Players Rights Do they even exist

I have often wonder why players have never been given any offical rights other then simply leave and start up your own game, you would think a players fantasy roleplaying game they would have offical rights, But it seems that the only person who has any rights and power what so ever is the Dm...

Official Warning From this point in time I will no longer deal with people who want to turn my post into flame war's, if you cannot respond in a civilized matter Then simply do not respond, all troll  implications or just plain rudeness will  no longer be tolerated and will reported to the mod as soon as I see the reply...


Complete fallacy if the player actually comes up with a great character concept the would be very cool in the game setting but is arbitrarily banned for no good reason. Otherwise why were level limits most often ignored and then jettisoned?  



If you're playing in a homebrewed world, then the DM has designed the game setting. If the DM has decided that setting doesn't include Gnomes or Halflings or Half Fish-Half Donkey creatures (for whatever reasons) and you come to the table with one of those as your concept, then you haven't come up with a concept that would be very cool in the game setting, you, in fact, have done the opposite, you've come up with a concept that ignores the game setting. 

I think DMs are being too up tight when it comes to races and themes. 
Honestly, who cares? As long the players have fun, who wins at the end?
 




But let's not forget that each player doesn't live and play isolated in his own game. One player's choice may affect the fun and immersion of others. And let's not forget that the DM is also one of the players who is there to have fun. If a choice spoils the fun of the DM somehow that's also relevant.

If everyone sets out to play, say, an Ancient Greece theme game. And suddenly one of the player insists that he wants to play a medieval Knight or a shaolin kung fu master, and the DM allows it... this is not just about that one player's personal fun. All players set out to play one style of game. By having something like that thrown in, you may be breaking the immersion and spoiling the fun of everyone else, all that so that one unreasonable player gets what he wants.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So i believe the DM has to be a benevolent dictator.   He should always listen to the players and accomodate them as much as possible.   But if he feels really strongly about something he should not give in.   Even if the vote is 5 to 1.

 



THis is just...completely anethema to all of my gaming experience and the thoughts and feelings of all of my groups.

I can't even process this alien mindset enough to engage in a debate with it.

AFAIC, if the vote is 5 to 1, any player or the DM should seek a compromise, and if they cannot find one, either "take one for the team" or bow out.

The idea that it's the DM's world, and everyone else just gets to hang out in it, at the sufference of the DM, is just...foul to me. It poisons the very heart of what DnD is.



And because I know these forums, and the people who post here; no, my stance on this is not informed by bad experiences with DMs in the past. I've pretty much only had good or moderate DMs, and the only time we had a bad DM, we kicked him out of the DM chair before the first session ended.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome

Here's what I've shown potential new players to any of our homebrews.  At a glance:  What books are on the table, what races and classes are available, and a small bit of setting detail to hopefully get 'em in the mood.

Runegate
is a campaign setting for DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (4e rules).  The following books are on the table:  Player’s Handbook 1, 2, and 3; Dungeon Master’s Guide 1 and 2; Monster Manual 1, 2, and 3; Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide, Eberron Player’s Guide.  Other supplements and accessories may be used at the DM’s discretion.

Runegate is comprised of several scattered worlds (mini-settings) that can be traveled to via magical Runegates. The PCs call Fallcrest and surrounding Nentir Vale home.  The PCs are assumed to work for a world-spanning organization known as the Order of Fharlanghan (far-lahng-un).

Available Races:  Changeling, Deva, Dray (a.k.a. Dragonborn), Genasi, Human, Minotaur, Shifter, Tiefling, Wilden

Unavailable Races:  Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Gnome, Githzerai, Goliath, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling, Kalashtar, Shardmind, Warforged

Runegate makes a nod to the ‘re-imagined’ races of 4e.  There are no ‘classic’ fantasy races like Dwarves, Elves or Halflings in this D&D world.  And yeah J, I do realize that Humans are a traditional fantasy race.

Available Classes:  Any.

= = =

Another campaign, an evil one where the PCs are corrupt guards in a fantasy metropolis, this one for DDE: 



The Shield uses D&D Essentials rules:  Dungeon Master’s Kit, Monster Vault, Rules Compendium, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.  Other supplements and accessories may be used at the DM’s discretion.

Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Halfling (a.k.a. Hin); (supplemental) Drow, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Hobgoblin

Unavailable Races:  Dragonborn, Tiefling

Core Classes:  Warpriest (Cleric), Knight, Slayer (Fighter), Thief (Rogue), Mage (Wizard)

Expanded Classes (supplemental):  Executioner (Assassin), Sentinel (Druid), Cavalier (Paladin) (Unaligned only), Hunter, Scout (Ranger)

Unavailable Classes:  Hexblade (Warlock)

The Shield is a tip o’ the hat to ‘old school’ D&D.  The dragonborn and tiefling races, and the warlock class, are out of place in this setting.

Player’s Handbook Classes (supplemental):  Classes from the PHB have been given sub-class names (like their DDE counterparts), as well as rules updates.  These appear in the Class Compendium (a series of D&D Insider articles).  The Class Compendium brings (most) of the PHB classes into line with the DDE format.

Templar (Cleric), Weaponmaster (Fighter), Divinate (Paladin) (Unaligned only), Pathfinder (Ranger), Scoundrel (Rogue), Marshal (Warlord) (unavailable), Covenanter (Warlock) (unavailable), Arcanist (Wizard)

The Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock have not been given sub-class names.  So for the sake of uniformity, I’ve come up with my own (Divinate, Pathfinder and Covenanter, respectively).  Also, most Player’s Handbook classes receive rules updates in the Class Compendium articles. The Templar was never finalized however (it remains in beta). The Paladin and Ranger never received rules updates. It’s all very haphazard, even for errata.

= = =

Yet another campaign, knights-in-shinnilng armor, this one for v3.5: 


Knights of Everest uses the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS v.3.5 core rules:  Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, Monster Manual and this Setting Guide.  Other accessories and supplements may be used at the DM’s discretion.

