Lanefan
Victoria Rules
At the expense of the DM being more invested in the game; and the DM not being invested is a fast track to a lousy game.Now, that being said, I would say that there are differently levels of justification for things. I don't want X because I don't like X and I'm the DM so, what I say goes, is a pretty darn weak argument. If that's the best justification you can come up with, well, at that point, I'm of a mind that I'll just suck it up and let the player have their way because it means that the player will be more invested in the game.
Even if the end result isn't something the DM also wants?Which means that as a DM, I need to implicitly trust that the players are acting in good faith, same as they have to trust that I am too.
No, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], it's not about power tripping. It's about DM's who are incapable of checking their ego at the door. Consciously deciding not to force their preferences on the players is the hallmark of a great DM, IMO. The ability of a DM to take what the players want and mold that into a campaign is what makes someone a great DM.
Your definition of consensus seems to be the players get the game they want no matter what, with the DM left to "suck it up and let the playerAnyone can put on the Viking Hat and dictate to the group. That's easy. There's no challenge to the DM there. The DM sits perched comfortably in the middle of his or her comfort zone, secure in the knowledge that nothing can disturb the carefully crafted campaign.
Consensus is messy as Hell. It's difficult. It's slow. It's never the easy way.
But, it does give the absolute best results.
For me, if players want a game I'm not interested in DMing then AFAIC one of them can DM it. And if I'm not interested in playing in it either then I'll sit out - fine by me. It's not like I'd then be banned form calling these same people up some other night and saiyng hey let's go for a beer...