Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 4656564" data-attributes="member: 463">My POV is that the DM should make every effort to see things from the player's POV, to think how the player's desires can be squared with the DM's desires, and not arbitrarily squash something without considering it (unless the player has already established they're a fount of crappy ideas - I had one of those recently).&nbsp; But at the end of the day it's up to the DM to make the call.&nbsp; If Oryan can't stand animal companions to have silly names, very well.&nbsp; I do think it's better he stand firm than run the game boiling with resentment (which Hussar doesn't think ever happens).I guess my problem is that in the abstract I disagree with Hussar's approach - I believe in the unquestioned authority of the GM, and all that entails.&nbsp; But in the concrete, I would not have done what Oryan did.&nbsp; I'd have wanted to talk through with the player how to make her ideas work in-game, while retaining their essential essence.&nbsp; Unless she was a total munchkin or similar* I'd have treated her with more respect than I think Oryan did.&nbsp; With the great authority of the DM comes great responsibility to use it wisely.*White Wolf playing, elf-murdering moral relativist, to give one particular example.So, I'm probably not very clear here, but I think my problem with Hussar's approach is that it says &quot;In the last resort, say yes.&quot;&nbsp; I argue the reverse - in the last resort, you need to follow your instinct and say no, if necessary.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you can't stand Dragonborn, and the player won't agree to you reskinning them to fit your campaign, you need to stand firm and ban them.&nbsp; But first find out what it is the player really wants - the powers?&nbsp; Well, maybe you have a human-looking clan descended from a dragon with those powers.&nbsp; To look like an alligator?&nbsp; Well, there are some lizardmen in that marsh...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 4656564, member: 463"] My POV is that the DM should make every effort to see things from the player's POV, to think how the player's desires can be squared with the DM's desires, and not arbitrarily squash something without considering it (unless the player has already established they're a fount of crappy ideas - I had one of those recently). But at the end of the day it's up to the DM to make the call. If Oryan can't stand animal companions to have silly names, very well. I do think it's better he stand firm than run the game boiling with resentment (which Hussar doesn't think ever happens). I guess my problem is that in the abstract I disagree with Hussar's approach - I believe in the unquestioned authority of the GM, and all that entails. But in the concrete, I would not have done what Oryan did. I'd have wanted to talk through with the player how to make her ideas work in-game, while retaining their essential essence. Unless she was a total munchkin or similar* I'd have treated her with more respect than I think Oryan did. With the great authority of the DM comes great responsibility to use it wisely. *White Wolf playing, elf-murdering moral relativist, to give one particular example. So, I'm probably not very clear here, but I think my problem with Hussar's approach is that it says "In the last resort, say yes." I argue the reverse - in the last resort, you need to follow your instinct and say no, if necessary. If you can't stand Dragonborn, and the player won't agree to you reskinning them to fit your campaign, you need to stand firm and ban them. But first find out what it is the player really wants - the powers? Well, maybe you have a human-looking clan descended from a dragon with those powers. To look like an alligator? Well, there are some lizardmen in that marsh... [/QUOTE]

Verification