Core Classes:  Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer.

Clerics are defined by race.  Sorcerers lose familiar, gain metamagic specialist class feature (as seen in PH II).

Expanded Classes (supplemental):  Hexblade, Knight, Scout, Spirit Shaman, Swashbuckler, Warlock.

Prestige Classes (optional):  As DMG plus Prestige Bard, Paladin, and Ranger (as seen in Unearthed Arcana).

Unavailable Classes:  Monk, Wizard.

Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-Orc, Mul.

Muls replace half-elves (in theory).

Unavailable Races:  Gnome, Half-Elf, Halfling.


= = =

Knights of Everest as it might appear in other D&D games:


Knights of Everest (DDE)
Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-Orc, Mul

Unavailable Races:  Dragonborn, Drow, Eladrin, Half-Elf, Halfling, Tiefling

Core Classes:  Warpriest (Cleric), Knight, Slayer (Fighter), Thief (Rogue), Mage (Wizard)

Expanded Classes (supplemental):  Sentinel (Druid), Cavalier (Paladin), Hunter, Scout (Ranger), Hexblade (Warlock)

Knights of Everest (2e)
Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-Orc, Mul

Unavailable Races:  Gnome, Half-Elf, Halfling

Core Classes:  Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Mage

Expanded Classes (supplemental):  Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Illusionist

= = =

Here's the load-out for our upcoming Realms campaign (using 4e rules and 3e and earlier flavor):

FORGOTTEN REALMS 4DVENTURES (FR4)
The following D&D books are on the table:  Player’s Handbook 1 and 2, Dungeon Master’s Guide 1 and 2, Monster Manual 1, 2, and 3.  Also, the following races are ported from the FRPG:  Drow, Genasi.  Other accessories and supplements may be used at the DM’s discretion.  For instance, the DM may decide to allow Player’s Handbook 3 as a supplemental source.

Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

Supplemental Races:  Deva, Dragonborn, Drow, Genasi, Goliath, Shifter, Tiefling

Available Classes:  Any

= = =

Limitations but with defininte reason.  You won't see many dragonborn in a setting inspired by old-school D&D.  OTOH You might not see dwarves in a 're-imagined' setting (inspired by 4e).  It's important I think, to have an idea of where you wanna go and then work with the other players to get there. 

/\ Art
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So i believe the DM has to be a benevolent dictator.   He should always listen to the players and accomodate them as much as possible.   But if he feels really strongly about something he should not give in.   Even if the vote is 5 to 1.

 



THis is just...completely anethema to all of my gaming experience and the thoughts and feelings of all of my groups.

I can't even process this alien mindset enough to engage in a debate with it.

AFAIC, if the vote is 5 to 1, any player or the DM should seek a compromise, and if they cannot find one, either "take one for the team" or bow out.

The idea that it's the DM's world, and everyone else just gets to hang out in it, at the sufference of the DM, is just...foul to me. It poisons the very heart of what DnD is.

And because I know these forums, and the people who post here; no, my stance on this is not informed by bad experiences with DMs in the past. I've pretty much only had good or moderate DMs, and the only time we had a bad DM, we kicked him out of the DM chair before the first session ended.



I think Emerikol is saying to try to compromise (he uses the word accomodate). However, since the DM is the caretaker of the milieu, he or she probably should be given straight vetos over some things, if only because they must accomodate the campaign, as well.  The campaign, too, is itself a player at the table. The DM really does have the final say on things.  A good DM will listen to what I have to say, but if I end up with a "sorry, no," at some point, then I think I have to accept that.


Here's what I've shown potential new players to any of our homebrews.  At a glance:  What books are on the table, what races and classes are available, and a small bit of setting detail to hopefully get 'em in the mood.

Runegate
is a campaign setting for DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (4e rules).  The following books are on the table:  Player’s Handbook 1, 2, and 3; Dungeon Master’s Guide 1 and 2; Monster Manual 1, 2, and 3; Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide, Eberron Player’s Guide.  Other supplements and accessories may be used at the DM’s discretion.

Runegate is comprised of several scattered worlds (mini-settings) that can be traveled to via magical Runegates. The PCs call Fallcrest and surrounding Nentir Vale home.  The PCs are assumed to work for a world-spanning organization known as the Order of Fharlanghan (far-lahng-un).

Available Races:  Changeling, Deva, Dray (a.k.a. Dragonborn), Genasi, Human, Minotaur, Shifter, Tiefling, Wilden

Unavailable Races:  Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Gnome, Githzerai, Goliath, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling, Kalashtar, Shardmind, Warforged

Runegate makes a nod to the ‘re-imagined’ races of 4e.  There are no ‘classic’ fantasy races like Dwarves, Elves or Halflings in this D&D world.  And yeah J, I do realize that Humans are a traditional fantasy race.

Available Classes:  Any.

= = =

Another campaign, an evil one where the PCs are corrupt guards in a fantasy metropolis, this one for DDE: 



The Shield uses D&D Essentials rules:  Dungeon Master’s Kit, Monster Vault, Rules Compendium, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.  Other supplements and accessories may be used at the DM’s discretion.

Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Halfling (a.k.a. Hin); (supplemental) Drow, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Hobgoblin

Unavailable Races:  Dragonborn, Tiefling

Core Classes:  Warpriest (Cleric), Knight, Slayer (Fighter), Thief (Rogue), Mage (Wizard)

Expanded Classes (supplemental):  Executioner (Assassin), Sentinel (Druid), Cavalier (Paladin) (Unaligned only), Hunter, Scout (Ranger)

Unavailable Classes:  Hexblade (Warlock)

The Shield is a tip o’ the hat to ‘old school’ D&D.  The dragonborn and tiefling races, and the warlock class, are out of place in this setting.

Player’s Handbook Classes (supplemental):  Classes from the PHB have been given sub-class names (like their DDE counterparts), as well as rules updates.  These appear in the Class Compendium (a series of D&D Insider articles).  The Class Compendium brings (most) of the PHB classes into line with the DDE format.

