DM Entitlement...

[Fenes]

It's not about the middle ground, it is whether or not anyone has the right to say "sorry, if this is in I won't play/run it".

Most state that yes, no one can be forced to play or run a game they don't want, regardless of the reasons.

Some few maintain that the DM has to have an acceotable reason to draw a line - his own fun is not enough to allow him to refuse to run a game.

That's it, in a nutshell.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

But, yes, I think everyone in this thread agrees that when a player (DM or player) at the table is being an asshat, he needs to be pelted with dice.

Actually, apparently that's not true. Numerous posters here are telling me that the ONLY vision that applies at the table is the DM's and no one else's. It doesn't matter what reason the DM has for banning something. His reasons need not make any sense whatsoever. He's the DM and he's GOD, in Darren Drader's words. He can work in mysterious ways and the players should toe the line or get out.

Am I misinterpreting something there?

I believe we do have a failure to communicate, yes. My understanding of the other camp's position is that the DM's discretion is all that matters for the final decision, but I don't think anyone has intentionally advocated completely ignoring the players' input.

I think Ari said it best back in post #2

This isn't about power, and it isn't about entitlement. It's about the DM creating the world and setting in which he wants to set his game, and nothing ruins a game faster than a DM who's not enjoying it.

Is it possible to abuse this? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that it's always an abuse, or that it's unreasonable.

In the final analysis, the DM has a right not to include something in his game. Yes, saying, "I'm banning dragonborn because I don't like them," is an abuse of this power, if the DM just means, "I'm banning dragonborn because I wouldn't want to play one myself." However, I see nothing wrong with it if the DM means, "I'm banning dragonborn because they don't fit in the Tolkienesque campaign I have in mind and which I'm jonesing to run."

To reiterate, yes, the DM and players should always try to reach some middle ground. But if this effort fails, then it's much more realistic to ask the PC to find another game than to ask the DM to run a game he or she can't get into. You could argue that DMs should be able to generate enthusiasm for any campaign and any collection of character concepts, but in practice, we're all just human.

 

[Mercule]

150% agreed.

Just to repeat myself. I am ONLY talking about situations where the ONLY ISSUE is the DM's personal preferences. ONLY. Not anything else. Not one iota, slightly tinged, mildly colored, tangentially related other issue. This and nothing else. This much and no more. Big FREAKING SIGN that says, ONLY TASTE ISSUE.

So, I'm off the hook, then. I've said I'm happy to work with players who have a flavor preference and actual theme to a campaign (I'd like to see a wizard's guild as the focus, or a knightly order, or weird and alien).

On the other hand, if a player has no input beyond "I want to play a dragonborn, and only a dragonborn" then I don't really consider it that big of an input to change an existing vision, tone, or setting. If I'm creating something from scratch, that's worth considering, but not if I have a long-running home brew.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Actually, apparently that's not true. Numerous posters here are telling me that the ONLY vision that applies at the table is the DM's and no one else's. It doesn't matter what reason the DM has for banning something. His reasons need not make any sense whatsoever. He's the DM and he's GOD, in Darren Drader's words. He can work in mysterious ways and the players should toe the line or get out.

No, you pretty much have it right. But as I said earlier, I've never had a player quit one of my games because I shot down one of his character concepts. Before we play, I go to the players and ask them, hey, would you be interested in a game where the premise is X, we're using Y setting, with Z rules allowed? If the answer is yes, then I develop it into a campaign. If the answer is no, then since I would have no players, I drop it.

Once a premise has been agreed upon, then I start nailing down specifics, which includes a list of exclusions. Maybe the exclusions say core rules only, or it might be that all splat material has to be checked for balance. Maybe it's that certain races do or do not appear in the setting. If it's a unique setting, then not everything in the rules has a right to exist. There are some things that I would never allow to exist, like when a player comes to me and says that they want to play a gestalt character or a dragon. Just because the rules exist in Unearthed Arcana and Dragon Magic doesn't mean that I'm obligated to allow them. On the other hand, if I were running an FR campaign and someone wanted to play a tiefling, I'd tell them to go right ahead - in fact I have. If I were running my homebrew, which has existed since the late '80s and has a very limited number of racial choices, for a reason, I'd tell them no.

The name of this thread should really be called Player Entitlement. DMs have been creating homebrews for as long as D&D has existed, yet this notion that the DM isn't the final arbiter of his own world is something that has arisen recently. Call me old school, but the concept that the DM isn't in charge of the game he is running is utterly alien to me. As a DM, I reserve the right to tell players yes or no depending upon whatever conditions I have set for the game.

If a player came to me with the attitude that some people in this thread are exhibiting, I'd bounce them. Just because someone is a D&D player, that doesn't mean that I have to invite them into my game. In fact, I have more players to choose from than I have spots at the table, so it's far easier for me to just get rid of the problem player than to accomodate whatever world breaking idea they're trying to shoehorn into my setting. Fortunately, in the 24 years I've been gaming, I haven't once run into a player who had a problem with handing over control of the game to the DM. When it does happen, I'll be sure to point them to this thread so they can join in with the rest of you who are saying what a jerk I am.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This whole thread is extremely surreal. I can't believe anyone plays with this "My way or the highway" mentality in real life. It seems like a lot of Internet posturing and exaggeration, in most cases. Surely, nobody would ever get into a situation where a friend even might consider leaving a game over something like a PC race! I, most certainly, have never lost a player or quit a game for a game-related reason! Just thinking about it seems preposterous.

