PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[kenmarable]

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.

Yep, and right there is where I have to agree to disagree. I think everyone's personal preferences should be up for debate - DM or player, but I guess we just differ there.

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.

When people ease up on the straw man arguments and hyperbole, internet discussions go a bit smoother. Just an FYI.

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.

For me, the philosophical difference is that I don't play to experience the DM's campaign, I play to experience our campaign. For me, no matter which side of the screen I'm on, it's a give and take. That's a fundamentally different view of the game from what you describe, and I don't think dueling examples are going to change that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Good grief! lol. I'm a bit surprised this thread is still live...

Take a step back and look at it from the perspectives of both the players and the DM (and also remember that different groups will have different reasons for playing together and more or less ability to go play elsewhere, so nothing is hard and fast).

In a perfectly technical sense the DM is empowered by both rules and convention to impose whatever restrictions they wish in their games. They aren't OBLIGED to explain that or budge or anything else. In that sense players simply have 2 options open to them, convince the DM to change his/her mind, or don't play in that game. Given that the DM probably WANTS to have players, the players are usually in a somewhat superior bargaining position than the DM. That will depend on what other games are available to the players, and what other players are available to the DM that are willing to play by that DM's preferences.

IMHO it is fairly pointless to argue about what level of flexibility makes a 'good DM' or a 'bad DM'. There are any number of factors that make a successful DM, one of which IS at least a certain degree of flexibility and an understanding that all players contribute to making the game enjoyable, or not. In most circumstances the DM wants the specific player in the game and wants them to enjoy the game and continue to play. Likewise a good player wants the same things in general. So from the perspective of each one a certain degree of flexibility is likely to be the best policy.

Usually the DM should thus cater to the player's wishes, at least to a reasonable extent. If the DM doesn't feel a certain character is going to make the game work well, then they should reasonably WANT to explain that to the player, give them some basis for why they feel that way, and ideally come up with a mutually acceptable compromise that gives the player the play experience they want and also provides the DM and the other players with an enjoyable game. A DM that simply gives any player whatever they want 100% of the time isn't automatically a bad DM. Maybe what the players want is for the best, but it can be better not to always give the players everything they ask for. Likewise a good player should be willing to consider the DM and try to figure out what will work for both of them. Maybe the DM has reasons for NOT explaining his limitations right away because it might give away part of the story, but he can at least say that, and the player can at least trust the DM.

There really ultimately isn't all that much difference between the factors that make a good DM or a good player. Most problem players and DMs are just not really acting in a very mature fashion and need to learn to work together. D&D is a cooperative game, not a contest.

 

[Celebrim]

Yep, and right there is where I have to agree to disagree. I think everyone's personal preferences should be up for debate - DM or player, but I guess we just differ there.

Apparantly so. I don't think there should be a debate at all. I don't think the game is enhanced by that sort of debate, and if there is time for airing concerns between a player and a DM (either direction) then its away from the table, privately, and as non-combatitively as possible. I think there is a nice clean line during play - the DM doesn't try to run the player character's, and the PC's don't try to run the game world. When you are sitting at the table as a group is not the time to for the DM to be challenging a player, or for a player to be challenging the DM. Rarely does anything good come of it.

For me, the philosophical difference is that I don't play to experience the DM's campaign, I play to experience our campaign. For me, no matter which side of the screen I'm on, it's a give and take. That's a fundamentally different view of the game from what you describe, and I don't think dueling examples are going to change that.

Yes, I agree that there is a give and take, but I think that I see that give in take as occurring in a fundamentally different way. There is absolutely no give and take over an established campaign world. It's entirely the domain of the DM. There is absolutely no give and take over an established player character. It entirely belongs to the player. There is absolutely no give and take over whose in charge. It's the DM. Where there is a give in take is in the interesting shared space between these things. Each side is giving play to the other side, and recieving play in return. Both sides are involved in creating this shared imaginary space. As the DM, I know what the world is, but I have no idea what story is going to take place in it. As a player, I have no idea what the world is, but I've got a very large degree of control over the story that will take place in it, because fundamentally it's the player's story. A DM makes very few real choices except in the creation of the material. After that point, he takes a very passive role, which is mostly characterized by responding to player propositions. A DM's oppurtunity to be active and proactive is necessarily circumscribed and narrow, lest the story become about the DM. Occassionally as a DM you can grandly enter the stage, but its always in costume and behind a mask and your exits are usually swift. The player by constrast is the star, is always on stage, and is always making choices. The player is active. He's getting the majority of memorable lines. He's getting the majority of moments of awesomeness. The story revolves around him. The least the player can do is not fight the DM for an even bigger role, and start trying to dictate to the DM how the DM should respond to their propositions.