Templar (Cleric), Weaponmaster (Fighter), Divinate (Paladin) (Unaligned only), Pathfinder (Ranger), Scoundrel (Rogue), Marshal (Warlord) (unavailable), Covenanter (Warlock) (unavailable), Arcanist (Wizard)

The Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock have not been given sub-class names.  So for the sake of uniformity, I’ve come up with my own (Divinate, Pathfinder and Covenanter, respectively).  Also, most Player’s Handbook classes receive rules updates in the Class Compendium articles. The Templar was never finalized however (it remains in beta). The Paladin and Ranger never received rules updates. It’s all very haphazard, even for errata.

= = =

Yet another campaign, knights-in-shinnilng armor, this one for v3.5: 


Knights of Everest uses the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS v.3.5 core rules:  Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, Monster Manual and this Setting Guide.  Other accessories and supplements may be used at the DM’s discretion.

Core Classes:  Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer.

Clerics are defined by race.  Sorcerers lose familiar, gain metamagic specialist class feature (as seen in PH II).

Expanded Classes (supplemental):  Hexblade, Knight, Scout, Spirit Shaman, Swashbuckler, Warlock.

Prestige Classes (optional):  As DMG plus Prestige Bard, Paladin, and Ranger (as seen in Unearthed Arcana).

Unavailable Classes:  Monk, Wizard.

Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-Orc, Mul.

Muls replace half-elves (in theory).

Unavailable Races:  Gnome, Half-Elf, Halfling.


= = =

Knights of Everest as it might appear in other D&D games:


Knights of Everest (DDE)
Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-Orc, Mul

Unavailable Races:  Dragonborn, Drow, Eladrin, Half-Elf, Halfling, Tiefling

Core Classes:  Warpriest (Cleric), Knight, Slayer (Fighter), Thief (Rogue), Mage (Wizard)

Expanded Classes (supplemental):  Sentinel (Druid), Cavalier (Paladin), Hunter, Scout (Ranger), Hexblade (Warlock)

Knights of Everest (2e)
Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-Orc, Mul

Unavailable Races:  Gnome, Half-Elf, Halfling

Core Classes:  Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Mage

Expanded Classes (supplemental):  Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Illusionist

= = =

Here's the load-out for our upcoming Realms campaign (using 4e rules and 3e and earlier flavor):

FORGOTTEN REALMS 4DVENTURES (FR4)
The following D&D books are on the table:  Player’s Handbook 1 and 2, Dungeon Master’s Guide 1 and 2, Monster Manual 1, 2, and 3.  Also, the following races are ported from the FRPG:  Drow, Genasi.  Other accessories and supplements may be used at the DM’s discretion.  For instance, the DM may decide to allow Player’s Handbook 3 as a supplemental source.

Available Races:  Human, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

Supplemental Races:  Deva, Dragonborn, Drow, Genasi, Goliath, Shifter, Tiefling

Available Classes:  Any

= = =

Limitations but with defininte reason.  You won't see many dragonborn in a setting inspired by old-school D&D.  OTOH You might not see dwarves in a 're-imagined' setting (inspired by 4e).  It's important I think, to have an idea of where you wanna go and then work with the other players to get there. 




Yes, this is exactly how a DM should present things.  Everything up front. Nice example.
I don't understand why a player would insist on playing a race that isn't available in the campaign setting.

If my players all voted to play a Taladas campaign and you show up asking to play a half-orc I'll say no.    I'll let you play a Minotaur, Orge, Goblin, Bakali (Lizardman), Kender,  Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, or Gnome, but not a half-orc.  The reason is that half-orcs and orcs don't exist in Taladas.   

There is nothing immature about it.     The only person being immature is the player who thinks he is entitled ignore the campaign setting.

I suspect that player entitlement in this case is linked to min/maxing.   It's not the fact that the player can't play a particular race that upset him.  It's the fact that he can't use the race as an optimization tool for his maxed out build concept.     

Quite frankly, if you're not going to take the campaign setting seriously then I don't want you at my table.    Go and play a generic campaign that's focused on character builds and combat encounters.


..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So i believe the DM has to be a benevolent dictator.   He should always listen to the players and accomodate them as much as possible.   But if he feels really strongly about something he should not give in.   Even if the vote is 5 to 1.

 



THis is just...completely anethema to all of my gaming experience and the thoughts and feelings of all of my groups.

I can't even process this alien mindset enough to engage in a debate with it.

AFAIC, if the vote is 5 to 1, any player or the DM should seek a compromise, and if they cannot find one, either "take one for the team" or bow out.

The idea that it's the DM's world, and everyone else just gets to hang out in it, at the sufference of the DM, is just...foul to me. It poisons the very heart of what DnD is.



And because I know these forums, and the people who post here; no, my stance on this is not informed by bad experiences with DMs in the past. I've pretty much only had good or moderate DMs, and the only time we had a bad DM, we kicked him out of the DM chair before the first session ended.



I've yet to meet a group that would walk out over any stricture I've put on the game.  I have had on rare occasions the entire group not like some stricture I've put on the game.   Everything is a tradeoff.   But I have more players than I can squeeze into my campaign and I only have time to run one.   

I run homebrew worlds so I do consider them my campaign setting.  Obviously if I ran Forgotten Realms, I wouldn't consider the setting itself as my personal possession.   I would consider my iteration of it as mine.

There are three types of changes to a game that DM's have to handle.
1.  Rules fixes -  basically the DM feels a rule is broken and tries to fix it.   On these I don't really see not making the fix if I think it's necessary.   Most of the time, I talk things over and make an informed decision as DM.   I see acceptance or rejection of these rules a playstyle issue mostly so it's best to part sooner rather than later.

2.  Flavor changes - I find players who oppose flavor changes or insist on something that doesn't fit (and the greek example is a good one) aren't really players I want anyway.   Maybe the ten guys  I had to turn away will get a chance now.


