Players: Out To Ruin Everything?

1259 posts / 0 new
Last post

I've been wondering whether some DMs just don't trust players, viewing players who question the DM's choices as menaces who are only trying to step around limits and smuggle in PCs that wreck the DM's carefully crafted setting.

 

How accurate is this rather cynical view of players and their motivations? Is the DM really obliged to clamp down hard on any perceived insubordination or have to endure being dictated to by the players each session? The fear of 'munchkin' or overpowered PCs is as old as D&D, and there's been some angst about the prospect of "setting-inappropriate" PCs, which may not be mechanically superior but clash with the DM's intentions. If the DM wants to run a Feywild campaign featuring fey races, does she have to strictly police player choices or be faced with a party of humans, half-orcs and dragonborn - anything but fey?

 

The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.

 

These are only two depictions of expected player motives, and many other possibilities exist, either along a continuum between these two points, or different axes altogether.

 

How do you generally view players and their motivations? Mostly the former description, with not much of the latter? The other way round? A mix of both? Capable of either, dependening on the situation? Do other major factors not mentioned above influence the typical player, such as the urge to be drawn in by a compelling story or explore as much of the gameworld as possible?

 

5e seems to view players as being mainly the second type, but tends towards a desire to not make the PCs lives too comfortable, due to a number of occasions where DM fiat is specifically invoked. 

Personally, I think DMs, on the whole, are far too protective of their campaigns and their campaign settings.  I also think there is a world of difference between a player who wants to try new and different things, some of which may be unexpected or contrarian, and a player who is out to wreck or otherwise undermine the DMs efforts.

 

Most players, in my experience, want to respect the work the DM puts into the campaign, and don't want to "step on his toes", so to speak.  They want their character to be a natural fit into the campaign and the setting, and if they come to the table with a concept they will adjust their concept to fit the setting as the DM describes it.  When a player is coming to a DM with ideas (ideas for the setting, ideas for his character, ideas in general), he is "showing his hand", revealing what interests him, and what would keep him engaged.  It behooves the DM who wants this player in his game to include the player's ideas into the campaign, if only to more engage that player's interest.

Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.

Nautilus wrote:

A recurrent attitude I kept noticing while reading the two threads about DM restriction of player choices and themed campaigns was that players can't be trusted. Players who question the DM's choice are menaces who are only trying to step around limits and smuggle in PCs that wreck the DM's carefully crafted setting.

 

How accurate is this rather cynical view of players and their motivations? Is the DM really obliged to clamp down hard on any perceived insubordination or have to endure being dictated to by the players each session? The fear of 'munchkin' or overpowered PCs is as old as D&D, and recently there's been some angst about the prospect of "setting-inappropriate" PCs, which may not be mechanically superior but clash with the DM's intentions. If the DM wants to run a Feywild campaign featuring fey races, does she have to strictly police player choices or be faced with a party of humans, half-orcs and dragonborn - anything but fey?

 

The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.

 

How do you generally view players and their motivations? Mostly the former description, with not much of the latter? The other way round? A mix of both? Capable of either, dependening on the situation? Do other major factors not mentioned above influence the typical player, such as the urge to be drawn in by a compelling story or explore as much of the gameworld as possible?

 

5e seems to view players as being mainly the second type, but tends towards a desire to not make the PCs lives too comfortable, due to a number of occasions where DM fiat is specifically invoked. 

 

I really don't know what you were looking at, but it wasn't those two threads.  There was no recurring attitude of the sort you mentioned......at all.  It's okay to start a thread like this, but you should at least endeavor to be accurate with your portrayals of what went on over in the other threads.

A trend I've noticed that is pretty common 'round these here parts is unwarranted lumping. A select few take extreme stances on a topic. Then others join in, partially agreeing or disagreeing. Then the "camps" are decided. Then suddenly those extreme views are being attributed to everyone in one of the two "camps". I think if you'll go fine comb your way through any of these threads, you can't seriously contend that there's anything amounting to a majority asserting that Players are out to ruin everything. Similarly, there aren't people lining up to accuse DMs of being insufferable tyrants. 

 

I think it's disingenuous to try and frame the discussion with two divisive and absolute schools of thought unfairly attributed to people who don't actually hold those views—implying that a majority turn their nose up to player enterprise. Honestly, attempting to frame anything as varied as DM-Player relationships with an absolute position of right or wrong is unwieldy at best. Those narrow and contrived examples don't even come close to encompassing actual relationships at the game table. 

