do you think that someone that knows you well (a friend) might not notice you doing so? how about if you did it for 2 or 3 things? what if you noticed two of your friends doing it? how long before someone says something?
There are degrees of "teeth-gritting." If it's a big enough deal that it's literally ruining the game for him, the player should politely bring it up--
between sessions, not during--and be willing to leave the game if the discussion doesn't go his way.
But honestly, if it's a DM I truly like/trust, I have a hard time thinking of anything of this nature that would bother me so much I wouldn't be willing to give it a try and see where he was going.
and the difference between sulking and gritting your teeth is? and again we go to extremes, where I agree he can't "Demand" can he ask?
Politely ask? Yes. Between games. One time. And he needs to be prepared to live with the answer, one way or the other.
do you think any of the following is acceptable (assume they are friend and both being polite):
1) Player: "Why not?"
2) Player: "Um, since when?"
3) Player: "I really love GL and have been trying to get a way to contact them... would it hurt to change it?"
Done politely? All are acceptable,
if the player doesn't keep arguing once the question is answered. But in Hussar's example (for instance), it became a long, ongoing, game-interrupting discussion/argument. That is
not acceptable.
except on this board in the last 2 months I have been told "I will not let a player ever play a dragonborn." and when I ask exactly that... if you knew a player wanted to could you make a world where it is exceptable... I was again told "No why would I "
I have also been told the same about multi classing, and many other things...
"Taking into account" doesn't mean "I will allow/agree with every specific detail." It means, "Do I think the players will, overall, enjoy this particular campaign concept I have in mind?"
Specific issues, like whether the world has dragonborn or multiclassing? Irrelevant if the
overall campaign is one that works for the group. I may be a tad disappointed if I have an idea for a character and then discover I can't use it in this campaign, but it's not going to turn me off of a campaign that otherwise sounds fun.
Also, let's consider that the DM has to enjoy the game, too. If the inclusion of dragonborn is going to disrupt the feel/mood/theme of a setting--say, for instance, the DM was going for a very human-centric Lankhmar-style campaign--then no, the fact that a specific player really likes dragonborn isn't a good enough reason to allow them in
this particular campaign.
And again, if the DM knows the group well enough to know they'll likely enjoy the campaign overall, that shouldn't matter.
The campaign I'm running right now? For various reasons, I limited the racial options. I wanted most of teh group to be human, and even the rare nonhumans couldn't be tieflings or dragonborn. That's not a constant rule with me as DM; I like tieflings and dragonborn, in their place. It just didn't fit
this particular campaign. And my group was fine with that, because they understood it was a decision was making for the campaign. My next campaign will likely be quite different, and if anyone wants to play a dragonborn or tiefling, they'll probably have the chance then.
Now, if the DM is just excluding them because "I don't like 'em, and I want my D&D as it was twenty years ago," well... That's not as solid a reason, and can probably bear a longer discussion than it otherwise would. But at the end of the day, it's the DM who has to "run" the entire setting. And thus, we're back to the basic equation for the player: Once we've had our polite discussion and he hasn't changed his mind, I have to decide, can I live with this and still enjoy the campaign, or should I go?
It really
does almost always boil down to being that simple.