Maybe it's regional or cultural but in my area I don't know of any DM that thinks differently.  I wouldn't ever think I could tell a DM what he puts in his own campaign world.








I don't understand why a player would insist on playing a race that isn't available in the campaign setting.

If my players all voted to play Taladas campaign and you show up asking to play a half-orc I'll say no.    I'll let you play a Minotaur, Orge, Goblin, Bakali (Lizardman), Kender,  Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, or Gnome, but not a half-orc.  The reason is that half-orcs and orcs don't exist in Taladas.   

There is nothing immature about it.     The only person being immature is the player who thinks he is entitled ignore the campaign setting.

I think player entitlement in this case is linked to min/maxing.   It's not the fact that the player can't play a particular race that upset him.  It's the fact that he can't use the race as an optimization tool for his maxed out build concept.     

Quite frankly, if you're not going to take the campaign setting seriously then I don't want you at my table.    Go and play a generic campaign that's focused on character builds and combat encounters.



All good valid points.  We think alike on this.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I give respect to the position.   I wouldn't last long in a campaign where the DM did his prep work just before the session started.   The game just wouldn't have the depth and flavor I like.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />



Yeah, I guarantee you that you'd not know the difference in my campaign.

Of course, you'd also probably assume a lack of roleplaying and some other preposterous crap just because it's being played in 4e.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome

Complete fallacy if the player actually comes up with a great character concept the would be very cool in the game setting but is arbitrarily banned for no good reason. Otherwise why were level limits most often ignored and then jettisoned?  



If you're playing in a homebrewed world, then the DM has designed the game setting. If the DM has decided that setting doesn't include Gnomes or Halflings or Half Fish-Half Donkey creatures (for whatever reasons) and you come to the table with one of those as your concept, then you haven't come up with a concept that would be very cool in the game setting, you, in fact, have done the opposite, you've come up with a concept that ignores the game setting. 




Not at all. For one thing, often games are put together with players who have had very little contact beforehand. Even so, there are a lot of ways a player could come up with a cool idea for a Shardmind being a character from some bit of flavor text the DM has given. If a player can show how this character would be great then I'll let him play it. He may be the only one in the game world, but so be it. PCs are a rare breed anyway.


Complete fallacy if the player actually comes up with a great character concept the would be very cool in the game setting but is arbitrarily banned for no good reason. Otherwise why were level limits most often ignored and then jettisoned?  



If you're playing in a homebrewed world, then the DM has designed the game setting. If the DM has decided that setting doesn't include Gnomes or Halflings or Half Fish-Half Donkey creatures (for whatever reasons) and you come to the table with one of those as your concept, then you haven't come up with a concept that would be very cool in the game setting, you, in fact, have done the opposite, you've come up with a concept that ignores the game setting. 




Not at all. For one thing, often games are put together with players who have had very little contact beforehand. Even so, there are a lot of ways a player could come up with a cool idea for a Shardmind being a character from some bit of flavor text the DM has given. If a player can show how this character would be great then I'll let him play it. He may be the only one in the game world, but so be it. PCs are a rare breed anyway.




Not in my campaign.   All of my players get a packet long before they arrive.  It is assumed they read that packet before they come up with a character.




I give respect to the position.   I wouldn't last long in a campaign where the DM did his prep work just before the session started.   The game just wouldn't have the depth and flavor I like.

 

Yeah, I guarantee you that you'd not know the difference in my campaign.


You guarantee eh.  Well who knows maybe you'd be the first ever.   I can spot a shallow campaign a mile away though so I wouldn't bet much on that possibility.


Of course, you'd also probably assume a lack of roleplaying and some other preposterous crap just because it's being played in 4e.



No.  I wouldn't even show up as soon as you announced it was 4e.   I also don't hit myself in the head with a hammer either.







 ...often games are put together with players who have had very little contact beforehand. 



Those are very rare cases in my experience, and even when they do occur, I've generally had enough contact to at least have said "PHB only" with the exceptions thereof, or list the splats (or individual elements of those splats) I'm allowing . I am working from the idea that I've told the players what I allow or don't before we sit down to roll up characters, and any experienced players I've dealt with know to ask on anything outside the PHB if I haven't.  

Here's what I've shown potential new players to any of our homebrews.  At a glance:  What books are on the table, what races and classes are available, and a small bit of setting detail to hopefully get 'em in the mood.

Runegate
is a campaign setting for DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (4e rules).  The following books are on the table:  Player’s Handbook 1, 2, and 3; Dungeon Master’s Guide 1 and 2; Monster Manual 1, 2, and 3; Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide, Eberron Player’s Guide.  Other supplements and accessories may be used at the DM’s discretion.

Runegate is comprised of several scattered worlds (mini-settings) that can be traveled to via magical Runegates. The PCs call Fallcrest and surrounding Nentir Vale home.  The PCs are assumed to work for a world-spanning organization known as the Order of Fharlanghan (far-lahng-un).

Available Races:  Changeling, Deva, Dray (a.k.a. Dragonborn), Genasi, Human, Minotaur, Shifter, Tiefling, Wilden

Unavailable Races:  Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Gnome, Githzerai, Goliath, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling, Kalashtar, Shardmind, Warforged

Runegate makes a nod to the ‘re-imagined’ races of 4e.  There are no ‘classic’ fantasy races like Dwarves, Elves or Halflings in this D&D world.  And yeah J, I do realize that Humans are a traditional fantasy race.

Available Classes:  Any.



Using this as an example, if a player came to me with a concept they were in love with about bits of consciousness siphoned by the gates (insert gate theory story idea) coalesced in to a thinking being and gained form by animating bits of the gatecrystal in to a physical structure (fleshed out) then I'd make an exception and let them play a Shardmind,.


I also don't hit myself in the head with a hammer either.




Yeah, why waste time for a redundant effect.

Gunthar, why are your hypothetical players not trying to fit into the campaign setting?

If someone presents them with a broad list of options, why is their first impulse "I want to play something the DM doesn't want."? Does that happen a lot in your games? Are they really THAT contrary?