 

Now, if you want to talk about specific ways of enabling Player (or DMs, for that matter) enterprise in the game, that's a decent topic for debate. Just lose the dead weight of the baseless accusation that came attached with it.

Nautilus wrote:

A recurrent attitude I kept noticing while reading the two threads about DM restriction of player choices and themed campaigns was that players can't be trusted. Players who question the DM's choice are menaces who are only trying to step around limits and smuggle in PCs that wreck the DM's carefully crafted setting.

 

How accurate is this rather cynical view of players and their motivations? Is the DM really obliged to clamp down hard on any perceived insubordination or have to endure being dictated to by the players each session? The fear of 'munchkin' or overpowered PCs is as old as D&D, and recently there's been some angst about the prospect of "setting-inappropriate" PCs, which may not be mechanically superior but clash with the DM's intentions. If the DM wants to run a Feywild campaign featuring fey races, does she have to strictly police player choices or be faced with a party of humans, half-orcs and dragonborn - anything but fey?

 

The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.

 

How do you generally view players and their motivations? Mostly the former description, with not much of the latter? The other way round? A mix of both? Capable of either, dependening on the situation? Do other major factors not mentioned above influence the typical player, such as the urge to be drawn in by a compelling story or explore as much of the gameworld as possible?

 

5e seems to view players as being mainly the second type, but tends towards a desire to not make the PCs lives too comfortable, due to a number of occasions where DM fiat is specifically invoked. 

 

 I'm a DM and it is more or less a reaction against the power builds and min maxing of 3rd and 4E. This also overlaps with the way magic items were aquired during those editions which made it easy to link combos togather.

 

 For example in 3.x you could get a 18-20 crit range weapon and make it a keen weapon  and crit on rolls of 15-20  for double damage which could be huge with things like power attack. 4Es frost cheese is another example and that is before you lok at spellcasters. For the most part rubbish like this trivialises encounters. Even a simple change of letting DMs control magic items kills both builds dead unless the DM gives you a frost weapon or keen weapon so then it is his fault;). If DMs like those builds and playing that way you can still do things like that but if you give the player control or the ability to easily aquire magic items by making or buying them then you are going to have problems. If the DM controls it you can play both ways, if the player controls it you can only play 1 way. 

 

 With races and classes the restrictions can be for other reasons. Imagine playing an age of exploration game with a carrack full of warforged PCs and hirelings, well discovering the fantasy version of the New World is not going to be very hard as you do not need to eat, sleep or breathe. Teleporting Eladrin even if balanced in combat creates new problems being able to teleport over walls, into or out of prison etc.

 

 And then there are flavour reasons as well. The DM might have some romantic subplot planned or something like Luke and Vaders I am your father in some kind of political secret parent who is royalty and then the party takes Drow, Kender, Goliaths or whatever which ruins his theme for his planned adventure. Or said DM my only like the AD&D races/3.5 core races or likes traditional fantasy or even an all humans game a'la Game of Thrones and some classes and races do not fit.

 

 My standard offer for anyplayer who wants something IO do not want in the game is let them DM and I get to play. That way they can allow whatever they like into the game. Not to many players like this idea for some reason. 

 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Zardnaar wrote:
 And then there are flavour reasons as well. The DM might have some romantic subplot planned or something like Luke and Vaders I am your father in some kind of political secret parent who is royalty and then the party takes Drow, Kender, Goliaths or whatever which ruins his theme for his planned adventure.  

Why can't Drow, Kender, and Goliaths can't have romances? Or parents?

I've removed any allusion to other threads, and added a mention that the two schools of thought mentioned are not the only ones.

You hope for players that will work with your game and maintain your desired theme & tone. 

But you prepare for players that will only rampage over your campaign. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Somewhere in the middle.

 

Here's what I've found about players:

 

1. They like to come up with character ideas, and then they, remarkably enough, want to try out those characters.

2. There exist multiple character ideas for just about any player to enjoy, some of which may be more or less appropriate for any particular campaign.

3. Some players (usually newer) don't realize that #2 is true (though it is).

 

In addition:

 

4. Some players allow themselves to get fixated on a particular concept, and want to play it even when it isn't appropriate.

5. Experienced players are more likely to set aside a character concept in order to play one more appropriate for the DMs campaign, if told that their character concept isn't the best for this campaign.

6. Most players fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between #4 and #5. Often this is manifested by trying to change aspects of their character to the minimum extent required for DM approval, rather than simply picking a different character for this particular campaign.

