, tangentially related other issue. This and nothing else. This much and no more. Big FREAKING SIGN that says, ONLY TASTE ISSUE.

Is that clear enough for everyone. Jeez.

But, yes, I think everyone in this thread agrees that when a player (DM or player) at the table is being an asshat, he needs to be pelted with dice.

Actually, apparently that's not true. Numerous posters here are telling me that the ONLY vision that applies at the table is the DM's and no one else's. It doesn't matter what reason the DM has for banning something. His reasons need not make any sense whatsoever. He's the DM and he's GOD, in Darren Drader's words. He can work in mysterious ways and the players should toe the line or get out.

Am I misinterpreting something there?

 

[racoffin]

What I personally find unacceptable is the DM deciding that his personal preferences trump anyone else at the table, and if people don't like it, they can leave. There's no room for compromise there. There's just a brick wall that the players cannot possibly overcome.

I find it very strange that when a player decides unilaterally that his tastes should trump, he gets ejected from the game, but, when a DM does it, he gets a pat on the back.

Note, I am only talking about situations where the only issue is personal taste. I am not making any universal statements whatsoever. I am coming down on this one, single, solitary issue - personal preference.

All of the issues are personal taste. Whether the DM dresses it up with a "logical" reason or not (enviroment, setting, etc.) in the end it is the Dungeon Master's personal taste on the matter.

You are welcome to find that unacceptable. This is why there are thousands of games out there, so that everyone can find someplace that they fit.

 

[Fenes]

A game doesn't start until people have agreed on what rules are used. Unless that agreement has been made - including all "I don't like this, ban it" conditions there is no game, and so no one can be kicked.

 

[Hussar]

A game doesn't start until people have agreed on what rules are used. Unless that agreement has been made - including all "I don't like this, ban it" conditions there is no game, and so no one can be kicked.

Now that's just being extremely pedantic.

I don't know about you, but, my groups have been fairly long standing. The campaigns might come and go, but the groups tend to last more than a few years. And we generally have a regular game night.

So, I would say that there is a game, even if there isn't a specific one being played yet.

Again, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BANNING MATERIAL. I just want to be absolutely clear on this since I've been accused of all sorts of things here. Banning material is perfectly fine. My single, solitary issue is with the idea that the DM has the right to say, "My imagination is better than yours".

 

[Jackelope King]

Last time I'm going to try to post in this thread, as other than a few folks, a "middle of the road" suggestion seems to go ignored by many posters.

It's not about DM Entitlement. It's not about Player Entitlement. Anyone, player or DM, who wants to ignore the concerns and tastes and the fun for the rest of the group is wrong. I don't care if you have an incredibly detailed history for your world that magnificently ties together magical theory with the origin of the high elves becoming distinct from the wood elves and the setting is a masterpiece the likes of which you would, by all conventional standards, be hailed as not just the epitome of the high fantasy genre, but the rebirth of it: if your players are all sitting around wanting to play Eberron and just not getting your setting, you're wrong.

Similarly, as a player, if a DM tries to work with you to include your character, suggesting alternate "races" using the same mechanical basis (like Dragonborn), and all you do is stamp your foot because dammit, you want to be a dragonborn, you're wrong, doubly so if the other players in the group don't want dragonborn in the game.

The key is working together. The DM's job might be a tough one, but he can make it so much easier by working with the players. During character creation, he can ask, "So, Bob, tell me about your character's home town / friends / enemies / goals." Listen to the players. Make use of their ideas. And the first thing you should do when someone approaches you with an idea is to divorce yourself from the idea that it's your world or your game. It's not. It belongs to the group.

That's not to say that you throw your vision for the world away, but that you work with the players. I said a few pages back that a faerie wonderland wouldn't fit in a Conan-esque, grim-and-gritty world, but that maybe a utopian village could serve some narrative purpose in a game if, after being introduced, it were destroyed during an adventure the players were on. Don't make your first reaction: "It's my world, and that doesn't fit." Your first reaction, as the DM, should be, "Hmmm... can I make this fit?" And sometimes, even the best ideas from your players just won't fit. Maybe there just truly is no room in your world for sparkly magic pink ponies with sparkly magic rainbow faerie wings and hair you can brush, especially since the world has no horses or anything equine at all (centaurs included). And that's when, as the DM, you say no. But you don't say, "This is my game, and I don't want that crap in it. If you don't like it, get out." Instead, tell the player, "It's definitely unique, but I just can't see how we can work it into what we've already established for the world. Do you have any other ideas?"

Once you start working the player's ideas in, they'll get use to it, and they'll keep coming up with new ideas. Suddenly the burdern of DMing starts getting a little easier when you've got a whole group of people contributing to growing the campaign. But players will only be as creative as you demand of them, so if your players are used to having everything in the setting fed to them, they won't rise to these sorts of expectations.

So seriously, try it. You've got a group of creative people, and you'll never know the opportunities you've been missing until you ask your players.