DM Entitlement...

[ProfessorCirno]

It amuses me in a dark, cynical way, that the people calling foul saying "Stop giving such extreme examples of rude players!" are then painting the DM as some horrifying tyrannical dictator with an iron fist over his poor, whimpering, good natured characters straight out of a Disney film.

Look, nobody is saying the DM gets to be some terrible fearless leader straight from Soviet Russia. What IS being said is "When everything is said and done, the DM makes the decision, not the player." We're not saying that the DM shouldn't have to listen to the player, and nobody is suggesting that the DM should go out of his way to spite the player. But when both sides have made their argument, the DM makes the call, and if the player doesn't like it, he can either play it anyways, or...not. Seriously, those are the two options. If you can think of a third option, I would LOVE to hear it. But PLEASE don't say "The DM and player should come together and discuss...!" because they already did that.

Christ, do I need to post this a thousand times? The player cannot force the DM to do anything. This has gone from "DM Entitlement" to "Player Entitlement."

Also:

And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me. If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.

The DM shouldn't be a jerk, but should a DM ever ban a race you like, you'll purposefully destroy the group?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The DM isn't feeling entitled, YOU are. You feel that you, as a player, should be the one making all the decisions in the group or campaign, otherwise you'll DESTROY it. And you say the DM is the one with a god complex?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think a lot of people are saying this actually.

Does anyone in this thread feel obligated to run a game? Show of hands please.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Hong has a law for this. It's a good one.

...

It is one thing entirely to invoke that stupidity when talking about a game system, though it is annoying enough there. It is quite another to invoke it at another person talking about their own personal game, or their own particular style.

Considering the ramifications of in-game choices and events is not some kind of disease that needs to be purged. Some of us actually like consistency and sensibility in our settings; I'm sorry if you don't, but that doesn't mean you need to throw cryptic and idiotic sayings at us that are clearly going to be declared worthless by the likes of us, since the saying is clearly anathema to the very way we play the game.

I don't care if you don't like consistency, but don't act like your way is the "most awesomest" or that it is somehow superior to actually caring about consistency and the idea that your actions have reasonable repercussions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

If wanting to play a Jedi in the Realms makes one an irrational jerkwad, because of the flavour and setting implications involved, how does that vary from wanting to play a dragonborn in a world without them?

 

[Scribble]

Do you honestly feel that this exchange is unreasonable?

Yes, we all realize that DMs should not be jerks, but it's possible to say no without being a jerk.

I guess I should have quoted what he quoted from me... neverending quotes...

I said I don't object to saying: "I'm not a fan of X therefore I don't want to use it in this campaign."

I DO object to saying "If you don't like it tough, you can leave."

he responded that without the second part the first part is pointless.

Yes, I agree with you, you can say no without being a jerk or making "you can leave" threats. (See the example of my campaign where the ultimate answer was no.)

Neither party (Player or DM) has the right to give threats or ultimatums to the other to get their way. It's a two way street with everyone doing what's best for the game, and the enjoyment of everyone involved.

Sometimes that should mean the players not getting everything they want, sometimes that should mean the dm not getting everything he wants.

Comprimise.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

This triggered a thought. How many races would a world have to have before it became overwhelming? Three+ races of dwarves, six+ of elves, orcs, three goblinoids, goliaths, kobolds, gnomes, tieflings, dragonborn, elan, genasi, yuan-ti, shades, half-giants, thri-kreen, githyanki, githzerai, dromites, gnolls, and a host of others.

I really don't want to play in a setting where all of those exist as significant entities. Just like any other story form, a D&D setting needs to pick a scope and theme and focus on it. I can see the peace, harmony, and equality between races as an aspect of a given campaign, but that needs an even tighter focus. Really, when elves act just like humans, there's no need for elves.

Anyway, that meandered a bit. The point is that DMs need to be able to limit choices some just to avoid clutter.

IMO this is a good point and one that is all too often ignored.

Any setting needs to decide what and who belongs where. Fantasy and laziness aren't synonymous therefore a DM has to decide what races are the power players in the setting. If too many races have powerful presences then the world is going to have a certain feel....like a Star Wars spaceport or Planescape where everyone has seen it all and nothing can possibly surprise anyone. Everything is one, homogenized, cosmopolitan, dull mixture. If demon-people can walk around in a town with impunity, there is literally nothing that is going to cause the citizens of that town to bat an eye....except maybe Demogorgon walking down the street.

Also, every sentient, civilization building race needs resources and the more that are added the less there is for others. This may not be a problem for new campaigns without established realities. Longstanding campaigns with established settings simply will not have room for every new race and shouldn't be expected to make room. Every single race I have seen come down the pipe in various sourcebooks is nothing more than the pet creation of the writer. Why on earth should a DM feel obligated to add these things? If I thought that something like Goliaths were a goood idea for my setting I probably would have, in the last 12yrs, came up with the concept myself.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Cadfan]

In fact, in most instances the races found in books like Frostburn and the Book of Vile Darkness never saw the light of day in my campaign. Just didn't like them. They just felt wrong somehow.

Did you ever have a player come to you and ask to create a character of one of the races in Frostburn or Book of Vile Darkness?