7. #6 tends to create a compromise that neither player or DM is particularly happy about, and may or may not end up working.

 

Here's what I've found about most DMs:

 

8. They like to come up with campaigns and setting ideas, and then they, remarkably enough, want to try out those campaigns.

9. There exists, in most cases, a wide variety of character types that are appropriate for any particular campaign.

10. DMs usually know what characters do or do not fit #9.

 

In addition:

 

11. DMs who allow characters they know don't fit into their campaigns often have an ongoing struggle to maintain integrity of their campaign.

12. Players who play character that don't fit particularly well into a campaign often have an ongoing struggle to maintain the integrity of their character concept.

 

In my experience, inserting a poor fit of a character into a defined campaign (and I'm guilty of this as a player), hurts the campaign. The DM whose group I play in is a pushover in this respect. He comes up with a focused campaign idea, very specific in intended tone and content, clearly has very specific ideas on the types of characters he wants in it, but then will bend over backwards to allow players to do something completely different, even at the detriment of his campaign. As a player in those campaigns, I think I'm fairly qualified to say that it has been detrimental to my experience to have another player (or even myself) play a poorly fitting character.

 

There are three relevant elements, the characters, the campaign, and the party. The main conflict I think is about what elements are predetermined. All three of those elements must match to have a coherent campaign. You can't independentally predetermine all of those at once, and expect it to go smoothly. Instead, you can do one of the following.

 

A. The players come with predetermined character ideas. You create a party from those characters and create a campaign appropriate for the characters and party.

B. The DM has a predetermined campaign idea. The players need to create characters appropriate for it, that form a party appropriate for it.

C. Nobody comes with anything predetermined, and you brainstom an idea for a new campaign, characters, and party

 

I think we see disagreement on whether A, B, or C is right. Which is absurd because there is no right on this. It is preference. If I as a DM have a well-developed campaign idea, it's going to go as B, or not at all. If I as a DM don't have such an idea (for example, I'm going to be running Lost Mines of Phandelver, and if the campaign continues after the adventure it's wide open to whatever interests the players), then it is A. If we just randomly decide, "hey, let's have a new D&D campaign!" then C seems like a good angle to take.

 

Failure to recognize that is the source of philosophical debate on the issues.

 

Practical disgruntlement is caused by the DM not clearly recognizing and consistently applying his preference in a particular campaign. If he is thinking B, but players are thinking A, or C, you're going to have issues.

 

Here's what I do when I'm DMing a condition B campaign.

 

a) I set clear boundaries as to what sorts of choices are disallowed, and I stick to it.

b) If anyone asks or wonders why the restrictions are in place, I will answer in as much detail as they like, and explain that it is a part of my campaign.

c) I explain that the party is going to have to jive together with each other and with the campaign.

d) If possible, I request each player to either come to the character and party planning session with two or three different character concepts (or often, with none at all if they can handle that).

 

If a player is stuck in the grip of #3, #4, or #6 above, I might have to ask that player to wait until my next campaign in order to avoid #7, #11, and #12. Maybe you as a player think that I'm being a big meany, but you know what? It isn't all about you. There are multiple other people involved here (and I as the DM who presumably put more work into my campaign than you did into your character) is just one of them. The other players are also going to suffer from a poor mismatch, as I am aware of from my own experiences as a player.

 

When I'm a player, I just assume condition B unless I'm told or see otherwise. And under those conditions, a), b), c), and d) are exactly what I want to know about so I can make a character and have it fit well into the players' party and the DM's campaign.

 

Now, if I had a particular character concept I wanted to play that didn't fit a particular campaign, or maybe didn't even fit an overall campaign world, I think it would be perfectly appropriate for me to ask the DM if he would run an adventure or campaign that might allow that sort of thing. So if I wanted to play a gnome and my DM didn't have gnomes in his world, rather than attempting to convince him to let me have a gnome pop in from another plane, I'd ask him if there was any possibility of him running a later campaign or adventure in a different setting with gnomes. If he said no, then I'd just accept that. My DM doesn't exist to fulfill every one of my personal gaming desires, and I wouldn't expect them to. If I had the chance, I could play a gnome game with another DM, and still play gnomeless games with the current one.

 

 

JC999 wrote:

 

Zardnaar wrote:
 And then there are flavour reasons as well. The DM might have some romantic subplot planned or something like Luke and Vaders I am your father in some kind of political secret parent who is royalty and then the party takes Drow, Kender, Goliaths or whatever which ruins his theme for his planned adventure.  