That shared space is what you call 'our campaign', and that's fine because there wouldn't be a campaign without players. But while the campaign may be shared, the campaign world belongs to the DM and is being shared with the players. Just as the DM is grateful to the players share themselves (via their imagined personas), so the players ought to be grateful to the DM for sharing the world. That's what I consider 'mutualism' and cooperation in play - not debating each other's aesthetic choices.

The fact that there is a give and take is why its fun to play on both sides of the screen. I've played mostly as the DM mostly because the other players wanted me to, but I enjoy both sides immensely. However, the DM is in charge. Period.

 

[hamishspence]

Lovecraftian Elves and Terry Pratchett

I've heard it said that Aliens are the modern version of elves- creepy creatures that abduct people and leave subtly wrong substitutes behind, that sort of thing.

With that in mind, Terry Pratchett elves do partake heavily of the old "The Fair Folk" legends- the nasty ones.

They are masters of illusion and mind control (and look like Greys underneath the pointy-eared humanoid disguise)

They come from a "parasite universe" and prey on humanity- they are ancient and cruel.

Lords and Ladies, Wee Free Men, and The Science of Discworld 2 are the main Pratchett books on elves, and the mix of Aliens and Terrors from Another Realm, seems to me, quite Lovecraftian.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I just threw up all over page 7 of the PHB2.

I just stopped reading this post.

<3 gnomes

 

[Hussar]

That shared space is what you call 'our campaign', and that's fine because there wouldn't be a campaign without players. But while the campaign may be shared, the campaign world belongs to the DM and is being shared with the players. Just as the DM is grateful to the players share themselves (via their imagined personas), so the players ought to be grateful to the DM for sharing the world. That's what I consider 'mutualism' and cooperation in play - not debating each other's aesthetic choices.

And, Celebrim, I think this is a pretty common attitude from a number of DM's. That the campaign world belongs to the DM and no one else and the DM is condescending to allow his poor players to partake in the brilliance that is his campaign. That the DM absolutely belongs solely to the DM and to no one else, and if anyone doesn't like that, take a walk.

Is that being "honest" enough with you? Is that an "honest" enough take on your position.

Do you honestly not see how unbelievably arrogant you come off saying something like this? That the world is the sole property of the DM and the player should obsequiously obey any and all elements that the DM decides is true in the game, no matter what?

I, for one, am certainly not looking for gratitude from my players. My players owe[/] me nothing. They are not in any way beholden to me for the work I put into the campaign. I'm doing it so I can run a fun game. I do it because I enjoy doing it. Of course I have my own preferences. Of course I will argue with players who try to bring stuff in that's against those preferences. What I refuse to do anymore is browbeat players into accepting my vision simply because I'm in the big chair.

If I cannot come up with any better reason than that, then I don't deserve to DM.

For all your attempts to claim otherwise, your position has always been simply the opposite.

Umm, refresh my memory. Where have I tried to claim otherwise. I have repeatedly claimed that a DM who says, "It's this way because I like it" is wrong in my mind. I think I've stated that in pretty much every post in this thread. I know I've stated it at least one other time.

Again, could you please argue with what I actually write and not what you think I'm writing?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Apparantly so. I don't think there should be a debate at all.

It shouldn't be a combative debate where people insult each other or threaten to leave the game or not run the game or whatever.

But I think it's fair of the DM to ask the players what they want to play and give them room to play that.

Of course there will always be situations - campaign settings - were certain things just don't fit - but of course, if a player wants to play something not fitting there, maybe he is in the wrong campaign or the DM is running the wrong campaign?

 

[Hussar]

It shouldn't be a combative debate where people insult each other or threaten to leave the game or not run the game or whatever.

But I think it's fair of the DM to ask the players what they want to play and give them room to play that.

Of course there will always be situations - campaign settings - were certain things just don't fit - but of course, if a player wants to play something not fitting there, maybe he is in the wrong campaign or the DM is running the wrong campaign?

Just to ask, is the reverse also fair? Can a player ask to play what they want to play even though it might not have been specifically allowed, or may even have been disallowed at the outset?

I 100% agree with both parts of your second point. Sometimes its the player in the wrong campaign and sometimes its the DM.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just to ask, is the reverse also fair? Can a player ask to play what they want to play even though it might not have been specifically allowed, or may even have been disallowed at the outset?

Asking should never be forbidden, should it? Of course, just like the DM might need to explain why certain things are not allowed, the player will have to have an idea ready to explain why or how something might fit in.

 

[Hussar]

Asking should never be forbidden, should it? Of course, just like the DM might need to explain why certain things are not allowed, the player will have to have an idea ready to explain why or how something might fit in.

Ok, I'm with you so far. So, how is your point of view different from mine? Or is it different. I have a tendency I think to overstate my case, so, if you don't mind, I'd like to piggyback on yours.