I don't like gnomes. I can't remember the last time I used a gnome npc. I've also never had a gnome player character in one of my games.

But I really haven't "banned" gnomes.

Is your situation similar?

The point is that DMs need to be able to limit choices some just to avoid clutter.

I agree about 90%. I totally agree that too many sentient humanoid species at once will mess with verisimilitude. But that doesn't mean that the DM has to "limit choices." One easy way to decide what sentient humanoid races to keep or to cut is to simply ask your players what they want to play, add any sentient humanoid races you need for plot reasons, then cut the dead wood. Same effect on cutting down the clutter, but no loss in choices.

Its not as easy if someone's character dies and now they want to be a drow in a campaign that never previously had drow, but that's back to the "established campaign setting" issue, which I think is a fair reason to deny someone a particular choice.

That's disgusting behaviour. A thousand times worse than a DM not wanting something in his game and not giving reasons that satisfy you. Breaking up a group? Trying to convince people not to play with that guy and play with you instead? That is truly immature behavior of a magnitude far greater than what the DM did by not satisfying your demands for a decision being more than an aestheic issue.

Just think what you are saying. That you'd try to disrupt play and bring a game to an end just because the DMs reasons didn't satisfy you. Why is your desire to have a satisfying reason or a DM that changes his mind more important than the desires of the other players or the DM? To the point where you'd intentionally try to bring the game to an end and "gank" the players to play in your own group? Truly selfish. Worse than a DM who won't budge out of selfishness.

Dude, what? He didn't threaten to forcibly kidnap the players, or threaten to murder their families if they didn't switch games. He meant that he'd offer them an alternative game with a better DM. The other players aren't the current DM's property. They can leave if they want.

You make it sound like he's threatening to seduce the DM's wife.

Am I a nutter or not?

You might be. Why don't you like pcs with breath weapons? If a player specifically asked you if he could play a dragon shaman, what would you say? Would you say, "No, because I don't like breath weapons."? How would you expect your player to respond to that?

Your hint that 3 am lieing aside, Character generation is an activity where my group gets into as a group - including veto rights. Part of our social contract is avoiding to create a PC that ruins the fun of the others. So, yes, a player is entitled not to suffer akender in the party too, if push comes to the shove and no compromise can be reached.

Ah, but Fenes- what undergirds that is undoubtedly some degree of shared expectations about what validly "ruins the fun of others."

If I showed up in your group and declared that dwarves ruin my fun, because dwarves are stupid and that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, but one of your other players wanted to play a dwarf, how would your group react? Would you tell the character that he couldn't play a dwarf anymore? That my hatred of dwarves, even when they're played by other players, is more important than his desire to personally play a dwarf?

Or would you tell me to get over it, create my own non-dwarf character, and move on?

(Also note that this scenario would NEVER HAPPEN, because players don't generally feel this sort of sense of entitlement... a player asking that another player's character be disallowed would undoubtedly come up with some explanation for WHY it should be disallowed, other than "because I hate it.")

 

[CountPopeula]

That's disgusting behaviour. A thousand times worse than a DM not wanting something in his game and not giving reasons that satisfy you. Breaking up a group? Trying to convince people not to play with that guy and play with you instead? That is truly immature behavior of a magnitude far greater than what the DM did by not satisfying your demands for a decision being more than an aestheic issue.

Just think what you are saying. That you'd try to disrupt play and bring a game to an end just because the DMs reasons didn't satisfy you. Why is your desire to have a satisfying reason or a DM that changes his mind more important than the desires of the other players or the DM? To the point where you'd intentionally try to bring the game to an end and "gank" the players to play in your own group? Truly selfish. Worse than a DM who won't budge out of selfishness.

So then, it's okay for a DM to remove players, but not for players to remove a DM?

 

[billd91]

So then, it's okay for a DM to remove players, but not for players to remove a DM?

Hussar is the one who said he would "gank" the players - and that's not a positive term. It's typically considered underhanded. So I think you and Cadfan should cool your jets about grickherder's indignation. If Hussar really did mean "gank" and not something more innocuous like "woo away", the indignation is correctly placed.

 

[Mallus]

IIf too many races have powerful presences then the world is going to have a certain feel....like a Star Wars spaceport or Planescape where everyone has seen it all and nothing can possibly surprise anyone. Everything is one, homogenized, cosmopolitan, dull mixture.

Note that both Star Wars and Planescape have their fans...

Really, it's not hard to run an exciting cosmopolitan setting (and there are all sorts of ways to provide setting cohesion/unified theme). I've be doing it for almost 5 years now in my current campaign. If cosmopolitan is boring you're doing it wrong. Trust me, I live in a city.

If demon-people can walk around in a town with impunity, there is literally nothing that is going to cause the citizens of that town to bat an eye...

No, all it means is the people in that town will be accustomed to demon-folk. A cross dressing were-dog priest would get their attention. Trust me, cross dressing were-dog priests always raise a few eyebrows.

If I thought that something like Goliaths were a goood idea for my setting I probably would have, in the last 12yrs, came up with the concept myself.

So your imagination is informed only by... your imagination? What ever happen to stealing every idea that wasn't nailed down? That's how I build D&D setting back in the old days... well, actually, it's how I build them now, too.