DM Entitlement...

[Obryn]

Actually, I think you are correct for them on how things are now, but I think what one of them is saying is that if the DM says no, just because he doesn't like it, then he still has to run for that player with what that player wants.

-wally

I completely don't read it like that. I see a lot of talk about what the DM should do according to different people, but absolutely zero about what anyone has to do. Even a moment thinking about the argument as you're stating it leads me to two conclusions.

(1) Obviously, no thinking human being could ever make an argument about what any DM or player has to do when playing a game.

(2) I'll assume everyone posting on the board is a thinking human being, with at least the mental capacity to operate a keyboard, and therefore nobody is actually making the above argument. And if it looks like they could be, it's more likely to be due to confusion on the reader's part.

-O

 

[wally]

I completely don't read it like that. I see a lot of talk about what the DM should do according to different people, but absolutely zero about what anyone has to do. Even a moment thinking about the argument as you're stating it leads me to two conclusions.

(1) Obviously, no thinking human being could ever make an argument about what any DM or player has to do when playing a game.

(2) I'll assume everyone posting on the board is a thinking human being, with at least the mental capacity to operate a keyboard, and therefore nobody is actually making the above argument. And if it looks like they could be, it's more likely to be due to confusion on the reader's part.

-O

Okay, let me re-word it.

In my experience, and I think you agree, in most other experiences, if there is disagreement on what is and isn't allowed, things either get worked out, or they don't. If they don't, it is usually up to the player to decide whether they want to continue playing under a DM who wont allow what they want, or whether they want to opt out of that game or the whole group. Usually things don't get that far unless there are other issues besides what one person wants to play one time.

What I have been reading on this thread, from some of the responses, is that if there is a disagreement that has reached the point where neither will give, then the DM has to give in so the player can play what he wants to and be happy. I don't know if I have ever seen this attitude anywhere else, and I don't know if I can ever see anyone I normally play with being told what they have to allow or not and continuing with the game that they were running.

I think the arguments fall within the second paragraph rather than the first. I think most everyone agrees on the first, but there are a lot of people who have been running their own games either for a short while or a long while who believe that if someone else wants to tell them what to run that those individuals should step up and run their own game rather than tell another what he should or shouldn't be running as a DM.

Is that confusing enough?

S

 

[Vegepygmy]

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.

Do I have that right?

I speak only for myself, but...yes, you have that right.

There is nothing wrong with a DM choosing not to allow "X" simply because he doesn't like "X" in his game. I might, like you, elect not to play with him, but he's not a bad DM just because he chooses not to run a game that includes elements he doesn't like.

 

[Mercule]

I don't really believe in a cut-and-dried "the player should win" or "the DM should win" principle that applies in every case.

This, for all the reasons listed.

In addition, someone has to be the final arbiter of most rules. Like it or hate it, that's traditionally part of the DM's role. He's the game master and the referee.

Yes, there are plenty of crappy DMs out there, just like there are plenty of crappy referees in the sport of your choice. One of the marks of a good DM, though, is that they actually do look at the desires and interests of the players as a whole (including their own) and make determinations that maximize the fun for everyone. Sometimes, that includes saying "no", for whatever reason.

Sometimes, "No, because I don't like it," also carries the weight of "I have a setting idea in mind that I think everyone will enjoy, but that concept doesn't mesh with it or I'm not sure how it will mesh with it." Maybe the right answer is to go with the DM's plan B setting, but maybe not.

In a perfect world, the guy who sits on one side of the screen alone makes the perfect call every time. But, we don't live in a perfect world and the call sometimes gets botched. Still, I think the GM tends to have the better position for perspective.

What I will say, though, is that as a DM, most times I've had a tough call to make on whether to allow a character concept into a game and allowed it, it turned out to be an issue. When I denied it, it was generally fun for all. This holds true for all games I've run, whether it's a foreign, cosmopolitan character in a cozy, local starting town or the player that really wants to play a Werewolf in a Vampire game. My gaming experiences have strongly encouraged me to believe that boundaries are not only acceptable, but highly beneficial.

 

[Aeolius]

I have a prospective new player who wants to play a viletooth lizardfolk (Dragon Magic) druid. They can breathe underwater but do not have a natural swim speed (probably an oversight, as they have a swim bonus), but still, I approved of the character. In essence he'd be an anthropomorphic water-breathing marine iguana; not too big a stretch.

That's kind of dragonborn, isn't it?

 

[pemerton]

No. All they had to do was to keep the core game core, and keep their hexblade warforged dire flail specialists in some splatbook that can be easily ignored.

Again, I don't fully follows. Why is it harder to ignore a book with the "core" label on it than one with the "supplement" label?

 

[Scribble]

this is the longest a thread I've started has ever gone. go me.

 

[Reynard]

this is the longest a thread I've started has ever gone. go me.

Given the content, you may want to apologize instead.

 

[Spatula]

Again, I don't fully follows. Why is it harder to ignore a book with the "core" label on it than one with the "supplement" label?

It is no harder to ignore. It may or may not be harder to get prospective players to buy into the idea of ignoring it, especially players that you don't have an existing relationship with. People tend to think of the basic options as a default that can be safely ported from game to game, and not without reason.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is no harder to ignore.

Given the number of...

1) No Paladins or

2) No Monks or

3) No Halflings or

4) No Gnomes or

5) No Half-Orcs or Half-Elf

campaigns in which I've participated (from both sides of the screen), I'd have to agree with that statement 100%.