DM Entitlement...

[wally]

Do you honestly feel the only way to achieve a particular objective is through threats or ultimatums?

This again seems alien to me. An example from one of my longest running campaigns after a play'er character had died. It was an "epic story" style campaign so we rarely if ever brought people back from the dead the player was makign a new character.

"Hey, I'm thinking I want to go with something different this time... I want to make a 1/2 demon."

"Eh... I'd rather you didn't. The places you're in right now a 1/2 demon would kind of stick out... I'm not really feeling the idea of having to account for that all the time."

"Ah, that's cool, I can do something else."

No ultimatums, no threats, no demands... Just two people sharing their thoughts on what's best for the game.

A year or so later in the same campaign, higher level. The group had "split" into two... The evil characters and the good, (asame group two sets of characters alternating on a semi weekly basis.) Another character a cleric of vangal had died... But now he had a resurection cast on him by the paryy druid:

"Hey J, instead of the random roll, can I make a centaur?"

"Probably not. "

"Here's my thoughts: Ok, so I'm getting to the point where I want to challenge Vangal's high priest to the right to lead his church, and I thought what if when sending me back, Vangal saw somethign in me, and "blessed" me with a new form... His church are the mad horsemen right? I'd litterally be a "Horse man..." and I'm hight enough level to account for the LA anyway..."

"Actually that sounds pretty cool... Let's roll with it."


Again... no ultimatums, threats or demands... Two people, with the goal of having fun rationally discussing their thoughts.

Just wondering if you can give an example where you guys didn't agree and neither would bend. How did you solve?

-wally

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or at least the DM could paint the better reason over his personal opinion. "They don't fit my world" for example. That is assuming that you need to put another reason up. With my group, if we mentioned tinker gnomes my disliking them would probably be the most polite thing said at the table.

In any case, that seems to be what it is boiling down to: the reason given. As long as the DM gives a "good" reason, everyone is happy and he isn't a tyrannical jerk.

Pretty much. Like I said, I can live with pretty much any other reason.

So am I to understand that now "Sorry, no dragonborn. They don't fit in my world" is suddenly good enough for you?!?!?! Because, I could swear we went through pages where it was not.

 

[garyh]

What it does is raise the question why you believe that a player playing an alien, a Teletubby, or a character from the BOEF is being an asshat, but one playing a dragonborn is not.

/snip/

Because, ultimately, the only difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character and the dragonborn is that you happen to like the dragonborn, while some others might think that the dragonborn is no different than the Teletubby. And that seems to be the bit you're missing. For some folks, if the game has dragonborn, it might as well have Teletubbies.

The difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character, and the dragonborn is that the dragonborn are in the Player's Handbook (#1 even!). There's an implicit assumption most players make that core stuff will be included in a game that is roughly "normal" D&D. If someone's running a Conan / underwater / Wheel of Time game, then the player would be silly to insist on a dragonborn. But if it's Bob's Homebrew #12,984 - Standard D&D World (But no Dragonborn 'cuz Bob hates 'em!), then a player who was excited to play a Dragonborn when flipping through the PHB has a right to be disappointed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, one final thing to consider, Hussar.

Imagine that I have (as a group) Fred, Wilma, Barney, and Betty. Now I know that Fred is a loudmouth, and often gets his way. He loves the Dinoborn. However, I also know that Wilma, Barney, and Betty would occasionally like a game without Dinoborn. So, I set up a game without Dinoborn, and I tell Fred that, for this game, he will have to play something else.

And, most emphatically, I am not going to say that it's because of Wilma, Barney, and Betty, because that would make Fred round on them and browbeat them into the game he wants. It would remove my ability to shift the focus from Fred's preferences for just this campaign.

And Fred might argue that I am being a tyrannical jerk.

Might I suggest, however, that most people recognize that Betty, Wilma, Barney, and I are being extremely tolerant of Fred and his need to always play Dinoborn. Indeed, if Wilma wasn't married to Fred, and Barney and Betty were not such close friends with him, we would all be telling him to hit the road.


RC


No Flintstones were actually harmed in the composing of this message.

 

[Mallus]

Now that I have some time for this thread...

Yes, and one thing in cooperative world building is how to handle things that are a game breaker for one player.

The trick is not to consider something as a game breaker, outside disliking the actual people you'd be gaming with. But more on this in a minute...

Or in other words: Is the DM allowed to walk away from such a game if it has things in it he absolutely doesn't like, or is that right to walk away reserved for players?

