Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4649286" data-attributes="member: 40961">Gregk- You're arguing something a little bit different than me. You're arguing about power.  I'm talking about legitimacy. You begin with the assumption that DMs are harder to replace than players, and you then conclude that they have the power to ban things they don't like because, well, because they can, and the players can't do anything about it.  You're dealing on the ultimatum level that I've discussed earlier in the thread, where matters like respect are irrelevant.  The dungeon master can ban something, the players can't ignore him and play it anyways, so obviously he has the power to ban. I'm not disagreeing with that directly.  I just have two objections. First, its not the way most people actually game.  Yes, power structures are relevant and affect our interactions even at the gaming table.  But no, they're not everything.  I think that respect of the DM's role as a valued neutral arbiter possessed of greater knowledge about the campaign is better at explaining certain things.  Not things like whether the DM can ban something, but things like whether the DM can ban something and then have everyone at the table accept that without complaint.  That's far more interesting to me.  And when someone asks a question about whether a GM is taking his control too far, well, its the issue, isn't it?  Not whether the GM can do something, but whether his players have a reasonable comlaint if he does? Second, power structures vary.  If it was really all about who could best leverage a threat to take their ball and go home, then the guy who hosts the game or the guy who most often pays for pizza would be able to ban dragonborn even if he wasn't the DM.  But that's not the case.  When a group decides to essentially invest someone with the authority to ban material or make other similar decisions, they don't give it to whoever can most easily destroy the game if they don't get what they want, as in your line of reasoning. I'm not trying to answer the question of whether the DM can do something in some abstract Machiavellian sense.  That wouldn't even be answerable, if pure power relations were all that mattered, because the specifics would screw things up- maybe the DM has the power to blow up the game, but the person complaining is the one who gives the DM a ride to work every morning.  I'm trying to answer the question of when, socially, we do or do not accept a DM's ruling as having been a "good" one.  A legitimate one. And I think that the motivations behind the ruling are the key to understanding how we think about these things in real life where we mostly aren't flinging ultimatums at one another to resolve what sort of elves we're allowed to pretend to be. And for the record I still don't believe that any real person actually can't DM a game that includes a player character race he doesn't like.  Just don't buy it.  I believe people might say that, much like they might say that they're going to hold their breath forever and ever until they die unless they get what they want.  I don't believe they actually can't.</blockquote>

Verification