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...

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.



True.  This conversation, as presented, just paints the player as a petulant, whiney d-bag. I haven't met any player like that out here in the real world, but I assume they exist?

True.  This conversation, as presented, just paints the player as a petulant, whiney d-bag. I haven't met any player like that out here in the real world, but I assume they exist?



To be fair, I've never met anyone like that either.  I knew one guy who asked me one time if I would let him plead his case in private over a class I had banned in a major oWoD crossover game.  I said sure (because I'm really a nice person!) and he did, and I ended up letting him play it.  I hadn't read the book his race was contained in, so I said he'd have to lend me his book for a few days and anything I felt was unbalanced was out.  He took the time to point out one thing -he- felt was way out of whack.

I ended up letting him play it.  It didn't take long to work in the campaign, and he had a lot of fun being the odd man out in a 'party' comprised of kindred, garou, and mages.  If he tried to argue like the quote, I'd have said no just on principle.

Honey attracts more flies than vinegar and all that.

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

The key thing to ask is why the DM doesn't like the race in his world, because usually there's a good reason.

No, usually there's no good reason at all and it's actually because the DM just doesn't like it. I'm actually pretty impressed the one out of twenty times when that's not the case, but it usually is.

And why is it so important to the PC to make some oddball race? Why make something that isn't going to fit in the campaign world? What purpose is it trying to achieve?

Playing a character that I like and think is cool. Not to mention that, as I said before, it's more that that's an indicator for other problems.

More often than not, it's simply a powergamer trying to get a few extra bonuses.

Bull. Absolute bull.

Aesthetic preferences are a perfectly valid reason for a DM to ban or include something in their campaign.

Sure, but considering one's aesthetic preferences without consideration for those of the players isn't exactly good DMing.

The ownership of the campaign world is the DMs.

If the DM wants the setting all to themselves, then they can write a novel. As soon as they share that setting with the players, it is shared with the players and no longer under the sole ownership of the DM.

They don't owe me any more explanation than "That's not in my game.".

I think it's an absolute tragedy that so many players have been taught to believe that they are not owed more than that.

Conversely if a player can't find something he likes amidst all the possible options, then that player may be dealing with psychological issues themselves.

It's not about that at all. That's just dodging the question.

Player: No, I won't play with you because if you will not let me get my way here, then when it comes to you making a judgment call later down the line you might make one I don't like.  That will destroy my fun because I can't always get what I want.

Wow, really? That's how you interpret that? That's ridiculous. It's not about the player always getting their way. It's about the player being comfortable in knowing that their opinions and enjoyment are actually being considered, they they can also be a driving force in the campaign rather than just being along for the ride, that the DM won't freak out if the player does something unexpected or not exactly as the DM had planned. It's a question of the DM's maturity, and a DM that bans something only because they do not like it and with no consideration for the players' opinions is not a mature DM.

I have no need for players like this.

If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

This conversation, as presented, just paints the player as a petulant, whiney d-bag.

Yes, how dare we question the almighty DM.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I have no need for players like this.

If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.



Like far too many, you consider being a d-bag to be 'bringing the heat'.  Its not.  Its simply being a d-bag. 

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

Like far too many, you consider being a d-bag to be 'bringing the heat'. Its not. Its simply being a d-bag.

Just for clarification, you think that daring to question the DM makes one a douchebag, correct?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Like far too many, you consider being a d-bag to be 'bringing the heat'. Its not. Its simply being a d-bag.

Just for clarification, you think that daring to question the DM makes one a douchebag, correct?



Aww, how cute.  He wants to play a semantics game about his lack of tact.  Isn't that adorable?!

I find it amazing how -little- sociologists actually know about, you know, socializing outside of those who lap up every word that proceeds from the Tower of Critical Theory.

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

Okay I haven't read all of the conversation and am just kind of jumping in but... What sort of DM would want to get in the way of their players having fun like that for no good reason? Having a setting all to yourself doesn't mean anything if the player doesn't even like it because you're stopping them from having fun. Settings that allow for player input are more inclusive and interesting anyways because the world is more mutable and alive.
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA
Aww, how cute. He wants to play a semantics game about his lack of tact. Isn't that adorable?!

Ooh, looks like somebody took the Dodge feat. I hope that was just a prerequisite for something, though, because it's really not very effective.

