DM Entitlement...

[pemerton]

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

Not purely, in my view.

I think there is a tradition in D&D (at least as the rulebooks are written - it's hard to know how much actual play experience of the myriad groups playing D&D matches the books) of trying to solve social issues via ingame devices.

The highpoint of this trend is probably the 1st ed AD&D DMG, which says nothing about how to handle social issues that might arise in the game (compare to the 4e DMG in this respect). But it does give us alignment rules: - the social problem is players wanting to play distasteful PCs, and the solution offered by the rulebook is an ingame one, of alignment rules to be applied forcefully by the GM. And in the section on "the ongoing campaign" it tells us that the PCs of disruptive players can be struck by lightning hurled by the gods - again, an ingame solution for what is a social problem.

In my view it is this feature of AD&D's presentation (peculiar to that game, I think - it is not found in 3E or 4e, nor as far as I can recall in Moldvay/Cook D&D, nor in any other RPG I'm familiar with) that is one of the sources of AD&D's reputation for fostering abusive GMing.

AD&D also has another feature that is fairly distinctive for an RPG, and which perhaps has continued into later editions: namely, the notion that the PC can be created independently of some particular gameworld, and taken by the player from world to world.

A third feature of D&D is that it tends to be treated as a toolkit - with bits and pieces to be added and subtracted from campaign to campaign - much more than most other RPGs.

I think that these things add up to create the issue that is being debated in this thread.

For what it's worth, I sympathise with those in this thread like Buzz, Lost Soul, Scribble ect who think that social issues should be handle separately from ingame issues, and that the GM has no special status in resolving those social issues.

One of the more important social issues to settle, of course, is "Which game?" and "Who is GM?" The first question is not answered simply by saying "D&D", given the tookit way in which D&D tends to be used. It is not answered until we know what sorts of PCs are permitted. It seems pretty obvious that the answers to these two questions have to be worked out together. But it doesn't follow from that that the only person who takes part in answering them is the person who ends up being chosen as GM by the group.

 

[Hussar]

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'?

No, I don't think you're off base here. I think 99.999% of conversations around the table will look exactly like Imp said.

My only beef is with the idea that the DM's prerogative of creating setting extends to enforcing his personal tastes over the wishes of the players. If the DM bans something and no one cares, well, who cares? But, if the player, who I'm assuming is not being an asshat for the purposes of this discussion, honestly wants to play X because he likes X and can do a good job of playing X and will not abuse the rules and is doing so simply because he likes X, then why does the DM have the right to say "no, my imagination is better than yours"?

 

[billd91]

My only beef is with the idea that the DM's prerogative of creating setting extends to enforcing his personal tastes over the wishes of the players. If the DM bans something and no one cares, well, who cares? But, if the player, who I'm assuming is not being an asshat for the purposes of this discussion, honestly wants to play X because he likes X and can do a good job of playing X and will not abuse the rules and is doing so simply because he likes X, then why does the DM have the right to say "no, my imagination is better than yours"?

Because personal tastes are integral to the DM's vision of the campaign world. How many things is the DM going to ban that he actually likes? Even if broken, if he likes them, he will easily find a way to work them in, even if slightly modified. It's mainly when he's neutral toward things or dislikes them that they will get banned and so his likes and dislikes are already wedded into the decision of what to include and not to include to some basic degree.
Aand that's why, when push comes to shove, the DM's gets the final decision. If the DM doesn't want to run a particular kind of game, you can't make him.

 

[Fenes]

One of the more important social issues to settle, of course, is "Which game?" and "Who is GM?" The first question is not answered simply by saying "D&D", given the tookit way in which D&D tends to be used. It is not answered until we know what sorts of PCs are permitted. It seems pretty obvious that the answers to these two questions have to be worked out together. But it doesn't follow from that that the only person who takes part in answering them is the person who ends up being chosen as GM by the group.

No, but the DM has the right to say "that game I won't run". Then the group can either change "that game", or find someone who will run it.

 

[Andor]

No, I don't think you're off base here. I think 99.999% of conversations around the table will look exactly like Imp said.