 

Why can't Drow, Kender, and Goliaths can't have romances? Or parents?

 

 The can but odds are none of those will be in charge of a human kingdom for example and the DM may have some villains the PCs are related to or seduced by and odds are they are one of the big four races. A Drow renegade is unlikely to inherit anything on the surface in a somewhat sane campaign. Most TSR/WoTC settings are inherently humanocentric and the left overs are mostly Elven/Dwarves so you may be a lost scion of Evermeet or a half elf bastard.

 

 It might be differnet in homebew but the daft races usually do not exist on my worlds or at least are not primary movers and shakers. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Zardnaar wrote:

 With races and classes the restrictions can be for other reasons. Imagine playing an age of exploration game with a carrack full of warforged PCs and hirelings, well discovering the fantasy version of the New World is not going to be very hard as you do not need to eat, sleep or breathe.

 

Why are players playing in an Age of Exploration game as Warforged?  It's not genre-appropriate.  And if players want to play Warforged, then it seems like they actually aren't that interested in an Age of Exploration game afterall.  No one is trying to ruin anything.

 

Teleporting Eladrin even if balanced in combat creates new problems being able to teleport over walls, into or out of prison etc.

 

Magic.  In introduces problems.  You can curb this the same way you'd curb rampant wizardy.

 

And then there are flavour reasons as well. The DM might have some romantic subplot planned or something like Luke and Vaders I am your father in some kind of political secret parent who is royalty...

 

Did you involve the players in any of this?  Is the player interested in having a romantic subplot or a secret evil father?  If so, then they won't counter you.  If not, then why the Hell are you doing it?  You are the DM, not the player, and the character is firmly under the purview of the player.

 

...and then the party takes Drow, Kender, Goliaths or whatever which ruins his theme for his planned adventure.

 

Are the players interested in your planned adventure?  Measuring interest doesn't mean you have to spill the beans on all the details.  You just have to make sure the players are interested in your idea.  Perhaps they have ideas that you can adopt or incorporate.

 

Or said DM my only like the AD&D races/3.5 core races or likes traditional fantasy or even an all humans game a'la Game of Thrones and some classes and races do not fit.

 

We all have our preferences, but we don't really have a right to force others to like what we like.  If your players aren't interested in an all human game a la GoT, then you're not running one.  Too bad, so sad #tinyviolin.  

 

If they are, then a simple request of "Hey, can I run you guys through an all-human campaign a la GoT?" will ilicit a positive response, and no one will come to the table playing a warforged or goliath (except, you know...Hodor).

 

My standard offer for anyplayer who wants something IO do not want in the game is let them DM and I get to play. That way they can allow whatever they like into the game. Not to many players like this idea for some reason. 

 

Maybe because it sounds passive-aggressive.  I dunno.

Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.

Zardnaar wrote:

 

JC999 wrote:

 

Zardnaar wrote:
 And then there are flavour reasons as well. The DM might have some romantic subplot planned or something like Luke and Vaders I am your father in some kind of political secret parent who is royalty and then the party takes Drow, Kender, Goliaths or whatever which ruins his theme for his planned adventure.  

 

Why can't Drow, Kender, and Goliaths can't have romances? Or parents?

 

 

 The can but odds are none of those will be in charge of a human kingdom for example and the DM may have some villains the PCs are related to or seduced by and odds are they are one of the big four races. A Drow renegade is unlikely to inherit anything on the surface in a somewhat sane campaign. Most TSR/WoTC settings are inherently humanocentric and the left overs are mostly Elven/Dwarves so you may be a lost scion of Evermeet or a half elf bastard.

 

 It might be differnet in homebew but the daft races usually do not exist on my worlds or at least are not primary movers and shakers. 

It seems to me that the DM should know what the PCs are before he designs a villian relative. It seems counter-intuitive to decide "the evil dwarf mage will secretly be the brother of Jim's character" until you know that Jim is playing a dwarf.

 Well my default races are basically the AD&D ones. You can ask for something else but most of my players would not know what a Goliath is for example or Kender either. We skipped 4E entirely and did not own most of the race type books in 3.5 so no Races of Stone/Dragon etc. Exotic for us is things like Drow, humanoids, Genasi, and Tieflings/Aasimar. I think we played Eberron once ????