I find it amazing how -little- sociologists actually know about, you know, socializing outside of those who lap up every word that proceeds from the Tower of Critical Theory.

Sounds like you know very little about sociology.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!


Aww, how cute.  He wants to play a semantics game about his lack of tact.  Isn't that adorable?!




Also, you. Why are you choosing to talk like such an immature child? You sound pretty smart, so I'm sure you could also talk maturely if you choose to instead of like... that. 

Let's keep it classy. 
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA
I disagree.

I believe DM's offer a campaign.  They provide the ground rules for that campaign.   Players opt-in or opt-out.    

No set of rules would ever make me as DM do something I was against.   Rule 0 will always exist regardless of what the rules say.   Why?  Because DM's are rare and good DM's are extraordinarily rare.   I think I'm a good DM and I base that upon the popularity of my campaign.   But it is my campaign.   I do try to make it a fun experience for the players.   Thats my whole point.   But I do make the final decisions on what optional rules are used and what is allowed or not allowed in the game.

The DM is putting in a ton of effort relative to the players.  That effort is a labor of love for many DM's. It is for me.   But no way would I do all that and then change the campaign to something I totally hated.   I would not be inspired at that point and I wouldn't enjoy putting forth the effort.   Thus it would no longer be a labor of love but work.   And I'm not some slave that works for free.   

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 where i stand too. I always make my worlds, and my campaigns, with my players in mind. I try to weave in things that will hook my players personal tastes, i try to tell stories I want to tell and I think they will want to be involved in. BUT, it is my world and i'm putting in alot of work to build it, if any player decides they just want to **** on it and complain then they can find a new game, if they don't like how I DM then they don't have to let me DM for them. Of course I understand that if I act as a bad DM then people will walk, but i'm not a bad DM, my players think i'm quite good as far as that goes, and though they sometimes disagree with me I explain myself and they will deal.


But, no matter what your opinion, it comes down to one crucial thing;


Know your players      
Instead, my place in this was commenting about a situation where a DM said that a race wasn't available and another player began to argue with the DM, attempting to 'prove' that he should be allowed to play the race for whatever reason.

And what's wrong with that? When two people of equal status want mutually exclusive things, the proper way to handle that is by discussion and negotiation, not by one pulling some power trip.

I wrote of an example where a race I had considered disallowing, I had allowed after a good conversation with the player -- something that clearly goes against the presumed 'unquestionable DM' lie that is being perpetrated by...some.

If that story's true, then it's great, but it's just not what's being talked about, And it's not what's being talked about because there's no problem with it, so there's nothing to talk about. It's the situations where there is a problem that are being talked about, because those are the situations where there is a problem.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
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.




But why?


What is there to hate about them that isn't also to hate about halflings.

I'll never get how people have an issue with gnomes, but not halflings. If one had to go from DnD forever, I'd choose the halfling every time. I'd rather neither go, cuz I like them, and I like that there are races that aren't strictly necessary in order to fill a niche. Having two tricksy small races works, for me. But given a strict choice, IMO gnomes have to win.
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


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.




Also how I do it. I also never ban something just because I don't like it, because I'm not so bat crap crazy that I can't enjoy a game that has a few elements I'm not into. :P

But if one of my various DMs (my groups are currently about half DMs, half people who've never done it) tried to ban something simply out of dislike, even though one of his or her players really liked it, very few people in any of those groups would stand for it.
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
The sure fire way to make a player to want to play a race is to ban it.  They may have shown no interest in playing a gnome before, but once they find out it isn't allowed they suddenly want to play one.

In my games I have a list of preferred races that I present.  Players are encouraged to add to it.  The main reasons a race might not make the list to begin with is two fold:  It either doesn't fit, or I haven't heard of it before.  Still, I usually let them play the "excluded" races anyway.

I just ask that my players, should they insist on playing one not included in the current campaign, to assist me with making the race fit by providing help with lore, history, mannerisms, etc.  That way, the race fits in better and the player helps to make the world.

Heck, I ask players for their contributions on races and such that are already allowed, for it gives them more involvement and immersion while doing the same for me and we both get a better game for it (usually).
I sort of do the same thing.

Of course, I build worlds by telling one of my groups as soon as I have a vague idea for a campaign, and have a series of conversations with my RPG friends about it until it becomes something solid and alive.

