PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Hussar]

Why? Who gets to decide what a good enough reason is? Does the DM have to validate and justify all of his decisions before he gets to make them?

I'm just going to pull this one bit out because I'm tired of dueling examples.

To answer your question, absolutely 100% YES. Now, whether a DM must actually give an answer before he makes a decision isn't true. But, the DM must absolutely be ABLE to give a justification for his decisions. Otherwise, he's just dictating whatever he feels like. It's entirely arbitrary.

And, IME, any DM who feels that he has no need to justify any of his campaign decisions has invariably been a bad DM. Any DM who has given so little thought to why he is doing something that he cannot answer such a simple question is a bad DM. Flat out.

Player: "Why no elves?"
DM: I dunno. Just don't like them.
Player: But, I have this very good idea for an elf character that fits within the parameters you set for the campaign that I agreed to play.
DM: Doesn't matter. My table. Like it or leave.

Sorry, I have no interest in playing with this sort of DM ever again. I've been there. I've played with DM's who were so fixated on their own personal vision of their art that nothing could pry their jaws of life grip from the image that they had created in their mind. Never, ever again.

So, my advice to any DM's reading this, please, if you're going to veto a player's choice, step back and look at why you are doing it. If the only reason is that you just don't like it, then maybe you should get over yourself. It's not your character. You have the entire world to play with, this player has just this one guy. And, hey, you never know, you might find that if the player does a good job with the concept he starts with, you might actually like the character.

Or you might hate it. But, in any case, a bit of relaxing the death grip is rarely a bad thing.

Celebrim, I salute your defense of your point. You obviously believe very strongly in what you are arguing against. I disagree with you, but, I also realize that 99% of the time, this would never come up. It's far to much of a corner case to get this worked up about and, well, after several threads where we've had EXACTLY the same conversation over and over again, this isn't going to get us much of anywhere.

/me bows out.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Are you listening to yourself? You act as if you have some inalienable right to any particular item , because it is in the book let alone "to participate in a given DM's game (and by theirs I mean in terms of the person running) or to have your individual playstyle catered to.

If you don't like the parameters whether campaign elements or playstyle (e.g, degree of emphassis on powergaming, butt kicking, exploration, etc. ), you have the door. I know that in my group there would be seven other players (eight including the DM) telling you to sit down and play the game within the set parameters. If you can't do this, they will gladly help you find the door and tell you not to let the door hit you on your way out so we can have our fun.

Well, if the DM will insult me because of my playstyle and runs his table like a dictatorship then it won't be a problem because I won't play.

Plus, maybe you're not reading the same posts I am. The reason I have a problem with that DM style is because usually it comes from a person just like Celebrim. While he's arguing about how it's game and his rules, he's also apparently fine with belittling and insulting any player who happens to like an aspect of the system that he finds distasteful.

So yeah, you're right, I don't have an entitlement to everything just because it's printed in a book. However, a DM that refuses to talk to and work with his players is probably the same kind of DM that acts like Celebrim and sees fit to treat them like crap if they don't behave how he thinks they should or like the same parts of the system that he does.

That's not a DM I want to play with, and I wouldn't think you would want to either. Sure, he's fun as long as you think exactly the way he does, but people like him don't leave room for people to have their own opinions...and that's just not okay for me.

 

[Greg K]

Likewise, are you seriously telling me that if we signed up for a Spycraft game, and out of the blue, without any prior hint, vampires showed up, you'd have no problem? You'd roll with it and be perfectly cool with it?

I'd have no problem ((other than I won't play Spycraft). If the DM mentioned, prior to character generation that there would be horror in the game, I think it would make for an interesting campaign.

That if the DM suddenly allowed Bob at the table to play a Vampire you'd have no issues?

Not a problem if everyone knew up front that vampires were an option.

Or take it another way, what if the DM suddenly decides that you cannot be British in the Spycraft game because he hates the British? Or black? Where does it stop?

Come on, Hussar. This doesn't even deserve a dignified response.

 

[Greg K]

Plus, maybe you're not reading the same posts I am. The reason I have a problem with that DM style is because usually it comes from a person just like Celebrim. While he's arguing about how it's game and his rules, he's also apparently fine with belittling and insulting any player who happens to like an aspect of the system that he finds distasteful.

