DM Entitlement...

[Raven Crowking]

Nice strawman first off, but, let's run with it.

Hardly a strawman. It shows up the inherent flaw in your argument.

What it does is raise the question why you believe that a player playing an alien, a Teletubby, or a character from the BOEF is being an asshat, but one playing a dragonborn is not.

You can remove any of these elements simply, without having to resort to a "I just don't like it."

Why is it that you are removing the alien, Teletubby, or BOEF character if not for the reason that you don't like it?

Yup. You're right. Exactly like the DM has to determine how the world reacts to EVERY OTHER PC in the game. He has to determine how the world reacts to the "allowed races" as well. How is this any different?

You argued that there is no work involved for the DM in your playing whatever it is you wish to play. I demonstrated that this is untrue.

When a DM decides to allow X into the game, he undertakes the work to make X fit of his own free will. When you demand Y be allowed in the game, you demand that he undertakes the work to make Y fit into the game, whether he enjoys it or not.

I realize that you might not see the difference here, but frankly, IMHO, demanding that the DM undertake the work to make Y fit into the game, whether he enjoys it or not, is being an asshat. By your reasoning, the fellow who refuses to take No for an answer should be pelted with dice. I don't go so far.....I just say he shouldn't be invited back.

Player: I want to play a Dragonborn in this campaign.
DM: Oh man, I hate that crap. No, not in my game.
Player: Well, I really like them. I like the idea of them. I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with? Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world. He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner. He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home. Hrm. Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly? That might work.
DM: No way. You absolutely cannot play a dragonborn no matter what. It's my game and if you don't like it, there's the door.

Now, me, I'd be out the door. Any DM who had his sphincter that puckered about something like this would be one I'd never want to play with. But, apparently, several people here would pat him on the back and congratulate him for being a great DM.

I would be more than happy, if that was the only "problem".....and (from what I read) I suspect that you'd be out the door whether you willed it or no. Because I know, as you should, that if the DM said Yes based on the reasoning above, then Player 2 should legitimately be able to say

"I would like to play an alien/Teletubby/BOEF character. Why? Well, I really like them. I like the idea of them. I know you have a pretty detailed setting, but, what can we work with? Maybe, my character went to sleep at a crossroads, under a full moon on the night of the great Conjunction, surrounded by faerie rings and when he woke up, he was in your world. He survived living off the land and managed to befriend a lonely charcoal burner. He learned the local language and culture from him and has now set off to find a way home. Hrm. Maybe he takes a -2 to diplomacy checks, after all he's scary looking, and people's initial reactions are unfriendly? That might work."​

Because, ultimately, the only difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character and the dragonborn is that you happen to like the dragonborn, while some others might think that the dragonborn is no different than the Teletubby. And that seems to be the bit you're missing. For some folks, if the game has dragonborn, it might as well have Teletubbies.

So, yes, you have the right to walk from any game you are not enjoying, as player or DM.

And, no, letting you play the sort of Dipsy you like isn't always giving "that tiny little inch to make [you] happy".

And the DM not only lacks the right, but he lacks the means "to beat the player over the head with his personal preferences", because the player can (and should) always walk from a game he finds unenjoyable.

Assuming no one's being an asshat, IMHO, requires assuming that the player can either take No for an answer, or find/create a game more to his liking. Refusing to take the DM's No for an answer, and yet demanding to play in a given game, is always being an asshat.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Because, ultimately, the only difference between the alien, the Teletubby, the BOEF character and the dragonborn is that you happen to like the dragonborn, while some others might think that the dragonborn is no different than the Teletubby. And that seems to be the bit you're missing. For some folks, if the game has dragonborn, it might as well have Teletubbies.

So, yes, you have the right to walk from any game you are not enjoying, as player or DM.

And, no, letting you play the sort of Dipsy you like isn't always giving "that tiny little inch to make [you] happy".

Well, if you are going to equate dragonborn with teletubbies, with a straight face, then yup, I don't think we could agree.

Y'know, it's funny. Most new RPG's, whether mainstream or indie, all give the same DM advice: "Find a way to say yes". Yet, here we have a number of DM's all screaming because the poor peon of the player wants to play something besides the prescribed elements.

Again, I'm assuming the player is not taking races simply to break the setting - as would something like playing an Alien in FR or a Teletubby. I'm talking about a player who is asking for something pretty reasonable and being shot down, without ANY compromise, simply for the fact that the DM doesn't like it.

See, I inherently reject the idea that one player playing a race that the DM doesn't personally like is going to destroy the game. Again, assuming that the element in question is in keeping with the game (BOEF is easily banned - no adult themes, no sex in the game, comfort levels of the players, etc. - Aliens are easily banned - cannot fit with the power level, their level adjustment is too high, completely against genre - Teletubbies are easily banned and I'm not even going to dignify why), the ONLY reason that the player cannot play this race is because one other player at the table doesn't like it.