The players are vastly more invested in these worlds than anything any of us has experienced in games where we come to a world that has already been fully fleshed out by the DM before the group was formed. Their backstories are rich without any push from me to make them so, they are emotionally attached to cultures, religions and ideologies in the world, etc. It's quite a sight.
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
Not only does it make things more fun for the players it has another extra benefit:  It makes DMing a lot easier too.  And as I get older, I am finding I need all the help I can get.

It should be noted that some players don't embrace this style.  That's OK too.  For them, I simply world build the standard way.  That said, most players, when they see their table mates getting in on the fun, start getting creative in their own ways as well.

This is also an excellent way to help create future DMs.
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.




But why?


What is there to hate about them that isn't also to hate about halflings.

I'll never get how people have an issue with gnomes, but not halflings. If one had to go from DnD forever, I'd choose the halfling every time. I'd rather neither go, cuz I like them, and I like that there are races that aren't strictly necessary in order to fill a niche. Having two tricksy small races works, for me. But given a strict choice, IMO gnomes have to win.


You ask why after I have already explained, albeit in broad strokes, and said that I used to have the very same issue with halflings but that halfings grew into something I tolerate faster than gnomes have.

I can completely go into full detail if you would like, but we should probably take that to PM or to a separate thread at the very least.

...as for races that aren't strictly necessary in order to fill a niche - I don't like options for the sake of options and the clutter it puts into things.

To that end, I also dislike classes that are too similar - such as in some games they have one specific completely separate class that takes up 3 pages for each different weapon type, even though that means that they have "warrior that uses a bow," "warrior that uses a one-handed weapon and shield," "warrior that fences," and "warrior that wields a great big weapon."

I am a simple sort of guy - I can give an AD&D fighter hide armor, a spear and an axe and call him a Barbarian, or give him chainmail and a scimitar and call him a Saracen, and even put him in plate armor with sword and shield and call him a Knight and be perfectly happy... and that simple sort of variance by description, rather than by something that occupies pages of rules text, is the type of variance that I am least curmudgeonly about.

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.

Let's keep it classy. 


That's not gonna happen around here Wink
This is why most of my characters are humans. 
I have yet to meet a DM that ban humans.  

Aesthetic preferences are a perfectly valid reason for a DM to ban or include something in their campaign.



Only if said DM is an immature jerk. Dark Sun actually sets up reasons why things do and don't exist. It's part of the flavor. Maybe there was a race-cleansing war where the Goblinkind were united under some ultra-powerful leader who was bent on eradicatiing the Halfling race (back story needed). The attack was launched with great precision and timing across the land and by the time the goodly races could rally the Halflings were doomed. In return the goodly races united in war against all Goblinkind with a vengeance and with the aid of even formerly neutral powers eradicated all Goblinkind in retribution.
Etc., etc.

Plausibility issues aside, it's at least building reason in to the game rather than the arbitrary 'cause I don't like it and I'm the DM'. There was cause & effect and not just arbitrary ommissions. 



The omission may not be arbitrary.  The base assumption is that all races published are allowed.  If I am making a world, based on Northern Europe, I may not include any races not found in classic Germanic mythology.  I do not need a hostory for them NOT being there, they are not there because they do not fit my vision of the campaign world.

Even if I want to construct a world that does not include a race, there is nothing wrong with that.  Why can't I play a dhampir?  DM:  Dhampirs don't exist.  They never have.  That is perfectly valid, and you do not need to be jerk.  Simply say the world I constructed does not include them.

A player INSISTING on playing a race that you have not constructed in a campaign world is AS MUCH a jerk as the DM not allowing a race IF one is going to assume that eliminating a race is being a jerk.

Here are 9 choices for races to play.  The player insists on playing #10.  How is the player any LESS a jerk than the DM.

if this is the case, that I have to risk being a jerk to pick and choose the races I want in my campaign, then you better beleive I am going to fight tooth and nail not to have anything but the tolkein races in D&D.  WHY?  As of now I do not care WHAT races are in the Players Handbook.  If the self righteous judgement call of a DM being a jerk because a player can't play his pet race is being developed, THEN I have reason not to want those races in the Player's Handbook.