I can count on Frodos left hand the number of times that's happened in over 30 years of DMing and still have a finger left over.
Using this as an example, if a player came to me with a concept they were in love with about bits of consciousness siphoned by the gates (insert gate theory story idea) coalesced in to a thinking being and gained form by animating bits of the gatecrystal in to a physical structure (fleshed out) then I'd make an exception and let them play a Shardmind

I'd be okay with that.  The only reason shardminds aren't on the available list is because psionics would've been 'supplemental' to the setting (something to be added later on, as the campaign developed).  

To start though, nine races (one more than the eight in the PH itself) seemed plenty, so shardminds didn't make the list ;).  Still, I'd be fine with a shardmind in Runegate if the player was really for it.   
/\ Art

Complete fallacy if the player actually comes up with a great character concept the would be very cool in the game setting but is arbitrarily banned for no good reason. Otherwise why were level limits most often ignored and then jettisoned?  



If you're playing in a homebrewed world, then the DM has designed the game setting. If the DM has decided that setting doesn't include Gnomes or Halflings or Half Fish-Half Donkey creatures (for whatever reasons) and you come to the table with one of those as your concept, then you haven't come up with a concept that would be very cool in the game setting, you, in fact, have done the opposite, you've come up with a concept that ignores the game setting. 




Not at all. For one thing, often games are put together with players who have had very little contact beforehand. Even so, there are a lot of ways a player could come up with a cool idea for a Shardmind being a character from some bit of flavor text the DM has given. If a player can show how this character would be great then I'll let him play it. He may be the only one in the game world, but so be it. PCs are a rare breed anyway.




Not in my campaign.   All of my players get a packet long before they arrive.  It is assumed they read that packet before they come up with a character.







Instead of giving a packet, why not offer a survey and build around what the people playing the game want.  Meet the players where they are and build something they want to engage in.  I think the DM entitlement vs. Player entitlement is at the core of somethign that should be encouraged to be collaborative. 

A poster discussed banning halflings because they took his campaign too far into a tolkein direction.  Why not task the character who wants to play halflings to come up wiht a concept for what he wants out of playing halflings that does not cleave to any of the hobbit tropes.  Let them create halflings that won't take your campaign where you don't want i to be . . . they'll be more invested in your world and you'll have some world building done that makes the campaign even more distinct from tolkein because you engaged the player with your issue and had him help you resolve it.
Gunthar, why are your hypothetical players not trying to fit into the campaign setting?




Maybe his players are those powermongering kind who always want to pull some obscure race or class from a questionable splat book source, just so they can min/max whatever build they think will be most overpowered. Then they come up with something that's more of an "excuse" than a real explanation as to why his character should be in the campaign.

That's the only reason I see for insisting so much on playing something that conflicts with the campaign. The very few times something like that has ever happened in my games, I could clearly see that this was the underlining reason, and I was quick to cut the crap out of those players.

A player who actually likes story and roleplaying can easily come up with something else that fits the campaign, and if he is truly into the story and narrative he himself will probably not even want to ruin the immersion of the world by insisting on nonsensical characters that have nothing to do with the setting.
*sigh*

The two sides of the argument are not "Immature Tyrannical DMs" vs "Powermonging Munchkin Players".

We all want to have good games where everyone has fun. We just disagree on the best method to accomplish it.

It's good for all of us to take a step back, take a deep breath, and remember that occasionally.
Gunthar, why are your hypothetical players not trying to fit into the campaign setting?

If someone presents them with a broad list of options, why is their first impulse "I want to play something the DM doesn't want."? Does that happen a lot in your games? Are they really THAT contrary?

I can count on Frodos left hand the number of times that's happened in over 30 years of DMing and still have a finger left over.



It doesn't happen very often but if someone gets inspiration for a cool concept from the bits given then rolling with it only seems logical. Using the example above, someone saying "I was going to play an Elf" is a lot different than an actual fleshed-out concept building on what they've been given.
[
Instead of giving a packet, why not offer a survey and build around what the people playing the game want. 



Because a lot of us are at an age where it's hard to get 5 people with the free time to show up once a week for gaming, getting them to fill out surveys and such would be like tryng to get a horse to climb a sheer wall (spiderclimb spell not withstanding). Not to mention that getting your players to agree on an ideal campaign setting is often like getting them to agree on pizza toppings.  And, as it's been mentioned before, if I'm the DM I'm doing all of the work for building the world, so if I'm going to do that work it needs to be an idea I'm invested in. If i'm playing in someone else's campaign I'm happy to let it be their world design.

And as a player I'm more interested in my character's personality than their race or class. Those are just the mechanical things I layer over who my character is. I prefer to play with players of the same ilk. So there generally isn't an issue with things I've banned or added to any of my settings.   
I have often wonder why players have never been given any offical rights other then simply leave and start up your own game, you would think a players fantasy roleplaying game they would have offical rights, But it seems that the only person who has any rights and power what so ever is the Dm...

I think it's because the base assumption of the game is that you're playing with a friendly group of people who all know and klike each other, and would rather accomadate one person than have that person leave the group.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
"Not to mention that getting your players to agree on an ideal campaign setting is often like getting them to agree on pizza toppings."

So true.
[
Instead of giving a packet, why not offer a survey and build around what the people playing the game want. 



Because a lot of us are at an age where it's hard to get 5 people with the free time to show up once a week for gaming, getting them to fill out surveys and such would be like tryng to get a horse to climb a sheer wall (spiderclimb spell not withstanding). Not to mention that getting your players to agree on an ideal campaign setting is often like getting them to agree on pizza toppings.  And, as it's been mentioned before, if I'm the DM I'm doing all of the work for building the world, so if I'm going to do that work it needs to be an idea I'm invested in. If i'm playing in someone else's campaign I'm happy to let it be their world design.

And as a player I'm more interested in my character's personality than their race or class. Those are just the mechanical things I layer over who my character is. I prefer to play with players of the same ilk. So there generally isn't an issue with things I've banned or added to any of my settings.   