 

 Basically 3rd ed core books are the defualt to ,my players, some have also played AD&D and for the last 3 years or so it has been Pathfinder (core books only for the most part) and retroclones and we have mostly ignored the goofy splat books of 3.5 (Races of XYZ, Bo9S) and an entire edition beyond a few games where we decided we didn't like it.

 

 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Because of Comics like Penny Arcade, Dork Tower, Knights of The Dinner Table, Order of The Stick which all reinforce bad and jerkish player behaviour that may have been common back in the early days (and which I highly suspect) by turning them into jokes, but you all know the adage, right?  'It's funny because it's true'.  Which simply reinforces the belief, and because of the popularity of these comics, they and their antics remain ingrained on the gamer population.

Nautilus wrote:
The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.

So far such a player hasn't said yes to the DM on anything.

 

If people think it'll work out where only one party says yes and the second party just insists the first says yes but the second never says yes themselves, then I guess people think that'll work out.

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

Noon wrote:

 

Nautilus wrote:
The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.

So far such a player hasn't said yes to the DM on anything.

 

If people think it'll work out where only one party says yes and the second party just insists the first says yes but the second never says yes themselves, then I guess people think that'll work out.

 

When the DM's requests are perceived as reasonable, they're far more likely to get a 'yes'. Same goes for the players. Limits that seem unreasonable or arbitary are far more liable to get pushback than those which make sense. If I was playing in a game where the DM wanted to emulate Lord of the Rings, it'd be fine to have a race list of humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves and halflings.

Nautilus wrote:
I've been wondering whether some DMs just don't trust players, viewing players who question the DM's choices as menaces who are only trying to step around limits and smuggle in PCs that wreck the DM's carefully crafted setting.


How accurate is this rather cynical view of players and their motivations?

From the DMs looking to restrict access to races or classes? Not at all. If you honestly think that than you've grossly misunderstood their position. There are three reasons a DM restricts things:
1) It being in the game affects their ability to enjoy the game. This is where you'll find global bans.
2) It's overpowered. I've had things like this banned in every edition (including 4th ed). This is another place where you get global bans.
3) It's not appropriate to the flavour of the setting or campaign. This is where you get campaign specific bans.


IMO it is critical that everyone plays a campaign where #1 is not true. Regardless of whether they're player or DM, #1 must not be in the game. #2 is often necessary for the DM to be able to construct a fun game.


For #3, some people here enjoy playing the Drizzt of the campaign setting and feel they should always be able to bring in a Drizzt to the game. The special snowflake whose the exception to the rule. I personally enjoy exploring characters that fit within the campaign and help engage in the campaign and having someone who so jarringly goes against the flavour of the campaign seriously impacts my enjoyment of the game. I'm speaking from the perspective of a player here.


Case in point when we rolled up characters for Council of Thieves. This is set in a nation that has succumbed to devil worshipping and the vast majority of people happily worship the state religion of Asmodeus. One of my friends and I read the Players Guide to try to get a feel of the campaign which portrayed the flavour described above. So we made two devil worshipers. As it turns out the players guide did a poor job as the campaign was about rebels trying to bring the devil establishment down. My enjoyment was impacted severely. I was not able to engage in the campaign because I ran counter to the campaign's flavour so strongly. I'd have preferred rolling up a new character.


Nautilus wrote:
How do you generally view players and their motivations?
I'm looking for people who are interested in engaging in the campaign. It's what I enjoy as a player and it's the type of player I look for as a DM. I'll have a writeup on the flavour of the setting and campaign and look for players interested in that flavour. This is so players can judge if they'll enjoy the game or not. I'm willing to listen to a player's idea that runs counter to this, but 99% of the time I'll say no. I'll happily offer to explore a campaign where their idea would be appropriate as my next campaign. But not for this campaign.


Foxface wrote:
Why are players playing in an Age of Exploration game as Warforged?  It's not genre-appropriate.
I agree. Many here have indicated though that they don't. That anything should be allowed.


Foxface wrote:
We all have our preferences, but we don't really have a right to force others to like what we like.  If your players aren't interested in an all human game a la GoT, then you're not running one.  Too bad, so sad #tinyviolin.
This assumes the players are a fixed quantity that will not change. That's not always the case.

I'm so happy that I've never encountered a situation where the topic of this thread is relevant.

 

Y'all need to find some new gaming friends, I think.

"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk

Elfcrusher wrote:

I'm so happy that I've never encountered a situation where the topic of this thread is relevant.

 

Y'all need to find some new gaming friends, I think.

This +1.  

