I wondered what your thoughts were if I planned and ran an all kobold and dragonborn campaign. If I disallowed all other races, despite about half of my players desires to play minotaurs, am I a bad DM?
I am conflicted. I want a certain type of campaign, and as RavenCrowKing has said, anyone who doesn't agree with the DM is right. But what if the DM is actively trying to stoke a new setting. I'm so confused. This thread makes me angry, yet interested.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say Raven Crowking has said.
Everyone is allowed to attempt to seek the gaming experience that they want. GMs, players, everyone.
A GM is allowed to propose any game he likes, and, if he can find players willing to follow the proposition, to run it.
A player is allowed to propose any PC he likes, and, if he can find a GM willing to follow the proposition, to run it.
But "No Means No" is an absolute barrier in this case, beyond which none should cross. Both sides have an absolute right to determine what gaming they are willing to offer, and what gaming they are willing to accept.
If you want to run campaign X, you are right to propose it, and right to run it if you can get players.
If Bob doesn't want to play in campaign X, he is right to not do so. Even if Bob is your friend.
If Bob wants to play in campaign Y, he is right to propose it, and right to play in it if he can get a GM to run it.
If you don't want to run campaign Y, you are right not to do so. Even if Bob is your friend.
It is absolutely wrong, in this circumstance, for Bob to try to force you to run campaign Y, or for you to try to force Bob to play in campaign X. Sometimes it is better not to play at all.
It is okay for Bob to ask you why you are not interested in campaign Y; it is not okay if his motive is to find a way to force you to do so. Such as, for example, by wearing down your resistance with multiple questions, until you just get so tired that you give in.
I hope that position is clear.
Because I actually have stated my reasons several time, the motions towards the communication seem to lead to a conversation like this.
Good, because I am ready to talk about Warforged Ninja now.
In the thread where this arose, I (and others) explained in painstaking detail why (1) a warforged ninja did not fit the setting, (2) how a warforged ninja in the setting would automatically steal focus and attention from the other PCs (which we didn't think fair to those players), and (3) how allowing a warforged ninja would open the door to other character concepts that could have these same problems.
There are those in this thread who say they simply want to know the reasons. Well, in this case, the reasons were given. Multiple times. And, still, the warforged ninja has been unable to go to his well-deserved rest without still being argued about as an example where the DM should bend.
And we are not even talking about a real game.
If you really want to understand why sometimes a GM will simply say No, and will assume that -- regardless of what the player says -- there is more involved than simply knowing the reasons, you need look no further.
Finally, as should be relatively obvious, if there are 1,000 elements that can be used to throw together a campaign, different groups of those elements can create novelty that will last far longer than any human lifetime.
OTOH, if every campaign must use all those elements, you have only a single set. Eventually, everything seems to look a lot like everything else.
Me, I'd rather game in a world with some form of cohesive vision, from either side of the screen. I've never seen a kitchen sink (even with a good GM) that came close to the cohesive vision a more judicious pruning can create (even with an average GM). YMMV.
(I find a cohesive setting with a good GM even better, and a great GM can make anything work....But, Hussar's poll, mentioned upthread, would tend to indicate that most GMs are not great.)
RC