The people that make the claim for the non classic races say rightfully so:  "you don't have to include the races in YOUR game but they are there for OURS."  Fine I am good with that, and it makes perfect sense.

But the reality is "If you don't like the race in the Players Handbook, since it is in the players handbook you should still allow a player to use it.  If you don't you are just being an arrogant jerk."

Now there is my motivation to prevent any races other than Tolkein races.  I am OK with YOU getting whatever race you want in the Player's Handbook, as long as you are OK with me saying NO to the race in MY campaign simply because I do not want it in my campaign.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!

Conversely if a player can't find something he likes amidst all the possible options, then that player may be dealing with psychological issues themselves.

If a player is going to not play in my campaign because he cannot play the race he wants, the campaign may be better off without that player. 



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?  



One does not follow the other.  I am interested to hear just what kind of fallacy this is.  This should be good.

"I would say that is a cool concept.  WOW look here is a race for which that would be perfect!"

I will work with the concept and make it fit one of the races I have in the game world.  It has worked EVERY time.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!


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 am an authoritative DM, but if I was faced with a decision I made being opposed by ALL of my players I would do two things:

1)  Find a valid reason I am correct through rules, logic, or interaction and convince a majority iof them I was right.

2) if that failed:  Ask the group what they think the problem is, and try to reach a compromise.

DM authority is an important part of a game, but it is no good when a poor decision upsets the entire group.

The third alternative is the ;

3)  Trust me guys this sucks now but I am setting up for something.  You have to deal with this now, or the cool thing I had planned for later is not going to occur or be far less cool.

MOST of the time I get the green light with that one, and I only present it when I am honest about it.

Groups discuss games.  There are plenty of times I have run a game with the group being satisfied but later find out that one player disliked something.

Discussion 99% of the time solves an individual problem.  As a DM it is important to discover what upset your players so you can ammend in the future.

I am an authoritative yet very pro player DM. 



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
*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.



It is a fact that the Powermongering Munchkin Player that will only play the race he wants is a rarity.

Generally the game is better off without them.

It is a fact that an individual decision point does not make a DM either tyrannical or Immature.  In order to fit that category there must be a trend.  Games are generally better without Immature Tyrannical DM's. 


CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
 
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 never connected this!  Good job!

I wonder if Weird Al really was giving props to Michael Moorcock.

Anyway it is cool.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
If DMs were readily as available as players, then we would not have this discussion, as the players rights would trumph the DM. But supply and demand makes the DM more important, so it is easier to fall into the trap that the DM does not have to consider players rights, and players will put up with it because there is no other choice. But a good DM worth their salt, will at least present what choices are available when someone starts the game. A bad DM is one that is arbitrary when allowing one choice and squashing another based on personal preference, versus trying to be neutral in reference to what is permitted. The best compromise is to have table charter on expected behavior and permitted rules, class, race, etc.

But if one of my various DMs (my groups are currently about half DMs, half people who've never done it) tried to ban something simply out of dislike, even though one of his or her players really liked it, very few people in any of those groups would stand for it.



Just another reason I don't game with people like you.   I'm not your slave.  

In my area, no one even considers arguing with the DM about his campaign world.  If you hate the idea you just don't play in that game.   There are other games.   If you like it you do.  

If a player is more focused on some character concept than he is on the world, that is a very big clue that this person will have more fun in a different campaign.   I will forward that person onto you doctor.   As players most of us figure the DM is highly committed and putting in a lot of work.  If he has an interesting idea we as players can get into it.  

And let me say.  Even given that approach to gaming, I have a very hard time being a player because everyone wants me to be a DM.  Part of that might be the fact I don't let these disruptive self focused players in my games.   That likely enriches the experience for those who do play.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

The simple answer is more people prefer to be players versus DM, and thus are willing to put up with a DMs habits as a result for better or for worse.


Conversely if a player can't find something he likes amidst all the possible options, then that player may be dealing with psychological issues themselves.

It's not about that at all. That's just dodging the question.



Incorrect.  A player insisting on playing the one race not allowed is just as bad as the immature DM.

Player: No, I won't play with you because if you will not let me get my way here, then when it comes to you making a judgment call later down the line you might make one I don't like.  That will destroy my fun because I can't always get what I want.