Doctor Proctor,
I can agree that you should not be belittled- that's not never right. However, I was responding to where you wrote:

"Asking for a houserule is not the same as saying "Hey, can I use something from the official source book?" One is asking for something extra, the other is asking for something that's assumed to be there...until a DM takes it away.

My issue is with the part I bolded. Then again, when I go into a new game, I have no assumptions about what specific elements from core or other "official" sourcebooks will or will not be included until I talk with the DM. This is especially true of supplements.

 

[Inyssius]

God, people, what are you arguing about?

I'll sum this up:

"A GOOD DM WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS."

"A GOOD DM WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS SORT OF THING."

"YOU HAVE PHRASED YOUR STATEMENT INCORRECTLY. WE MUST DUEL TO THE DEATH."

"YOU HAVE PHRASED YOUR REBUTTAL INCORRECTLY. TO PREVENT YOUR IDIOT SEMANTIC DISTINCTIONS FROM POLLUTING THE INTERNET ANY FURTHER, YOU MUST DIE."

*nerdfight*

----

Ah, for a rolleyes smiley large enough to encapsulate this WAR OF WORDS...

 

[Greg K]

So, my advice to any DM's reading this, please, if you're going to veto a player's choice, step back and look at why you are doing it. If the only reason is that you just don't like it, then maybe you should get over yourself. It's not your character. You have the entire world to play with, this player has just this one guy. And, hey, you never know, you might find that if the player does a good job with the concept he starts with, you might actually like the character.

Hussar,
The same could be said for getting over yourself. If you know up front that the setting has no elves, why would you even present an elf and a background as an idea for a character? And, for that matter, f you were so hard up about playing an elf, why would you have ever agreed to play in the game? Now, I could see being upset if you talked with the DM, they mentioned nothing about campaign restrictions, and sent you off to create a character on your own. The DM should have informed you ahead of time that certain things were restricted. This would have allowed you to have asked questions about the campaign and decided if it was right for you rather than being blindsided.

Barring being blindsided and, assuming you know the available choices up front, I don't see the problem. So, the DM chose not to include a race or class or even multiple core elements, because they disliked it and created a setting to experience a game without it. What is stopping you from making an interesting and fun character given the available choices for the campaign setting other than your disagree with the reason for excuding certain elements- especially, if you knew the restrictions coming in.

 

[Fenes]

So, at the end of the day it all comes down to "If it's in an official book I have a right to play it" for some people.

I hope those who follow this creed understand that not everyone considers WotC's choices to be the most optimal, or the most fun, or even fun at all.

Personally, I don't care whether or not something is official. If I hate it I won't play it - or run a game for it. I DM for fun, no fun means no game.

 

[Hussar]

I'd have no problem ((other than I won't play Spycraft). If the DM mentioned, prior to character generation that there would be horror in the game, I think it would make for an interesting campaign.



Not a problem if everyone knew up front that vampires were an option.




Come on, Hussar. This doesn't even deserve a dignified response.

Please reread what I posted. I did expressly say that the DM drops it in OUT OF THE BLUE. So, I think we're in agreement here. The DM baits and switches and is bad.

But, hang on, if a DM's right to veto or change any element of his campaign is absolute, then this should all be fine.

And, yes, it does deserve a dignified response. You are claiming that a DM's right to veto any character element is ABSOLUTE. That there is no limit on what I as the DM can veto without any justification required. If that's true, then where's the problem with saying no Brits? Or no blacks? Or no Canadians?

Hussar,
The same could be said for getting over yourself. If you know up front that the setting has no elves, why would you even present an elf and a background as an idea for a character? And, for that matter, f you were so hard up about playing an elf, why would you have ever agreed to play in the game? Now, I could see being upset if you talked with the DM, they mentioned nothing about campaign restrictions, and sent you off to create a character on your own. The DM should have informed you ahead of time that certain things were restricted. This would have allowed you to have asked questions about the campaign and decided if it was right for you rather than being blindsided.

Barring being blindsided and, assuming you know the available choices up front, I don't see the problem. So, the DM chose not to include a race or class or even multiple core elements, because they disliked it and created a setting to experience a game without it. What is stopping you from making an interesting and fun character given the available choices for the campaign setting other than your disagree with the reason for excuding certain elements- especially, if you knew the restrictions coming in.

