Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Mallus]

Soo... unless I include everything, then I'm not playing D&D...

Did I say that? I bet you know the answer...

Too bad I don't believe the hype.

For what it's worth, Eberron's a quality product. Not to everyone's taste (naturally), but its more than just marketing.

Again...EGG doesn't run my campaign. I respect him for giving me the tools to play this wonderful game, but the minute I opened the books... it became mine.

And what does your game being yours have to do with the fact that D&D has a long history of silly names, despite what's written in the 3e DMG?

 

[ProfessorPain]

This is a difficult conflict to resolve because it boils down to taste, expectations and campaign style. Personally I don't have a problem with a player giving his 'pets' silly names, since people have always given them silly names. That said, I did notice that some of you choices are a little anachronistic, which isn't always a problem, but perhaps for your GM it is. A good compromise might be to keep it silly, but avoid modern sounding names or names that have pop culture references (i.e. Tweety). Would he object to a names that just describe the animals in ironic ways but fit within the campaign world setting?

 

[S'mon]

Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob. It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.

There's a giant flesh-eating amoeba in The Boats of the Glen Carrig by William Hope Hodgson, 1907 I believe. Also features a small monster manual's worth of other horrors, most get hacked to bits by the protagonists. The original monster bash.

 

[S'mon]

Cool, I get to give out XP to a second person in one day! Great post, S'mon

Wow, thank you. I just noticed I've been getting a lot of XP lately; nice to be appreciated.

 

[Greg K]

Why for the Dragonborn hate? The game is called Dungeons and Dragons. Lizard-y humanoids have been a part of the game for decades. A hugely popular series of novels and gaming tie-ins featured scads of dragon-men. What am I missing about the Dragonborn?

It's not like they're kender or anything...

I'll take kender or lizardmen over Dragonborn. Wait, my campaign actually has a lizardman race. I just don't want a race of fire breathing reptillian humanoids- especially pcs. It's not the style of game that interests me.

It probably doesn't help that between dragon heritage sorcerous feats, half-dragons with breath weapons, dragon shamans etc. the whole thing, imo, has become ridiculous (except if specifically chosen in a toolbox approach or for a dragon themed campaign).
Give me something different like dragons as divine creatures and half dragons, as their offspring, don't have breath weapons. Instead, they are more charismatic in presence, better physical specimens (better con and either str or dex), and have some kind of divine commanding voice with the dragon heritage as requirement for a PrC (or for Epic Destiny)- just not breath weapons.

 

[Imaro]

Did I say that? I bet you know the answer...

Just trying to understand how your statements relate to the bigger issue we are discussing... perhaps you could clarify me since apparently I missed the point about elves and Gelantinous cubes...

For what it's worth, Eberron's a quality product. Not to everyone's taste (naturally), but its more than just marketing.

Yeah, that's great have plenty of material from 3.5... doesn't mean I agree that warforged and artificers should be in every campaign setting... the bolded part.

And what does your game being yours have to do with the fact that D&D has a long history of silly names, despite what's written in the 3e DMG?

I don't have to allow them in my game, if it doesn't fit is the point. D&D has a multitude of feels and tones as exemplified by the numerous settings of 2e, but I guess for all of them silly names were the norm. Not.

 

[Mallus]

... perhaps you could clarify me since apparently I missed the point about elves and Gelantinous cubes...

Advice in the DMG pertaining to the creation of believable, consistent fantasy worlds should be treated as ironic. Clearer, yes?

D&D has a multitude of feels and tones as exemplified by the numerous settings of 2e, but I guess for all of them silly names were the norm.

The silly we have always had with us. Are you honestly disagreeing with that?

 

[Mallus]

II just don't want a race of fire breathing reptillian humanoids- especially pcs. It's not the style of game that interests me.

I'm not trying to argue taste, I'm just trying to understand the POV that vehemently objects to fire-breathing dragon-men in a D&D-style fantasy game. What surprises me about Dragonborn is how long it took for them to appear in D&D. They look like a gimme.

 

[Cadfan]

Cadfan,
What if the DM realizes that his dislike for dragonborn will ultimately have a negative effect on the quality of the game he runs? If the presence bothers him, every time the character comes into play, the character is a reminder of how much he dislikes that race. It's reoccurence and having to make accomodations for it when he designs adventures, when the PCs interact with NPCs, etc. results in DMing becoming unfun and a chore. When, DMing becomes unfun, the game as a whole suffers in quality and probably dies often resulting in no game for anyone (if we are to believe the disproportionate number of players to dms).

1. Why is this concern unique to the DM? What if the DM hates dragonborn, but loves tieflings, and one of the players knows that his hatred of tieflings will ultimately have a negative effect on his contributions to the game?

If your argument is that the DM is more important, so he has to be mollycoddled more than the players because his unhappiness will reverberate in a way that a player's will not, are you really happy with that reasoning? With the idea that the DM is essentially a giant baby, and everyone has to be extra nice to him and give him privileges that no one else gets not because he will use them more wisely, but simply because catering to him is the only way that everyone can get along?

2. I question whether this really happens to people. See my earlier post about actually hating something so bad it makes the game suffer, and just being dramatic. IF the DM hates something so bad the game will suffer from his primal revulsion, THEN that something should probably be banned (or the DM replaced with someone a little less emotionally fragile), BUT I think it is very unlikely that most people actually hate something like a player character race quite that much.

I'm amazed how much disagreement my views generate. I just think that the reason that we respect the DM's authority is because he is in a position to best decide whether adding dragonborn to the game will help or hurt the overall game experience. I think the respect that the DM is entitled to is tied to this superior perspective, and is therefore forfeit if the DM abandons that perspective and starts using the authority vested in him by the group to satisfy personal whims unrelated to the quality of the game.

So, I respect the decision of a DM who bans something for a game related reason, and I don't respect the decision of a DM who bans something because he thinks its stupid and he knows he can get away with banning it because the players will let him have what he wants rather than try to find a new DM.

I don't see why that's so controversial.

 

[Imaro]

Advice in the DMG pertaining to the creation of believable, consistent fantasy worlds should be treated as ironic. Clearer, yes?

Huh? How is an elf fighting a gelantinous cube inherently not consistent. You're loosing me here.

The silly we have always had with us. Are you honestly disagreeing with that?

I am saying there is a big difference in the inherent silliness found in the FR versus the inherent silliness found in Dark Sun, do you disagree with that?