DM Entitlement...

[Plane Sailing]

quick note - don't let tempers fray or anyone get under your skin, and make sure that the discussion continues in a civil manner.

Thanks!

 

[jensun]

Already edited above. Please, do not take this the wrong way but do you prefer CRPGs, btw, Scribble? Seems to me you like a lot more control over the game as a player than I have ever noted from any single player except those who primarily played CRPGs alone rather than tabletop games with other people.

You may want to try something other than D&D or trad games.

There are a huge number of indie games out there that do exactly this. Giving players direct input into the setting, the history, the story, their opposition and other elements of the game is not just encouraged but explicit within the mechanics in a great many games.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is no "sense of entitlement," the DM is entitled to make rulings (all rulings) in his or her campaign as they are simply in charge and without them there is no game. Conversely, the player is entitled to opt out of a campaign and take his or her dice elsewhere. It really is as simple as that.

Everything boils down to this.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is no "sense of entitlement," the DM is entitled to make rulings (all rulings) in his or her campaign as they are simply in charge and without them there is no game. Conversely, the player is entitled to opt out of a campaign and take his or her dice elsewhere. It really is as simple as that.

In the final analysis, this is where the buck always stops.

RC

 

[Ranger REG]

In the final analysis, this is where the buck always stops.

Then let's end the discussion already.

 

[Hussar]

The first is a wishy washy passive voice way of denying a request while calling the choice requested objectively degenerate and counter to the fun of the game in general.

/incredibly pedantic - That's actually not passive voice. It's perfectly active.

To be honest, I fall on the other side of things. As a DM, I get to control 99.9% of the game. The .1% that I don't control belongs to the players. I'm pretty willing to relax the grip on that .1% in order to let someone have their way so long as I don't have any reasons beyond my personal taste.

In other words, just because I don't care for a particular race/class doesn't, IMO, give me enough justification to ban it.

 

[Mark]

You may want to try something other than D&D

Naw. No time for too many systems of RPGs. My hobby gaming has spanned the last 35 or so years and covers board games, RPGs, minatures wargames and traditional wargames. I'm not someone who has played with a single group for all that time but rather have played with hundreds (probably thousands, actually) of other people at cons, gamedays, groups I've organized and run and groups others have organized and run. I can only speak from my experience and from the anecdotal evidence I have read or heard from others but it seems to me that the vast majority of gaming experiences usually fall to one person setting up and running the game and others needing to defer to their authority in that situation mostly. Others get their turn when they want to step up and shoulder the load, often being the one to have made the primary purchases to allow a game to happen, as well as set the schedule for play and arrange for the space, as well as corral the requisite number of players. Sure, the players often bear the expense and responsibility of having some equipment, such as player's guides, dice, etc, and might also wind up with the snack and drink duties, but usually the bulk of knowing the rules and running things meta- and in-game fall to one central person because that's how it is more likely to happen. YMMV.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

People seem not to be reading my earlier post, so I'll say it again.

When it all comes down to it, in the end, when all debating and argument is done...the player is replaceable. There are a lot of players, and there are not a lot of DMs. Should you get really, really upset about not being able to play a character, you have three choices. Suck it up. Join a different game. or become a DM yourself.

Footnote: That last "choice" is really a joke because it never happens.

It's the DM's game. I'm not sure if saying "The DM is GOD" gives off the right message, but, in terms of the game, it's flat out true. Factually correct. The DM is the giver and the take, the one who created the world and all living things in it, and the one who ultimately guides your destiny, though how STRONGLY he guides that is up to him. if you and the DM don't see eye to eye, yes, he SHOULD listen to you and to what you have to say. Nobody is questioning that.

But after he's listened, if he still says no? For WHATEVER reason? You can't force him to do otherwise.


Perhaps I should bold that.

You can't force him to do otherwise.

And again, if it REALLY gets under your skin that much, you can always DM your own game*.


*Hahahahaha, not bloody likely.

 

[Mark]

I would say that the majority of people I DM in my home games over the years also DM sometimes. I cannot speak to those from cons and gamedays. I tend to feel that people who have at least tried DMing make better players. I've heard others say the opposite, often about themselves as players if they primarily DM.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the 25 years I've played as a DM, the single concession I've made to my players in generating a game world is in my most recent creation, a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting.

At one point, I had considered eliminating ALL of the core races. The surprise to me was that while most of the players felt they could find something else to play besides a halfling, Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Elf or Dwarf, every last one of them insisted that playing a straight Human had to remain at least an option, even if ultimately nobody decided to play one.

I listened to them and felt that they brought up valid points.

Every other world-design decision I've made in the past quarter century I've stuck to. After all, I'm the one taking the time to build and populate the wonderland in which everyone else plays but a single PC.

Those who didn't like them were, as ProfessorCirno pointed out, free to play despite my decision or walk away, perhaps to run their own game.

And in some cases, I couldn't find anyone willing to play a particular campaign. I didn't take it personally- instead, I said OK, that means I get to be a player. No more months of planning. No more designing adventures and populating them with realistic NPCs.

Simply the joy of role-playing.

And in my 30 years as a player, I've NEVER questioned a DM on what they choose to use to populate their world. Sometimes I've rolled my eyes, sure, but if I wasn't allowed to play a Paladin or a Halfling, I found something else to run. No worries.