Wow, really? That's how you interpret that? That's ridiculous. It's not about the player always getting their way. It's about the player being comfortable in knowing that their opinions and enjoyment are actually being considered, they they can also be a driving force in the campaign rather than just being along for the ride, that the DM won't freak out if the player does something unexpected or not exactly as the DM had planned. It's a question of the DM's maturity, and a DM that bans something only because they do not like it and with no consideration for the players' opinions is not a mature DM.



Actually there are MANY interpretations to the original line you wrote.  That is one of many likely interpretations.  That player would presume much by drawing that judgement on one decision point. 
It would go like this:  "I love your concept!  It would work great with THIS race that I am allowing."


I have no need for players like this.

If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.



It is not about not being able to take the heat.  Like I said, it would be simple.  "sorry you don't like the campaign, I guess Tim will have to take your place..."  Who exactly can't take the hear here?

This conversation, as presented, just paints the player as a petulant, whiney d-bag.

Yes, how dare we question the almighty DM.



It is not about questioning the DM.  The player questioned the DM, the DM did not let him play a race, and he walked...

That would in most groups eyes be a whiney player.

The player searched for no compromise and instead tried to point out that one decision point made by the DM proves he is a poor DM.  Most groups would be much better off without the whiney player.





CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Instead, my place in this was commenting about a situation where a DM said that a race wasn't available and another player began to argue with the DM, attempting to 'prove' that he should be allowed to play the race for whatever reason.

And what's wrong with that? When two people of equal status want mutually exclusive things, the proper way to handle that is by discussion and negotiation, not by one pulling some power trip.



One can interpret this as a player being on a power trip as well.  Perhaps it is a wacky control issue the player has.  The idea is that the player walked after being told he could not play a race.  That in itself is a power trip.





CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
The simple answer is more people prefer to be players versus DM, and thus are willing to put up with a DMs habits as a result for better or for worse.



In some cases no doubt.  But I think it's also a reasonable position.  As a player, I show up once a week to play in a game for a few hours.   Otherwise, I am not committed a lot beyond that point.   The DM will like spend two to three times the time he spends in the game preparing for it.   As a player I value that preparation.   Thus I give the DM a lot of slack on his ideas.   I expect the same as a DM.  But as a player if an idea just left me cold, I of course am not obligated to play.  I'm not offending the DM by not liking one of his ideas.   Maybe I'll like the next one.

I do though find that people who develop a character independent of any campaign setting are personality types that often are disruptive and argumentative.  I just don't need that.   This is supposed to be fun and enjoyable.  I'm the same way about rules lawyers.   I don't tolerate them for even one second.   Bring it up after the game session is over.  Bring it up during the session and that doesn't work.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

The simple answer is more people prefer to be players versus DM, and thus are willing to put up with a DMs habits as a result for better or for worse.



In some cases no doubt.  But I think it's also a reasonable position.  As a player, I show up once a week to play in a game for a few hours.   Otherwise, I am not committed a lot beyond that point.   The DM will like spend two to three times the time he spends in the game preparing for it.   As a player I value that preparation.   Thus I give the DM a lot of slack on his ideas.   I expect the same as a DM.  But as a player if an idea just left me cold, I of course am not obligated to play.  I'm not offending the DM by not liking one of his ideas.   Maybe I'll like the next one.

I do though find that people who develop a character independent of any campaign setting are personality types that often are disruptive and argumentative.  I just don't need that.   This is supposed to be fun and enjoyable.  I'm the same way about rules lawyers.   I don't tolerate them for even one second.   Bring it up after the game session is over.  Bring it up during the session and that doesn't work.
 



I never want to screw over a player because I mishandled rules.  Then I have to make all kinds of cheesy fixes.  I would rather the rule I was missing be brought up during the game.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I am not sure if this has been discussed already, but another type of player rights is a player that wants to limit other player options at the table based on their own viewpoints of the game. And most the time this comes from a DM that participates as a player. I have been guilty of wanting for force my preferences at a table, just because I DM more than I play. I am getting better at remaining neutral, but some habits die hard.
I have always played D&D with my friends, and I think as a result the DM (whether me or someone else) has always taken player interests into account.