My point is, when a DM has no justifications for the choices he made, outside of his personal preference, the DM is not one I want to play with. That DM's should step back, examine why they are making this choice and, if they are honest with themselves and the players, they cannot come up with any justification better than, "I just don't like it." then yes, absolutely, the DM should back down regardless of what the initial statements of the campaign.

Now, you can keep stumping up example after example of "what about this" or "what about that" but it doesn't really matter. If you as DM, have no other justification for your decisions than your personal preference, then yes, you should get over yourself. We're playing the game together as a group. Your decisions carry lots of weight.

I guess it comes down to the whole "with great power" thing. I think that browbeating my fellow players with my particular tastes, just because I'm in the big chair is overstepping my bounds as DM.

Obviously, you and Celebrim feel differently about this. And that's fine. That's cool. Like I said, this is not something that will come up very often, if ever. Most of the time the conversation never gets to this point. This is a very, very corner case and should not be seen as larger than it is.

Which is why we got into this in the first place. You tried saying that I said that any DM who vetos stuff is a bad DM. That was a mistake. My point was never that. And, unfortunately, every single time this comes up, invariably people try taking it much much farther and broader than I mean it.

Please, take it in the spirit that I meant it. If, after considering a player request, your single issue is personal preference, I believe that a DM is better served by letting the player's personal preference trump your own.

 

[Greg K]

Which is why we got into this in the first place. You tried saying that I said that any DM who vetos stuff is a bad DM. That was a mistake. My point was never that. And, unfortunately, every single time this comes up, invariably people try taking it much much farther and broader than I mean it.

Please, take it in the spirit that I meant it. If, after considering a player request, your single issue is personal preference, I believe that a DM is better served by letting the player's personal preference trump your own.

Hussar,
I have never viewed your position as all vetoing is bad and I don't think I have claimed that you, specifically, has ever claimed that. Some people, however, have in threads including over at WOTC (one specificlaly is entitled What makes a Bad DM? Banning was one of the answers without any qualifiiers and there are plenty of other threads were the same is stated)

My issue with you position is that making a decison to ban soley for dislike of a given element is a) automatically bad if that is the only reason ; b) is "forcing the preference down your throat and so the DM should back off".; c) by your own words "forcing their preference" = bad DM. It is just as likely possible that a) the problem is with you since banning for dislike can still lead to an interesting and enjoyable setting and you are just being a problem player that expects your preference to trump everything else; or b) The DM and your preferences and playstyles are just too divergent and , while neither of you are bad, the two of you are just looking for different styles of games and are a bad fit for each other and shouldn't play with each other .

Now, as for not wanting to play with such a DM, hey no quarrels. We all have our preferred playstyles.

 

[Celebrim]

Please, take it in the spirit that I meant it. If, after considering a player request, your single issue is personal preference, I believe that a DM is better served by letting the player's personal preference trump your own.

Yes, that's exactly the spirit I thought you meant it in. I'm glad to see were finally getting some honesty in this thread.

My position is that with regard to anything touching on his campaign, the DM's personal preferences should not be up for debate. If he vetoes something, that's his right and that's the end of it. That does not mean that the DM should or must always let his personal preference trump that of the player's, but if he has no other reason for something than "I prefer it that way.", then thats good enough.

For all your attempts to claim otherwise, your position has always been simply the opposite. You have claimed that the DM's personal preferences may always be held to a strict accounting, with the player always entitled to an immediate explanation that satisfies the player why the DM has chosen anything. You have claimed that the player's personal preference trumps the DM's, and because of this that the DM has no right to his personal preferences. You insist that the DM must negotiate with the player for the right to run his own campaign, and that if the player's personal preferences differ from his that he must oblige them. The player's personal preferences of course have no objective standard either, though apparantly we can discover what constitutes reasonable, fair, and good preferences for either players or DMs by simply consulting Hussar. Perhaps we should just let Hussar run all the tables.

If I go to play at some DM's table, its because I want to experience that DM's preferences. It's not because I'm bringing my preconcieved ideas to the table, and its not that I want some other player to force their preferences and ideas on to that DM's world. If I don't like that DM's preferences or he lacks the skill or experience to communicate them effectively, then I'll probably look elsewhere but I'm never going to question the DM's right to his game. I'm certainly not going around going, "That game is badwrongfun because the DM doesn't like elves." Nor do I expect him to explain or even hint that the reason he doesn't want players being elves, is that a central point of the campaign is going to be elves invading the campaign world through the dungeon dimensions and terrorizing everyone.