EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
A: Probably not, though IMO this is a "there is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer" situation. It is possible to create a world just to be petty, after all. I'm not saying it happens any more than "rarely," but I've at least heard people (proudly!) claim to do just that.So, could the player side please clarify? At what point is the DM being unreasonable?
A. Creating a list of playable and non-playable races
B. Not being clear on the expectations (race) and then changing them after the player has made their character
C. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race) and not listening to the player's idea for their character because it falls outside the parameters of what was allowed
D. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race), listening to the player's idea, but then deciding it does not work
E. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race), listening to the player's idea, working with the player to come up with an alternative that would work within the parameters
F. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race), listening to the player's idea, working with the player to come up with an alternative that would work within the parameter, yet the character still disagrees on the expectations, and wants to build their original character
I realize some people might disagree with only one or all of them. But I am curious where the struggle for us to understand each other is. Thanks.
B: Definitely being unreasonable. E.g., if I was given a list of options that have previously been played in this setting, I would not presume that that meant "these are the only things allowed," I would presume it meant "there's backstory to these things that you should know about."* If the DM then fails to take up the issue until very late in the game-prep process, I would feel justified in being annoyed about that.
C: This one can be tricky. I do feel like not even letting the player make a case is a bad sign. It isn't strictly unreasonable, but it reflects a lack of important respect from the DM. E.g. it's been repeatedly said that the focus here is often on something close to pick-up play. I would feel a distinct lack of trust if the DM shot down an idea I had without even hearing about it--I would worry that that means they won't listen later, when we actually play. However, it IS possible to have some ideas that are sufficiently extreme that no explanation would work, so I don't want to make it sound like literally 100% of all ideas EVER must be given a hearing. "Listen, I want to play a deity" is an example of something just too extreme unless I've been given a reason to think the player can approach something like that seriously.
D: Very likely not unreasonable, but not guaranteed so. As noted, sometimes, DMs take perverse glee in shutting down player ideas they don't like, especially when those ideas depend on aesthetics the DM finds immature, unrefined, or melodramatic. In the vast majority of cases, though, it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say no. I certainly would prefer that this DM say "no but" rather than just a flat "no," and I certainly am of the opinion that it is better DMing practice to try for "no but" rather than flat "no," but it isn't an unreasonable action inherently.
E: Extremely reasonable, and the approach I genuinely think is best for all parties involved. The exact compromise will (and should) vary from one situation to another. Sometimes only a minor tweak is needed. Sometimes it's a major overhaul. Since the player is the one asking for special consideration, it behooves them to be prepared for greater concessions, but neither side should go into that discussion expecting to change nothing whatsoever unless the discussion breaks down.
F: The player is the one being unreasonable most of the time here. If the DM has made a good-faith effort to meet in the middle and the player still isn't happy with that, they should politely bow out and look for a game compatible with their interests. Compromise doesn't always work. I do believe it SHOULD be sought, IF it is in fact possible. But sometimes it isn't, and any player asking for special dispensation SHOULD go into that conversation prepared for the possibility that it won't be possible--but hoping, nonetheless, that it will be.
*As an example, all Clerics native to the Tarrakhuna, the home region of my Dungeon World campaign, are of the Safiqi faith. There is no other major organized religion in that area. If someone wanted to play a Cleric--we don't have one, so it's implicitly open--they would either need to build a Safiqi character, or sell me on their character that comes from some other land with a different religion. Likewise, all Wizards in the region are members of the Waziri Order, which also trains various professional-level non-mages like lawyers and accountants. If someone wants to play a Wizard, they should know what that will entail. Druids and Shamans are closely linked, Rangers and Slayers are known for hunting dangerous beasts in the wilds, etc.