DM Entitlement...

[Fenes]

You're painting the hypothetical player in your example as an irrational jerkwad, though, so I'm not sure how useful this is to the discussion.

Is it such a hurdle to accept that it's a two-way street?

Do we really think this "god" dynamic would be acceptable in any other social context? Are gamers really this maladroit?

Some people in this very thread told me that I have a mental problem if I disallow Dragonborns, but allow lizardmen, half-dragons, and half-dragon lizardmen.

 

[Mallus]

There may be a larger pool of players than DMs, but IME, the pool of good players is rather limited.

You're not alone in thinking this.

 

[Cadfan]

Some people in this very thread told me that I have a mental problem if I disallow Dragonborns, but allow lizardmen, half-dragons, and half-dragon lizardmen.

Technically, I said that hating dragonborn so much that including them in a campaign would ruin your enjoyment of DMing the campaign might be an indication of a personal problem you should sort out on your own rather than inflict upon your friends. You added a lot of the rest.

 

[Fenes]

Technically, I said that hating dragonborn so much that including them in a campaign would ruin your enjoyment of DMing the campaign might be an indication of a personal problem you should sort out on your own rather than inflict upon your friends. You added a lot of the rest.

You made it very clear that for you, there is no excuse at all, no reason at all to disallow Dragonborn if they "just" ruin a DM's fun since the DM should bend to the player. The bit about personal problems was just adding insults.

 

[buzz]

Technically, I said that hating dragonborn so much that including them in a campaign would ruin your enjoyment of DMing the campaign might be an indication of a personal problem you should sort out on your own rather than inflict upon your friends. You added a lot of the rest.

I dunno about it being a "personal problem" that needs sorting out, but I agree that the above exchange does not really correspond to Fenes' example. The example was exaggerated to a point where we're obviously not looking at a rational exchange you'd see IRL.

You don't need supposed "rights" granted to you by an RPG rulebook in order to make a gaming session work. The idea that you would is just crazy to me. Any human beings with even basic social skills should be able to arrive at some mutual fun, or at least recognize when a compromise won't work and then make the decision to participate or not.

A gaming group that cannot function this way is, IMO, a gaming group that should not exist.

 

[Fenes]

I dunno about it being a "personal problem" that needs sorting out, but I agree that the above exchange does not really correspond to Fenes' example. The example was exaggerated to a point where we're obviously not looking at a rational exchange you'd see IRL.

You don't need supposed "rights" granted to you by an RPG rulebook in order to make a gaming session work. The idea that you would is just crazy to me. Any human beings with even basic social skills should be able to arrive at some mutual fun, or at least recognize when a compromise won't work and then make the decision to participate or not.

A gaming group that cannot function this way is, IMO, a gaming group that should not exist.

The problem is that for some people, a DM's fun is not enough of a reason to cause a player to compromise if said player wants to play a Dragonborn exactly as written in the book, no matter how muhc a DM is willing to compromise.

 

[Scribble]

Obviously, no one is required to do anything they don't want to do, save for death and taxes. But assuming you're part of a regular group, and care in any way about the other people in that group, the guy who's DMing that night has no right to anything you state above.

Again, I find it strange that people see the D&D group dynamic as so black-and-white. It's not a choice between that night's DM being either a tyrant or a doormat. It's about collaborating with people who are invested in each other's fun. A healthy social dynamic cannot exist if one person's fun is prioritized over everyone else's.

Once again Buzz, I agree with everything you've said...

And again I'm forced to wonder if it's a difference between people who game with their peers, and social group, vs. people who game just with a random group. (Random as in they've gotten together only for the sake of gaming, and not because they are friends outside of gaming...)

 

[Spatula]

Do we really think this "god" dynamic would be acceptable in any other social context?

Start making demands on how your boss runs the business and see what happens.

The DM-player dynamic really isn't all that unusual. Just about any hobby organization will function along similar lines, including real-world group but also online stuff like MMO guilds. Someone will rise to the leadership position. If the others like that person's decisions, they will be happy. If they don't, they will agitate to give someone else power, or go elsewhere.

 

[Cadfan]

The problem is that for some people, a DM's fun is not enough of a reason to cause a player to compromise if said player wants to play a Dragonborn exactly as written in the book, no matter how muhc a DM is willing to compromise.

Oh, no, not at all. Again, this is all stuff you've added to the conversation.

I do think, however, that some degree of deference should be given to the player when it comes to his own character. Again, we're dealing with my "sense of proportion" critique here- while having dragonborn in the setting might annoy a DM who doesn't like dragonborn, its unlikely that most people would have enough rage against dragonborn in them that merely DMing a setting that includes dragonborn would bother them to the same extent that a player would typically be bothered by being denied the ability to play the character he wants, especially when the reasoning for that denial is sheer hate-on from the DM, rather than anything about making the game better.

In your case, you've got an established campaign setting and you don't want to retcon it. That's fine. Even without your hatred of dragonborn, I would accept that if I were a player in your game.

But as for banning things simply because you do not like them, then using the elaborate apologetics found in this thread to justify it? It doesn't... it doesn't ring true or sincere. I have genuine difficulty believing that someone could hate dragonborn so much that they can't envision the idea of compromising and permitting a dragonborn pc in their campaign. Wouldn't such a person also be incapable of playing in a campaign where someone else was playing a dragonborn? Shouldn't we be seeing threads where players express similar sentiments?

But of course we don't. Because players have less of a sense of entitlement about their pet peeves being accommodated, even in contexts where they, not the DMs, are the ones interacting directly with the disliked subject matter. Contexts like character creation, for example.

 

[Scribble]

Start making demands on how your boss runs the business and see what happens.

Ok, first: There is a huge difference between a job, and a leisuretime activity with one's friends...

Second: Any good boss knows to listen to his/her employees concerns. Failure to do so leads to, loosing good employees, and making terrible descisions based on a superiority complex.

Third: NO ONE should be making "demands" of anyone in a game. Player or DM.

Players have no right to "demand" something be done, just like the DM has no right to "demand"something be so.

The DM-player dynamic really isn't all that unusual. Just about any hobby organization will function along similar lines, including real-world group but also online stuff like MMO guilds. Someone will rise to the leadership position. If the others like that person's decisions, they will be happy. If they don't, they will agitate to give someone else power, or go elsewhere.

This is very odd to me... I have a group of friends. We do things together. Sometimes we come up with an idea "Let's go skiing!" We then talk about our options. "let's go to Colorado!" "How about Whistler?" "Well... Taho would be better on my wallet..." etc... We eventually come up with the best idea that allows our group of friends to do a fun activity together...

Never once would we ever consider one of our group saying something like: "Tomorrow we ski. We will go to Whistler. Anyone who objects can go elsewhere...."

That's just odd.