This is why I don't like talking about 'rights'. If you're not enjoying yourself and compromise is impossible, find a gracious way to exit the situation. That's all that needs to be said.

And does one have to justify such dislikes, or is everyone allowed to have fun their way?

Here's the thing: people can have fun 'their way' in a group of people having fun in different ways. It's simple a question of respecting each others preferences.

This relates back to my remark about game breakers (I wasn't being facile). I use the term 'game breaker' to denote a mechanical aspect of the game that the DM can't handle, a mechanical impediment to smooth play. As a player, I'm not going to ask a DM to include something that makes the game hard for him to run. As a DM, if I really have a problem with some ability or element, then I voice my concerns and we all work out a solution. Everyone at my table understands that maintaining game balance (and ease-of-play) is a joint responsibility that we all share in. I've had players volunteer to give up class abilities and spells... just to make my job easier (and coincidentally, I haven't had to take them up on it --with the exception of one Atlatl Jones...).

Now as a player, I don't have any 'game breakers'. Sure, I have preferences, likes and dislikes, but I accept that different people get different things out of the game. They play in different ways. They're idiosyncratic, to say the least. So I try to respect those differences, and not hang my own personal enjoyment of the game on everyone else playing in the same manner, in accordance with the same aesthetic as I do.

I've found that gaming with people who have different perspectives, likes, skills, quirks et al has been rewarding. Besides, with a player base that can charitably described as 'not adding new members at a brisk pace' and uncharitably as 'dwindling', the ability the game with people who don't precisely match your tastes is a skill worth cultivating.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character, and the dragonborn is that the dragonborn are in the Player's Handbook (#1 even!). There's an implicit assumption most players make that core stuff will be included in a game that is roughly "normal" D&D.

Ah, but when we were told that the Dragonborn were coming, and quite a few folks expressed a distaste for that race, weren't they told that they could simply ignore it?

Now they cannot?

Simply put, if Fred cannot play a Dinoborn in Mr. Slate's game, he has a right to feel disappointed. But that doesn't mean that he has a right to try to ruin Mr. Slate's game, to pelt Mr. Slate with (stone) dice, or to try to force Mr. Slate to allow Dinoborn. He has the right to accept it, or to not accept it. Should he choose not to accept it, there is a very good chance that he will not be playing in Mr. Slate's game. He has an absolute right to seek out (or create) a game with Dinoborn. Since, as you say, they are in the core Dungeonstones & Dinosaurs rulebook (just trying to keep with my Flintstones theme), he shouldn't really have that big of a problem doing so.



RC

 

[Mallus]

There's an implicit assumption most players make that core stuff will be included in a game that is roughly "normal" D&D.

Is there? The gamers I've met IRL seem to share the implicit assumption that "normal" D&D doesn't really exist, and are quite amenable to all sorts of oddball campaigns. In other words, abnormal is the norm.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a player, I'm not going to ask a DM to include something that makes the game hard for him to run. As a DM, if I really have a problem with some ability or element, then I voice my concerns and work out a solution. Everyone at my table understands that maintaining game balance (and ease-of-play) is a joint responsibility that we all share in.

Mallus,

In a table where everyone assumes responsibility, the ability of the DM to say "No" is never in question. As a result, the need to do so seldom (if ever) arises. And gaming in such a group is, IME, both the norm, and a much better experience than otherwise.

There seem to be some who, when their claims that (A) a DM who says No is a tyrannical jerkwad who should be pelted with dice is refuted, are unable to see a middle ground between that statement and saying that (B) the DM should never compromise, even where doing so doesn't damage the game (in his opinion).

If a person only sees A or B as the possible positions to take, that disagreeing that a DM who says No is a tyrannical jerkwad who should be pelted with dice means "You've handed all authority to the DM....The DM simply says, "no" and that's the end of it according to you", it is unlikely that person will be satisfied by any "compromise" wherein the answer is still No.


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

Since it sounds like everyone is talking past each other now, how about this:

Is it appropriate for a player to expect a DM/GM to help him to fit a character into the world, with the understanding that some degree of compromise to make that fit happen will be necessary?

 

[Fenes]

Since it sounds like everyone is talking past each other now, how about this:

Is it appropriate for a player to expect a DM/GM to help him to fit a character into the world, with the understanding that some degree of compromise to make that fit happen will be necessary?

Of course it is. The main problem in this thread is that some people accept some reasons for a veto - "no BoEF" - but not "no, I hate this".