 

[billd91]

This whole thread is extremely surreal. I can't believe anyone plays with this "My way or the highway" mentality in real life. It seems like a lot of Internet posturing and exaggeration, in most cases. Surely, nobody would ever get into a situation where a friend even might consider leaving a game over something like a PC race! I, most certainly, have never lost a player or quit a game for a game-related reason! Just thinking about it seems preposterous.

Arguments over internet message boards do tend to get pretty exaggerated. Part of it comes because participants often feel they need to repeat certain points over and over because it's hard to tell if the other participants have really gotten your point. I know I see it, and do it, quite often. I'll make a point and someone will respond to it, largely missing the point I was trying to emphasize, so I'll repeat that point, which serves to make it look like that's ALL I care about or at least seems to narrow my focus to the point of obsession.
Sometimes it seems like others aren't getting my point because they're being obtuse, but quite often it's just because they're trying to deal with multiple issues coming up from a variety of posts in the thread, trying to deal with them all at once, and because they, themselves, are doing the same thing I am doing: circling back around to the same points again and again because, in their estimation, nobody is really getting their points.
Of course, this happens in face to face discussions too, but it's a bit easier there to step back and make sure people are referring to the same points quickly and efficiently. On a message board, that typically takes days and by then the discussion has gone straight to hell.

 

[Imp]

Surely, nobody would ever get into a situation where a friend even might consider leaving a game over something like a PC race!

Well that's the thing isn't it? This is an internet forum, not a group of friends. Because groups of friends 1) tend to have something like a consensus on taste issues and 2) assuming they have like an over-18 maturity level they'll come to an agreement about little stuff like this before it gets to the my-way-or-the-highway point, like:

CONFRONTATION THE FIRST

Player: I want to play a drragonborn!
DM (rolls eyes): Really?
Player 2: Psh!
Player: Please I've wanted to play a dragon guy ever since I was thirteen and I saw this awesome movie where
DM: ...Fine.

CONFRONTATION THE SECOND

Player: Hey man I was thinking of rolling up a dragonborn and
DM: Oh, GOD
Player 2: Hahahaha!
Player: Eh, aight. (Rolls up a dwarf instead)

But in a less tight-knit group it might not go down like this.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

This whole thread is extremely surreal. I can't believe anyone plays with this "My way or the highway" mentality in real life. It seems like a lot of Internet posturing and exaggeration, in most cases. Surely, nobody would ever get into a situation where a friend even might consider leaving a game over something like a PC race! I, most certainly, have never lost a player or quit a game for a game-related reason! Just thinking about it seems preposterous.

I think that's precisely why so many people here, myself included, have table-sized indents in their forehead. We're saying "The DM will work with the player." We're saying "Nobody just gets kicked out for no reason." We're saying "The DM should help the lpayer make a character if his first idea doesn't go through."

What we're getting in return is: "No matter how much of a dick the player is, it's his right to stay in the game, complaining and whining, ruining it for anyone. And if you ever tell the player no, it means you're a HORRIBLE DM."

Just look at Hussar's post where he claims people are talking about kicking people out - only ONE of those mentions actually ejecting someone from the game, and that's because said player was being a craven douche. The others say, quite simply, that the player has the choice of playing in the game or not playing in the game, and that if he cannot, for whatever reason, abide by the rules, then it's not the game for him. Yet somehow this has been twisted so radically to mean "DMs like to kick out players because they have a god complex." Is it any wonder so many of us are getting our hackles raised when the slightest thing we say gets twisted out of proportion?

 

[ThirdWizard]

The others say, quite simply, that the player has the choice of playing in the game or not playing in the game, and that if he cannot, for whatever reason, abide by the rules, then it's not the game for him.

It's weird, though, because I've never seen it get this far. Actually, I've never seen anyone think about leaving a game over an in-game issue. I've seen people leave games because of interpersonal issues, scheduling considerations, moving away, and things like that. But, I've never even seen anyone even consider leaving because of what is being discussed in this thread.

It's like the entire topic of discussion is purely constructed.

Am I off base here? Are my experiences that different than others'?

 

[Greg K]

It's weird, though, because I've never seen it get this far. Actually, I've never seen anyone think about leaving a game over an in-game issue?

I have left or not played due to in game reasons. I left a boss's campaign due to the group's playstyle - a high level campaign in which characters with powers and magiic items inspired by comic book characters travel through planes and to planets and fight the gods) . I have also refused to play in an epic campaign being run by one of my M&M players. And, my refusal to the latter game has nothing to do with the DM and three of his player admitting that the campaign is broken, because he had never run a campaign before taking over for another DM without knowing the rules at the time he did.

I can think of several other types of DND games that I would not want to play in despite the other players enjoying themselves.