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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6399956" data-attributes="member: 2011">If a DM were never willing to compromise on anything, you might have a point.If a DM just has some campaign rules that he's set up his entire campaign around and only one or two players have an issue with a specific houserule, then, yeah, that's pretty much a problem with that player or players.Example: DM is unwilling to allow jokes at the table during roleplaying. This is a unreasonable because the DM is attempting to dictate the behaviors of the players and it is typically most or all of the players who might be bothered by this.Example: DM is unwilling to allow Dragonborn. This is totally reasonable because it is a campaign element. The DM is still allowing a lot of other races and it is typically only one player who might be bothered by this.The only difference between a DM and a player is that of final decision authority. The DM has final decision authority within the game. The player has final decision authority in not playing the game if s/he feels that it is too egregious.There is no doubt that a DM should listen to his players and try to compromise, but this idea that he is pig headed and/or unreasonable if he does not compromise on some given item is just plain wrong.Problem players are not the only issue. There are problem DMs as well.But if a player says that the DM is unreasonable because he will not compromise on some details of his campaign world, then yeah, that's pretty much a problem with that player. Typically, the rest of the players will not have that issue. Only that one player.This is totally confusing. Why in the heck would the DM who does not want to have evil PCs in his game compromise that there can be evil PCs, but the players agree to not roleplay them as evil?Just don't allow evil PCs and be done with it. Why does there have to be a compromise?</blockquote>

Verification