Ok, howzabout this? DM okays the race, but, other player detests it. Should the race be banned or not? I notice no one took me up on whether or not two players count.

If two players want to play that element, does the DM's personal predilictions still trump?

Yes, I know I'm taking this way out of the realm of realism. 99.99% of conversations at the table will never, ever go this far. Not about a race. What shocks me is that people are absolutely defending the DM's authority here. Under no circumstances, even when the DM is being an absolute ass hat, is the DM even remotely questioned. The player shows willing to compromise, yet, the DM is under no obligation to do so.

It's funny, RC and I went around on this issue some time ago. Then it was playing a warforged ninja in a naval campaign. RC had exactly the same reaction then. The DM is infallible. His tastes trump all, 100% of the time, players be damned.

I am questioning that. Not that DM's can ban material. Of course they can. I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning if it is not an abuse of DM authority to enforce his personal preferences on the players. It's apparently wrong when players do it to the DM, but it's perfectly acceptable the other way around?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, if you are going to equate dragonborn with teletubbies, with a straight face, then yup, I don't think we could agree.

Are you saying that you don't understand how someone's tastes can differ with you so much that something you think is okay is, to them, deal-breaking?

Yet, here we have a number of DM's all screaming because the poor peon of the player wants to play something besides the prescribed elements.

(1) No one is screaming with the exception of the poor "woe-is me" player who can't bring his dragonborn character into Bob's Conan game.

(2) There is a difference (subtle, I know), between prescribed elements and proscribed elements.

Again, I'm assuming the player is not taking races simply to break the setting - as would something like playing an Alien in FR or a Teletubby.

Are you suggesting that there is no group for which these might be options? Because there was a netbook for Aliens in D&D. BoEF is a real book....I own it.

I'm talking about a player who is asking for something pretty reasonable and being shot down, without ANY compromise, simply for the fact that the DM doesn't like it.

Why is playing a dragonborn more reasonable than playing a character from the BoEF?

See, I inherently reject the idea that one player playing a race that the DM doesn't personally like is going to destroy the game.

I inherently reject the idea that the DM has to run a game with elements he does not want.

I inherently reject the idea that Hussar can play a dragonborn, but Sarah and Joe can't.

Again, assuming that the element in question is in keeping with the game (BOEF is easily banned - no adult themes, no sex in the game, comfort levels of the players, etc. - Aliens are easily banned - cannot fit with the power level, their level adjustment is too high, completely against genre - Teletubbies are easily banned and I'm not even going to dignify why), the ONLY reason that the player cannot play this race is because one other player at the table doesn't like it.

no adult themes = player doesn't like it

no sex in the game = player doesn't like it

comfort levels of the players = player doesn't like it

cannot fit with the power level is adjustable....at least as easily as adjusting dragonborn to some settings

their level adjustment is too high = player doesn't like it

completely against genre = player doesn't like it

Ok, howzabout this? DM okays the race, but, other player detests it. Should the race be banned or not? I notice no one took me up on whether or not two players count.

A player making character X should be attempting to fit character X into the group. If the group doesn't like character X, I would not (as DM) force them to play with character X.

Example: In a world where reptiliads were recently overthrown by humans, elves, and dwarves, Hussar wants to play a dragonborn. I think, "That won't fit, and will cause problems" but Hussar begs and wheedles, claiming that he will accept the consequences of playing that character. I say OK. The other PCs, on encountering the "reptiliad", slaughter him. Who is at fault?

If two players want to play that element, does the DM's personal predilictions still trump?

Only if they want to play in that DM's game.

Under no circumstances, even when the DM is being an absolute ass hat, is the DM even remotely questioned. The player shows willing to compromise, yet, the DM is under no obligation to do so.

The player is under no obligation to compromise.

What part of "If you don't find the game enjoyable, find/create a game that you do enjoy" do you fail to understand?

It's funny, RC and I went around on this issue some time ago. Then it was playing a warforged ninja in a naval campaign. RC had exactly the same reaction then. The DM is infallible. His tastes trump all, 100% of the time, players be damned.

What part of "If you don't find the game enjoyable, find/create a game that you do enjoy" do you fail to understand?

DMs can make errors and show poor judgment, obviously. But, equally obviously, even if we all agreed with you, there is no way that you can force a DM to run a game he is not enjoying. I happen to disagree with you that you should even try.

I am questioning that. Not that DM's can ban material. Of course they can. I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning if it is not an abuse of DM authority to enforce his personal preferences on the players. It's apparently wrong when players do it to the DM, but it's perfectly acceptable the other way around?