My only beef is with the idea that the DM's prerogative of creating setting extends to enforcing his personal tastes over the wishes of the players. If the DM bans something and no one cares, well, who cares? But, if the player, who I'm assuming is not being an asshat for the purposes of this discussion, honestly wants to play X because he likes X and can do a good job of playing X and will not abuse the rules and is doing so simply because he likes X, then why does the DM have the right to say "no, my imagination is better than yours"?

The DM isn't saying "My imagination is better than yours." that's purely your own construction.

The Dm is saying "I'm the one doing the work of running this campaign, and that element causes me to stop enjoying that work, so I'm not going to do it."

If the Dragonborn obsessed players is willing to do the work and GM a world with Dragonborn is it, then spiffy, go for it. If not, why is the GM supposed to do something he finds unpleasant purely for the joy of a whiny player?

For some people element X pushes their personal squick factor, and who are you to force them to be squicked? If we replaced the words "Dragonborn character" with "Pedophile character" would we still be having this discussion? Would you think a GM was being a tyrant for not wanting a pedophile character in their game?

 

[Fenes]

For some people element X pushes their personal squick factor, and who are you to force them to be squicked? If we replaced the words "Dragonborn character" with "Pedophile character" would we still be having this discussion? Would you think a GM was being a tyrant for not wanting a pedophile character in their game?

That is the main point those people have: They only accept some reasons for banning something from a game. Anything else - espcially "I don't like it" - is tyranny in their eyes.

 

[Hussar]

That is the main point those people have: They only accept some reasons for banning something from a game. Anything else - espcially "I don't like it" - is tyranny in their eyes.

Wow. No matter how many times I repeat it, you still don't get it.

It's not accepting "some reasons". It's not accepting ONE SINGLE reason for banning material.

When the DM says, "I don't like X, therefore no one can play it", he's enforcing his personal preferences on the entire group. He most certainly IS saying "my imagination is better than yours". If he wasn't, then the player could play the distasteful character, because then the player's imagination is given equal play to the DM's. The DM gets to control everything else in the world. Why does my playing an X have to be absolutely under the control of the DM?

Again, this is ONLY when the DM is banning something for solely the reason of his personal preferences. If he has any other reason, it's probably fine. It's when the DM, like Fenes here, says, "Well, I cannot envisage a society which accepts people with scales, therefore, nothing you the players can say can change my mind and you WILL NOT play this race. If you want to play that race, play in a different game (Ie, get out of my game)."

He has unilaterally decided that his enjoyment of the game hinges on this one single factor and anyone else's enjoyment is secondary. If someone plays a dragonborn, it will make the game less fun for him, therefore, no one shall play a dragonborn.

No matter what.

And people are patting him on the back for it.

That's what absolutely blows my mind about this. He's being 100% unreasonable. No compromise, no attempt to find a middle ground. THOU SHALT NOT PLAY THIS. It doesn't matter if the player tries to come up with a reasonable background, it doesn't matter what the player wants at all. No matter what, no one can play this in his game. For no other reason than he doesn't like it.

And this is a legitimate use of DM authority?

 

[Darrin Drader]

And this is a legitimate use of DM authority?

Absolutely. The DM could say that he only likes gnoll, dwarf, and tefling characters, therefor all characters will be one of those races. And if he can find players for that game, more power to him.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, well, it's time to simply agree to disagree. I think of this as incredibly abusive of DM's authority at the table. Beating players over the head with my personal preferences is not something I'm comfortable doing. Nor am I comfortable playing with such an autocratic DM who would not even consider compromising on a taste issue.

 

[Mephistopheles]

And this is a legitimate use of DM authority?

That would depend entirely on the people involved in the group.

I've been in groups where everyone had a little hand in shaping aspects of the setting along with the DM. That worked well and everyone had a good time. I've been in groups where the DM set things in stone and we gave him the benefit of the doubt and went with it. That worked well and everyone had a good time.

Whether or not you find a particular approach to gaming reasonable or unreasonable has more to do with your expectations than whether the approach is actually reasonable or unreasonable. We would achieve as much by debating whether olives are tasty or foul.