Again, agreed. I agree with this 100%. My only issue is when the DM, in a moment of honesty with himself, does not have problems with "that concept doesn't mesh", but only has a problem because he doesn't like X.
Right, but "doesn't like X" feeds into not designing a setting where X is likely to fit in. Now, I'm not saying that the reasoning can't be irrational -- "I hate elves. Here's my long lived arcane race instead!" -- but people, being people, are sometimes irrational.
Psionics are probably a poster child here. Lots of people don't like psionics. Yet, really, it's pretty hard to argue that psionics shouldn't exist for genre or meshing reasons in most standard campaigns. So, when the player says, "I want to play a psion", instead of the automatic "no" that some DM's do, step back for a second, examine why you are saying no and, if the only reason is because you don't like it, say yes instead.
Psionics aside (I thin it is a really bad example; lots of folks think psionics are more appropriate to sci-fi than fantay, their origins in the game notwithstanding), I don't think the issue here isn't so much that people don't think that the DM might benefit from stepping back and examning their reasoning, but rather that the player in the situation feels
entitled to play X even when the DM obviously dislikes and doesn't want to include X. If it is inappropriate for a DM to exclude something due to personal preferences, it is equally inappropriate for a player to demand something's inclusion due to personal preferences -- more so, perhaps, because the player invests far less time and effort into the game.
An anecdote or two to illustrate how complex this issue can be:
Many moons ago I started a 2nd Edition campaign in a pseudo-dark ages, germanic europe like setting. When we sat down to roll up characters (4d6-L, in order!) I gave only a few rules: no halflings (I didn't want hobbits, or kender, so I didn't know what to do with them), no gnomes (the gnolls ate them all), no elves (I knew I wanted to do something different with elves, but I didn't know what yet) and no ninja (what part of dark ages europe don't you people understand). So, as is inevitable, one player requested to play an elf ninja (what is it with elf ninjas, anyway). I balked, but he was persuasive and while everyone else was buying equipment and choosing spells and the like, we hashed it out and came to a compromise (found in the woods, amnesia, abusive foster father) that worked for both of us. the character not only ended up being one of two key characters in not just this campaign but the follow up one (as an NPC), the "elf ninja" bit enhanced the campaign by helping me find a place for elves ("When China Ruled the Seas").
There were lots of players in that game, though. one of them wanted to play a two weapon wielding ranger type. Great -- something easy and within the milieu I had created. That player/character lasted 3 sessions, but still managed to taint the entire campaign with his insipid BS.
The moral: a player that tries to get over isn't always wrong, and one that plays by the rules isn't always right, and a DM that says yes isn't always right and one that says no isn't always wrong.