You make several errors here:

(1) That banning material is ever not the result of personal preference.

(2) That the DM could, even if he wanted to, enforce his personal preferences upon anyone. Consent is required. How do you imagine this DM prevents these players from walking?

(I'll answer that: If the DM gives good value for the conditions imposed on the game, the players will remain. "Good value" is a matter of personal preference, so some players may find a game to be of "good value" while others might not.)

(3) That a player could, even if he wanted to, enforce his personal preferences upon anyone. Consent is required. How do you imagine this player prevents the DM/other players from walking?

(I'll answer that: Same answer as with the DM.)


RC

 

[Hussar]

(1) No one is screaming with the exception of the poor "woe-is me" player who can't bring his dragonborn character into Bob's Conan game.

**Waggles finger** Ah ah ah. That's shifting the goalposts. I've REPEATEDLY stated that this isn't what's I'm arguing about. Dragonborn don't fit in a Conan game because they break genre. I have no problems with that.

You make several errors here:

(1) That banning material is ever not the result of personal preference.

Umm, what? You've never banned something because it broke genre? Or because it was overpowered and broken? There are a plethora of reasons to ban stuff other than "my imagination is better than yours".

(2) That the DM could, even if he wanted to, enforce his personal preferences upon anyone. Consent is required. How do you imagine this DM prevents these players from walking?

(I'll answer that: If the DM gives good value for the conditions imposed on the game, the players will remain. "Good value" is a matter of personal preference, so some players may find a game to be of "good value" while others might not.)

I find the idea of beating someone over the head with my preferences to the point where they either accept them or leave to be an abuse of authority.

(3) That a player could, even if he wanted to, enforce his personal preferences upon anyone. Consent is required. How do you imagine this player prevents the DM/other players from walking?

(I'll answer that: Same answer as with the DM.)

Obviously players cannot enforce their preferences. You've handed all authority to the DM. How could they? The DM simply says, "no" and that's the end of it according to you.

OTOH, if all players are willing to compromise including the DM, then the players preferences might just win out. Maybe not. But all I'm saying is that the DM should try to say yes. Now, the player has to compromise as well. Of course. It's a two way street.

But, in a situation where you have opposing preferences, and no other mitigating circumstances, when the ONLY issue is "I like it" vs "I don't", I think "I like it" should win every time. Forcing players to play something they don't want to, simply because you happen not to like the choices they want (AND NO OTHER ISSUES ARE AT STAKE - I don't understand why I keep having to repeat that, but, apparently I do), is an abuse of DMing authority, IMO.

 

[Mercule]

Well, if you are going to equate dragonborn with teletubbies, with a straight face, then yup, I don't think we could agree.

Dragonborn have simply been the whipping boy in this particular conversation. I wouldn't relate them to Teletubbies, except for an example. But, if you want a concrete example, I'd consider tinker gnomes to be as objectionable as Teletubbies, and about as game-spoiling for me.

I've never been able to understand how anyone could tolerate them, let alone want to play one. Tastes can differ that much. I could conceive of someone having the same reaction to dragonborn.

Besides, it's not as though any good DM would ban Teletubby PCs just because of personal preference. That'd make him a tyrannical jerk on a power trip. He has to come up with a better reason.

 

[racoffin]

<snip>

OTOH, if all players are willing to compromise including the DM, then the players preferences might just win out. Maybe not. But all I'm saying is that the DM should try to say yes. Now, the player has to compromise as well. Of course. It's a two way street.

But, in a situation where you have opposing preferences, and no other mitigating circumstances, when the ONLY issue is "I like it" vs "I don't", I think "I like it" should win every time. Forcing players to play something they don't want to, simply because you happen not to like the choices they want (AND NO OTHER ISSUES ARE AT STAKE - I don't understand why I keep having to repeat that, but, apparently I do), is an abuse of DMing authority, IMO.

But the DM has said yes. He's said yes to elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, or whatever else is availiable in his world/setting. He has said no to your choice/request. In your many examples and posts, the player doesn't seem to be compromising. It has become a battle of "my imagination trumps yours" instead of "Hey. This is what is availiable. Select from the following options."

No one is forcing the player to play something they do not want. They are welcome to sit at the table and watch, or start their own game, or not play. Or they could even unbend a bit and try something outside of this favorite idea they have.

 

[racoffin]

Dragonborn have simply been the whipping boy in this particular conversation. I wouldn't relate them to Teletubbies, except for an example. But, if you want a concrete example, I'd consider tinker gnomes to be as objectionable as Teletubbies, and about as game-spoiling for me.