I generally use the first play session with a group to see what they want out of the campaign, either through a survey or through a conversation.  We discuss things like tone, types of stories, episodic vs serial events, preferences for races and classes.  As we talk about it, generally an idea or concept will begin to swirl.  From there, character races and classes are selected, and the beginnings of the world take place.   If no one takes a certain race or class or concept, we may agree to write that out of the campaign to help define it.  (For example if no one plays a cleric or paladin (or avenger or invoker in 4th) perhaps there is no active religion or religion exists only as a background without any real potence.  

Once no one picked a human character and our world became more fey inspired and there were no humans present.  I've had campaigns without spell casting, with only martial characters.  But it was always a discussion with buy in from the people playing.  

A world that fits what the people playing makes people who want to play.  I have more fun engaging them and getting them to realize their vision than coming up with a specific setting in advance. 

I generally use the first play session with a group to see what they want out of the campaign, either through a survey or through a conversation. 
 



For my groups this would feel like a wasted session. As I mentioned. It's hard for us to get together as often as we'd like. A few hours twice a month is a good month. Even half a night dedicated to character creation is a painful loss. We generally role stats for our next characters at the end of a session for another campaign. (hopefully a few weeks before it draws to a close) Character creation tends to take place on one's own time, and world building is happening by anyone playing who happens to be a DM on thier own time. That way when one campaign ends the next is ready to go. No wasted sessions. 


A world that fits what the people playing makes people who want to play.  I have more fun engaging them and getting them to realize their vision than coming up with a specific setting in advance. 



I haven't found that in my players. (Or myself as a player) The less involved the player is in the world creation, the more invested they are in their character, as it's the only piece of the world they control directly. 



I give respect to the position.   I wouldn't last long in a campaign where the DM did his prep work just before the session started.   The game just wouldn't have the depth and flavor I like.

 

Yeah, I guarantee you that you'd not know the difference in my campaign.


You guarantee eh.  Well who knows maybe you'd be the first ever.   I can spot a shallow campaign a mile away though so I wouldn't bet much on that possibility.


Of course, you'd also probably assume a lack of roleplaying and some other preposterous crap just because it's being played in 4e.



No.  I wouldn't even show up as soon as you announced it was 4e.   I also don't hit myself in the head with a hammer either.




Your disdain for other people's way of doing things makes a liar of you for every time you've decried such behavior in others.

Oh note on how offbase you are: My campaigns are about as far from shallow as you can get without writing LoTR and giving the player's a script. I've made people cry.

I'm just capable of doing it in a short enough span of time that I can discuss with my players a series of ideas, and feel out what the group will have the most fun playing.

And my campaigns are better for doing so.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Gunthar, why are your hypothetical players not trying to fit into the campaign setting?

If someone presents them with a broad list of options, why is their first impulse "I want to play something the DM doesn't want."? Does that happen a lot in your games? Are they really THAT contrary?

I can count on Frodos left hand the number of times that's happened in over 30 years of DMing and still have a finger left over.



Yeah. I wonder the same thing whenever PCs want to make something that isn't allowed. That's generally a sign right in the beginning of a problem PC if they don't understand that sometimes the DM is going to say "No" and they won't always get what they want.

Most of what I was going to say was covered by various posters talking about how immature it is for DM to ban something they don't like, so I only have three things to add:

1) To clarify my hate of gnomes: I hate the very core of them. They are either short elves or even shorter dwarves and not nearly unique enough in presentation in any version of D&D that exists so far (though they get closer to "worth the word count" with every re-write) to even count as a separate option - halflings used to have this same problem, but they grew out of it much faster.

2) Allergy comparison: I know how images in my mind of someone sitting at a table getting ready to game and then realizing that their eyes are watering, their skin itches, and they can't stop sneezing and they don't know why.

All because someone at the table happens to have the the race they don't like written on their character sheet.

Now, I understand that there are certain role-play elements attached to tieflings (more so than there are to gnomes) that can clue a person in to a character in their party being a tiefling (especially when they got ugly in 4e) - but if someone is just playing a normal character in a normal fashion, and not in an exagerated "oooh, I an angsty devil-man, look at how devil-y I act," type of fashion... how can it possibly affect you?

3) On the topic of banning something for campaign concerns: There are, in my mind, two types of campaign settings - the ones you buy, and the ones you make.

When I run a bought campaign setting, I adhere to that setting - so for example there are no gnomes in Darksun because the campaign setting explains that there are not, and there are many breeds of elf in the Forgotten Realms because the campaign setting say that there are.

When I run a setting that is home-made, I make that setting fit what the group of players that will be playing through it want - I make the setting with my players and for my players, rather than crafting it on my own and insisting they find a place within it.

As such, more often than not there are gnomes of some kind somewhere in the world but they are so rarely found out amongst the other races of the world that they get confused for odd-looking halfings by just about everyone and everything - because while I hate the very existence of gnomes, I have players that occasionally like to play gnomes.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Gunthar, why are your hypothetical players not trying to fit into the campaign setting?

If someone presents them with a broad list of options, why is their first impulse "I want to play something the DM doesn't want."? Does that happen a lot in your games? Are they really THAT contrary?

I can count on Frodos left hand the number of times that's happened in over 30 years of DMing and still have a finger left over.



Yeah. I wonder the same thing whenever PCs want to make something that isn't allowed. That's generally a sign right in the beginning of a problem PC if they don't understand that sometimes the DM is going to say "No" and they won't always get what they want.


I think an assumption that the DM sits and reads off his list of allowed options before any player even has the chance to have a character idea is being made.

From my experience, players tend to have a few ideas (at least one) floating around in their head that they want to play at their next opportunity, and it is those ideas that fly out of the player's mouth when a DM says to them "I'm going to be starting a new campaign, you want in on it?"