Here is a perfect example.  One of my friends loves divine characters, especially clerics.  So when I was going to run a Dark Sun campaign, I gave him the option of making a divine character if he desired.  He did, so we worked together to find a way to work it into the world.  We settled on this: his character, an archeologist, discoverd an ancient relic that had an unknown symbol on it.  He naturally was very intrigued, and spent years studying it.  His research began to point more and more toward the fact that the relic dated to the time of the Dawn War, if not earlier, and might even relate to the so called "gods" (they are considered to be nothing more than myth and legend).  One night he had a powerfully vivid dream, in which he saw several of the primordials fighting against unknown beings.  One of them had the same symbol engraved on her armor as was on the relic.  The fight raged on for what seemed like hours, even days, but it was clear that the primordials were winning.  For some reason, this filled his character with a sense of regret and sorrow.  Finally, only the mysterious woman was left.  As the primordials closed in for the killing strike, she turned to face his character.  Right before the final blow struck, she smiled and winked, and he awoke.  That day, he discovered that he had new powers (those of a cleric), and a sense of purpose: he had to find out who those individuals were, find out if they were still alive, and find a way to save them or bring them back.

It turned into a very cool idea that drove the main plot of the campaign.  Without entertaining the idea of allowing something outside the normal parameters of the campaign, I would never have gone with such a plot, and that would have been a shame.

My players only get a single character, and so I want it to be something they really like.  Especially for people who have never played before (I am about to start a new game with a bunch of friends who have never played any RPG).  Nothing crushes spirits for new players faster than saying, "Oh...you want to make a gnome monk?  Well, here is the thing...in my world there are no gnomes...or monks."
I have no need for players like this.

If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.



Like far too many, you consider being a d-bag to be 'bringing the heat'.  Its not.  Its simply being a d-bag. 



I cannot agree with this enough.

Look folks, this entire thread actually has a very simple resolution. It goes as such:

1. Are you playing with friends (as player or DM)? Yes? Why would you want to be a dick to your friends. Don't be a dick.

2. Are you playing with non-friends, at a convention or game at your FLGS? Yes? Why would you want to be a dick to them and have them think of you as "that guy" who ruins everything? Don't be a dick.

3. Are you playing with people new to the hobby? Yes? Why would you want to be a dick to them and turn them off from the hobby (and thus not growing the hobby)? Don't be a dick.

It's really that simple. Don't be a dick.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


In some cases no doubt.  But I think it's also a reasonable position.  As a player, I show up once a week to play in a game for a few hours.   Otherwise, I am not committed a lot beyond that point. 



That's rather sad actually. In games I play in I often think of ideas outside the game to bring to the table, either ideas for the DM or ideas on how to make my character fit the story better or ways to tie the characters together more cohesively at the table. I spend only marginally more time on the games I DM, though mostly I DM 4E so my off-time is spent almost strictly on story and when I DM my 1E/2E game it's usually using old mods as a foundation which I've run multiple times in the last 30+ years.

In the dozens of groups I've played with in that time only twice have I been involved with a DM who didn't appreciate input from players and those didn't last long. Both times it was the DM being a jerk. The couple of jerk players I've come across weren't much of a problem as the group reigned them in.

In my adult life I've lived in four completely separate metropilitan areas between college and work. I've found that being open and flexible is the easiest/best way to start/join a group in a new city. As much as I may or may not like something, banning it arbitrarily is the best way to crash a campaign before it ever gets going.  
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...


This thread seems to fit well in the section "What is a DM to do?" or "What is a player to do?". I guess it is too late to be moved?

A lot has been said about the rights, or lack thereof, of players to be able to pick character options that are not in the DM's concept of the campaign world. I gladly take any player's input on campaign content because it saves me a lot of time and gets the player invested.

But here is something else about the topic of "player's rights":
Is it the right of any player, and not the DM, to decide on the story that is being played? Or are players required to play the story the DM has prepared?
And what happens if the players decide not to follow the pre-conceived story of the DM and do something entirely different?

In my opinion, DM's should not prepare story, but only locations and NPCs. The players decide on what the story is about. And I would say that it is their right to do so. In the game I DM there is an extensive discussion about the genre and the general content of what everybody is interested in playing before the game starts. For example, the group decides that the game will not be about evil PCs and that it will be about undead who want to take over the world and the PCs will try to save it. But I do not prepare any story at all, just locations and NPCs according to that agreement. How do you handle this?
Missing from this conversation is that the DM is also a player.