I've never been able to understand how anyone could tolerate them, let alone want to play one. Tastes can differ that much. I could conceive of someone having the same reaction to dragonborn.

Besides, it's not as though any good DM would ban Teletubby PCs just because of personal preference. That'd make him a tyrannical jerk on a power trip. He has to come up with a better reason.

Or at least the DM could paint the better reason over his personal opinion. "They don't fit my world" for example. That is assuming that you need to put another reason up. With my group, if we mentioned tinker gnomes my disliking them would probably be the most polite thing said at the table.

In any case, that seems to be what it is boiling down to: the reason given. As long as the DM gives a "good" reason, everyone is happy and he isn't a tyrannical jerk.

 

[Hussar]

In any case, that seems to be what it is boiling down to: the reason given. As long as the DM gives a "good" reason, everyone is happy and he isn't a tyrannical jerk.

Pretty much. Like I said, I can live with pretty much any other reason.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Again, I'm assuming the player is not taking races simply to break the setting - as would something like playing an Alien in FR or a Teletubby. I'm talking about a player who is asking for something pretty reasonable and being shot down, without ANY compromise, simply for the fact that the DM doesn't like it.

See, I inherently reject the idea that one player playing a race that the DM doesn't personally like is going to destroy the game. Again, assuming that the element in question is in keeping with the game (BOEF is easily banned - no adult themes, no sex in the game, comfort levels of the players, etc. - Aliens are easily banned - cannot fit with the power level, their level adjustment is too high, completely against genre - Teletubbies are easily banned and I'm not even going to dignify why), the ONLY reason that the player cannot play this race is because one other player at the table doesn't like it.

There are spaceships and guns in FR. I doubt Aliens will break the setting.

Tellytubbies? Just some kind of Fae.
No more annoying than a pixie roleplay wise (mechanics will differ).

If 4th edition:
Aliens are easy: Dragon Stats, except Breath Weapon.
Make it an immediate action that can activated when hit, usable 1/encounter.
Does same effect, but is a Close Burst instead of a blast.
Most Aliens choose acid, but yours could choose fire.

 

[Raven Crowking]

**Waggles finger** Ah ah ah. That's shifting the goalposts. I've REPEATEDLY stated that this isn't what's I'm arguing about. Dragonborn don't fit in a Conan game because they break genre. I have no problems with that.

But you did have an objection to no warforged ninja in a Pirates of the Carribean (not simply a naval) game, and you certainly did not accept "because they break genre" as a valid reason. We discussed that to death, as you acknowledge in this thread.

How, exactly, does that shift goalposts?

Or why is it okay for the DM to say "This is a Conan-type game, and your dragonborn breaks genre" but not okay for the player to then say "But how come you get to impose your genre on me?!?!?"

Choosing genre is as much a matter of preference as the elements that may (or may not) fit into that genre. Nor is genre so well defined that you cannot think something absolutely fits while I think something absolutely does not.

How does "No dragonborn, because I do not like them" equal "My imagination is better than yours" anyway? (Speaking of shifting, goalposts or otherwise.) I am not a big fan of romance novels, but I would hardly claim that my preferences are therefore objectively better than those who like them. Yet, I wouldn't run a game with romance novel characters.

"This is the kind of game I am willing to run" =/= "My imagination is better than yours".....and if you were able to acknowledge that there is no objective value judgment involved, you might see that.

I find the idea of beating someone over the head with my preferences to the point where they either accept them or leave to be an abuse of authority.

Is "I've baked some chocolate chip cookies. Would you like some?" beating someone over the head with my preferences to the point where they either accept my cookies or leave?

If not, how is "I've devised a campaign. Here are the character options allowed. Would you like to play?" beating someone over the head with my preferences?

Or is it beating someone over the head to want to play chess rather than monopoly, and looking for someone equally interested in chess?

Again, color me confused.

Obviously players cannot enforce their preferences. You've handed all authority to the DM. How could they? The DM simply says, "no" and that's the end of it according to you.

What part of "If you don't find the game enjoyable, find/create a game that you do enjoy" do you fail to understand?

A player has absolute authority over what type of game he is willing to play in.....just as the DM has absolute authority over what type of game he is willing to run. That doesn't mean that the player has some sort of right to have the game he wants magically appear, with DM and other players slave to his whims, nor does it mean that the DM has some sort of right to have the players he wants magically appear, and be slaves to his whims. This is true simply because, in their respective social roles in the game, the DM and players both have absolute rights.

Despite your repetition, bemoaning "Forcing players to play something they don't want to, simply because you happen not to like the choices they want", this type of "force" is, AFAICT, imposssible (short of abducting/enslaving your players), so likewise is the abuse of DMing authority you seem so worried about.


RC