It's not (usually, anyway) a player intentionally picking out something that the DM has already told them is not an option, but the player already having a character in mind and hoping to be able to play it... and then being shot down because the DM decided what were and were not valid options for the campaign before finding people intersted in playing together and figuring out what they wanted to do.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

 
When I run a setting that is home-made, I make that setting fit what the group of players that will be playing through it want - I make the setting with my players and for my players, rather than crafting it on my own and insisting they find a place within it. 


I have made my setting variously flexible ... fantasy has so many reasons for unique heros.. ranging from dimension travel... to mad wizards creations. I reallly dont entirely get the idea of being my way or the highway about it. Far too easy to expand my game world in areas that havent really been explored.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

A DM ought to look at special requests as an opportunity to create buy in from his players.  A player ought to make requests in a way that reinforce the tone and timbre of the campaign world they are choosing to play in.  Neither side has a right to be disruptive.

Well sure, if you want to be all reasonable and mature about it. But then what will we bicker about?



We could try bickering about who is more reasonable and mature?

After all, in the words of Wierd Al, 'I am a million times more humble then thou art' 

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Banning something simply for not liking it is one of the surest signs of an immature DM. Such an imposition of one's personal preferences on others purely because one is in a position of apparent power goes hand-in-hand with tyranny. It's like having a party and tell your guests that they're not allowed to bring any soda because you hate soda. If you're really going to claim that you hate soda so much that even having it around you will cause you not to enjoy the party, even if you yourself are not in any way forced to drink it, then you have some serious psychological issues that need to be dealt with professionally.

What I think is worse, though, are the DMs that are dishonest about it. Because they know that simply not liking something is a stupid reason to ban it, they'll fall back on it not fitting the campaign, which is absolute B.S. I'd say somewhere around 95% of the time. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of scenarios where a concept isn't exactly going to fit well with the world. A normal Cleric or Paladin is going to undermine a huge part of the core concept of a Dark Sun game, if that core concept is something that it would be important to maintain. However, "I just never specifically mention Gnomes anywhere because I don't like them" isn't a core concept of the campaign setting. It's just somebody trying to mask what they know is urnreasonable with something that could be mistaken for reasonable. If you're going to fall back on the "It doesn't fit the world" excuse, at least put some work into it to make it not totally transparent that that's code for "I just don't like it".

Player: I think I wanna play a Gnome.
DM: Gnomes don't exist in this world.
Player: Really? Why not?
DM: They just don't exist. It's just a property of the campaign setting.
Player: Are we going to be investigating what killed off all of the Gnomes or something?
DM: No, they just never existed.
Player: And there's no room for them anywhere in the depths of some forgotten forest or mountain?
DM: Nope. Again, part of the world.
Player: But you control the world.
DM: Right.
Player: So is there an actual reason you decided there were no Gnomes in the world?
DM: To be honest, I just don't really like them.
Player: So the real reason I can't play a Gnome isn't smiply because they don't exist in the world but rather because you dislike them and decided that that was good enough reason for them not to exist in the world?
DM: I guess essentially.
Player: But you clearly realize there's something wrong with that or else you would have just told me that from the beginning. 
DM: I... guess?
Player: Great, so now that we've established that there's no good reason for Gnomes not to exist in the world, may I play one?
DM: I'd rather you not.
Player: That's not what I asked.
DM: No, you can't play a Gnome.
Player: Okay, I'm going to sit this campaign out.
DM: Wow, you'll really not play with us just because you can't play a Gnome?
Player: No, I won't play with you because that's just an indicator for way worse problems that I'm not going to deal with.
DM: I really wanted you to play with us, though. I need players.
Player: Don't worry. I'm sure there are plenty of rubes out there that will fall for your transparent B.S.

I mean, come on. Yes, limitations can add flavor, but the kinds of limitations that add flavor are the ones that have actual reasons behind them. Totally arbitrary limitations don't do that. "Werewolves don't exist because I don't like them" doesn't add flavor. "Werewolves don't exist anymore because the planet's only moon was destroyed in the Stellar War of K.T. 1506" adds flavor.



Personally I would probably do it this way (if I decided that I did not actually want Gnomes that is)

Player: I think I wanna play a Gnome.
DM: Gnomes don't exist in this world.
Player: Really? Why not?
DM: You will be able to find out as we play.
Player: Are we going to be investigating what killed off all of the Gnomes or something?
DM: Maybe.
Player: And there's no room for them anywhere in the depths of some forgotten forest or mountain?
DM: There could be. Wont it be exciting to find out what happened?
Player: But you control the world.
DM: Right.
Player: So is there an actual reason you decided there were no Gnomes in the world?
DM: Yes, but that would spoil the story.

Next week Player has forgotten totally about Gnomes.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
 
After all, in the words of Wierd Al, 'I am a million times more humble then thou art' 


Stormbringers admission to Elric .... but the statement was about an even less savory aspect.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
After all, in the words of Wierd Al, 'I am a million times more humble then thou art' 


Stormbringers admission to Elric .... but the statement was about an even less savory aspect.



I should probably getaround to reading those books atsome stage.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
What AaronOfBarbaria mentions in his most recent post is my experience as well.

I know what it's like to have a character in mind, weeks, even months ahead of time (before a game ever starts).  I think most of us recognize this.  Being shot down sucks.  

In earlier editions, paladins were a favorite class.  I honestly enjoyed being able to play a stand-up good guy.  I'd almost always get push back from the DMs, sometimes even outright no way.  What?  They don't even know me ;).

That's just it though.  I'd literally have to swear not to be a holier than thou ass-hat.  And seriously, I never had any intention.  I've never saw paladins that way.  In my mind, they're a lot like the warlord of 4e.  The glorified cheerleaders, the kind to take one for the team.  
I really believe the potential issues scared 'em though.  No one else got that kinda reaction, only me (if I wanted a paly).  Once they got to know me as a player of course, they loosened up; at first though, I was always on thin ice ;).