Everyone at the table has rights and responsibilities. First responsibility is "don't be a dick and ruin anyone else's fun." This might be a DM's most important responsibility.

The DM is a player & often has more responsibilities than the others, but that doesn't confer "ownership" over the campaign.

Many passionate DMs have said that DMing is a labor of love. And that's true. But IMO it's better given unconditionally.

I don't prohibit even my most-hated class. The PCs will live or die on their own merits alone. Not because I impose narrative limitations.
The DM is a player & often has more responsibilities than the others, but that doesn't confer "ownership" over the campaign.



I believe that's a question of "style."

I have taken many paths through GMing a campaign, from creating everything myself (including characters), to free form, to Referee Rotation etc etc.  Sometimes that has been to create a specific effect, sometimes just to try something different.  Actually probably mostly just to try something different.  Anyway, I don't think any choice is wrong or right or better or worse.  Each will create a different style of game.  Try them all ;)

I have always played D&D with my friends, and I think as a result the DM (whether me or someone else) has always taken player interests into account.

Here is a perfect example.  One of my friends loves divine characters, especially clerics.  So when I was going to run a Dark Sun campaign, I gave him the option of making a divine character if he desired.  He did, so we worked together to find a way to work it into the world.  We settled on this: his character, an archeologist, discoverd an ancient relic that had an unknown symbol on it.  He naturally was very intrigued, and spent years studying it.  His research began to point more and more toward the fact that the relic dated to the time of the Dawn War, if not earlier, and might even relate to the so called "gods" (they are considered to be nothing more than myth and legend).  One night he had a powerfully vivid dream, in which he saw several of the primordials fighting against unknown beings.  One of them had the same symbol engraved on her armor as was on the relic.  The fight raged on for what seemed like hours, even days, but it was clear that the primordials were winning.  For some reason, this filled his character with a sense of regret and sorrow.  Finally, only the mysterious woman was left.  As the primordials closed in for the killing strike, she turned to face his character.  Right before the final blow struck, she smiled and winked, and he awoke.  That day, he discovered that he had new powers (those of a cleric), and a sense of purpose: he had to find out who those individuals were, find out if they were still alive, and find a way to save them or bring them back.

It turned into a very cool idea that drove the main plot of the campaign.  Without entertaining the idea of allowing something outside the normal parameters of the campaign, I would never have gone with such a plot, and that would have been a shame.

My players only get a single character, and so I want it to be something they really like.  Especially for people who have never played before (I am about to start a new game with a bunch of friends who have never played any RPG).  Nothing crushes spirits for new players faster than saying, "Oh...you want to make a gnome monk?  Well, here is the thing...in my world there are no gnomes...or monks."



This flexibility is really great. 
If I have to choose between MY PERFECT WURUDO or players actually enjoying the game, I'll take the latter every time. 
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA

In some cases no doubt.  But I think it's also a reasonable position.  As a player, I show up once a week to play in a game for a few hours.   Otherwise, I am not committed a lot beyond that point. 



That's rather sad actually. In games I play in I often think of ideas outside the game to bring to the table, either ideas for the DM or ideas on how to make my character fit the story better or ways to tie the characters together more cohesively at the table. I spend only marginally more time on the games I DM, though mostly I DM 4E so my off-time is spent almost strictly on story and when I DM my 1E/2E game it's usually using old mods as a foundation which I've run multiple times in the last 30+ years.

In the dozens of groups I've played with in that time only twice have I been involved with a DM who didn't appreciate input from players and those didn't last long. Both times it was the DM being a jerk. The couple of jerk players I've come across weren't much of a problem as the group reigned them in.

In my adult life I've lived in four completely separate metropilitan areas between college and work. I've found that being open and flexible is the easiest/best way to start/join a group in a new city. As much as I may or may not like something, banning it arbitrarily is the best way to crash a campaign before it ever gets going.  



I think being up front solves most issues.   I have real house rules that are about how we operate as people as well as it being about characters.   The no arguing at the table rule for example.   I also provide a fairly detailed list of what exists in the campaig world as a starting option.  I send this out via email pretty far in advance.   I also provide world background etc...   So the players can develop characters that fit the world concept.   But any player who felt the whole idea didn't fit could bail at that point and I'd get someone else.
 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Sign In to post comments