I think that's what it boils down to:  Until the players get to know each other, it's best to talk things out as far ahead as possible.  Otherwise the DM is likely to assume you're just trying to rock the boat.
/\ Art
Banning something simply for not liking it is one of the surest signs of an immature DM. Such an imposition of one's personal preferences on others purely because one is in a position of apparent power goes hand-in-hand with tyranny. It's like having a party and tell your guests that they're not allowed to bring any soda because you hate soda. If you're really going to claim that you hate soda so much that even having it around you will cause you not to enjoy the party, even if you yourself are not in any way forced to drink it, then you have some serious psychological issues that need to be dealt with professionally.

What I think is worse, though, are the DMs that are dishonest about it. Because they know that simply not liking something is a stupid reason to ban it, they'll fall back on it not fitting the campaign, which is absolute B.S. I'd say somewhere around 95% of the time. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of scenarios where a concept isn't exactly going to fit well with the world. A normal Cleric or Paladin is going to undermine a huge part of the core concept of a Dark Sun game, if that core concept is something that it would be important to maintain. However, "I just never specifically mention Gnomes anywhere because I don't like them" isn't a core concept of the campaign setting. It's just somebody trying to mask what they know is urnreasonable with something that could be mistaken for reasonable. If you're going to fall back on the "It doesn't fit the world" excuse, at least put some work into it to make it not totally transparent that that's code for "I just don't like it".

Player: I think I wanna play a Gnome.
DM: Gnomes don't exist in this world.
Player: Really? Why not?
DM: They just don't exist. It's just a property of the campaign setting.
Player: Are we going to be investigating what killed off all of the Gnomes or something?
DM: No, they just never existed.
Player: And there's no room for them anywhere in the depths of some forgotten forest or mountain?
DM: Nope. Again, part of the world.
Player: But you control the world.
DM: Right.
Player: So is there an actual reason you decided there were no Gnomes in the world?
DM: To be honest, I just don't really like them.
Player: So the real reason I can't play a Gnome isn't smiply because they don't exist in the world but rather because you dislike them and decided that that was good enough reason for them not to exist in the world?
DM: I guess essentially.
Player: But you clearly realize there's something wrong with that or else you would have just told me that from the beginning. 
DM: I... guess?
Player: Great, so now that we've established that there's no good reason for Gnomes not to exist in the world, may I play one?
DM: I'd rather you not.
Player: That's not what I asked.
DM: No, you can't play a Gnome.
Player: Okay, I'm going to sit this campaign out.
DM: Wow, you'll really not play with us just because you can't play a Gnome?
Player: No, I won't play with you because that's just an indicator for way worse problems that I'm not going to deal with.
DM: I really wanted you to play with us, though. I need players.
Player: Don't worry. I'm sure there are plenty of rubes out there that will fall for your transparent B.S.

I mean, come on. Yes, limitations can add flavor, but the kinds of limitations that add flavor are the ones that have actual reasons behind them. Totally arbitrary limitations don't do that. "Werewolves don't exist because I don't like them" doesn't add flavor. "Werewolves don't exist anymore because the planet's only moon was destroyed in the Stellar War of K.T. 1506" adds flavor.



Personally I would probably do it this way (if I decided that I did not actually want Gnomes that is)

Player: I think I wanna play a Gnome.
DM: Gnomes don't exist in this world.
Player: Really? Why not?
DM: You will be able to find out as we play.
Player: Are we going to be investigating what killed off all of the Gnomes or something?
DM: Maybe.
Player: And there's no room for them anywhere in the depths of some forgotten forest or mountain?
DM: There could be. Wont it be exciting to find out what happened?
Player: But you control the world.
DM: Right.
Player: So is there an actual reason you decided there were no Gnomes in the world?
DM: Yes, but that would spoil the story.

Next week Player has forgotten totally about Gnomes.


Usually in my groups, the conversation rarely goes past...

Player-I want to play x.
DM-Well, in this setting, x doesn't exist/wouldn't make sense because y.
Player-Ok, then I want to play z.

Or alternatively...

Player-I want to play x.
DM-Well, x as-is don't exist in this setting, but if you can reflavor it or explain how it would work within the setting, go for it.
I think the DM needs the be inspired or the game will certainly be boring.  Players being inspired really helps a lot but lesser enthusiasm can still work.   I'm assuming outright antipathy won't happen because the player won't play in that case.  

The very best game in my opinion is one where the DM presents a campaign concept that inspires him and the group builds on that concept and runs with it.   That is the ultimate in fun. 
Player: I think I wanna play a Gnome.
DM: Gnomes don't exist in this world.
Player: Really? Why not?
DM: They just don't exist. It's just a property of the campaign setting.
Player: Are we going to be investigating what killed off all of the Gnomes or something?
DM: No, they just never existed.
Player: And there's no room for them anywhere in the depths of some forgotten forest or mountain?
DM: Nope. Again, part of the world.
Player: But you control the world.
DM: Right.
Player: So is there an actual reason you decided there were no Gnomes in the world?
DM: To be honest, I just don't really like them.
Player: So the real reason I can't play a Gnome isn't smiply because they don't exist in the world but rather because you dislike them and decided that that was good enough reason for them not to exist in the world?
DM: I guess essentially.
Player: But you clearly realize there's something wrong with that or else you would have just told me that from the beginning. 
DM: I... guess?
Player: Great, so now that we've established that there's no good reason for Gnomes not to exist in the world, may I play one?
DM: I'd rather you not.
Player: That's not what I asked.
DM: No, you can't play a Gnome.
Player: Okay, I'm going to sit this campaign out.
DM: Wow, you'll really not play with us just because you can't play a Gnome?
Player: No, I won't play with you because that's just an indicator for way worse problems that I'm not going to deal with.
DM: I really wanted you to play with us, though. I need players.
Player: Don't worry. I'm sure there are plenty of rubes out there that will fall for your transparent B.S.



I have no need for players like this.  After about the third question, they would be welcome to uninvite themselves.  It's not like I don't have a waiting list as it is.

Deconstructivists.  Not even once.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."