Zardnaar wrote:

 My standard offer for any player who wants something I do not want in the game is let them DM and I get to play. That way they can allow whatever they like into the game. Not to many players like this idea for some reason. 

 

You're confused?

 

THINK for a momment.

 

Player: Wow this new class has come out I'd really like to PLAY. I'd lover to SEE it in action. I'd love to USE abilities like that.

DM: No you cannot PLAY that or USE those abilities. But you can DM and probably not even get the chance to SEE them either.

Player: UMMMMMMmmmmmmm??????? That defeats the whole purpose for my asking.

 

Really if you cannot understand that you are severely out of touch. The point behind wanting to play something is......

 

big surprise coming get ready......

 

WANTING TO PLAY IT!

 

Turning it around on them and denying them the chance to play it is in no way a valid offer.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

JohnLynch wrote:

 

Foxface wrote:
Why are players playing in an Age of Exploration game as Warforged?  It's not genre-appropriate.

I agree. Many here have indicated though that they don't. That anything should be allowed.

 

Anything should be allowed.  But players and DM should be on the same page.  The DM shouldn't have to ban anything, since if the players are interested in the campaign concept they'll create characters that fit the concept.

 

Engage the players and you'll have no need to ban anything to "preserve the campaign".

 

Foxface wrote:
We all have our preferences, but we don't really have a right to force others to like what we like.  If your players aren't interested in an all human game a la GoT, then you're not running one.  Too bad, so sad #tinyviolin.

This assumes the players are a fixed quantity that will not change. That's not always the case.

 

I'm not assuming anything.  In this scenario, at this time, the players aren't interested in an all-human GoT-type game.  Maybe next time.  But if your players aren't interested in a GoT game right now, it doesn't matter how much work and planning and prepping you've put into it; you're not running it without interested players.  Or more accurately, you're not running anything successfully.

Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.

Zappy wrote:

 

Zardnaar wrote:

 My standard offer for any player who wants something I do not want in the game is let them DM and I get to play. That way they can allow whatever they like into the game. Not to many players like this idea for some reason. 

 

 

You're confused?

 

THINK for a momment.

 

Player: Wow this new class has come out I'd really like to PLAY. I'd lover to SEE it in action. I'd love to USE abilities like that.

DM: No you cannot PLAY that or USE those abilities. But you can DM and probably not even get the chance to SEE them either.

Player: UMMMMMMmmmmmmm??????? That defeats the whole purpose for my saking.

 

Really if you cannot understand that you are severely out of touch. The point behind wanting to play something is......

 

big surprise coming get ready......

 

WANTING TO PLAY IT!

 

Turning it around on them and denying them the chance to play it is in no way a valid offer.

 

 

 I barely get to play so if a cass doesn't fit tough espicially splat book stuff. Some classes were out right broken, weird etc. I ahd a player who wanted to play a cleric in 2nd ed for example who wanted to trade out all his cleric spells for wizard spells using Skills and Powers. He wanted to play it and I said no. I have also said no to Katanas (best sword in AD&D). Also said to a lot of prestige classes in 3.0/3.5. I actually had arguements over this and one of the did result in me offering to let a player DM. No means no end of story in my games there is usually a reason for it though. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Zardnaar wrote:

 

Zappy wrote:

 

Zardnaar wrote:

 My standard offer for any player who wants something I do not want in the game is let them DM and I get to play. That way they can allow whatever they like into the game. Not to many players like this idea for some reason. 

 

 

You're confused?

 

THINK for a momment.

 

Player: Wow this new class has come out I'd really like to PLAY. I'd lover to SEE it in action. I'd love to USE abilities like that.

DM: No you cannot PLAY that or USE those abilities. But you can DM and probably not even get the chance to SEE them either.

Player: UMMMMMMmmmmmmm??????? That defeats the whole purpose for my saking.

 

Really if you cannot understand that you are severely out of touch. The point behind wanting to play something is......

 

big surprise coming get ready......

 

WANTING TO PLAY IT!

 

Turning it around on them and denying them the chance to play it is in no way a valid offer.

 

 

 

 I barely get to play so if a cass doesn't fit tough espicially splat book stuff. Some classes were out right broken, weird etc. I ahd a player who wanted to play a cleric in 2nd ed for example who wanted to trade out all his cleric spells for wizard spells using Skills and Powers. He wanted to play it and I said no. I have also said no to Katanas (best sword in AD&D). Also said to a lot of prestige classes in 3.0/3.5. I actually had arguements over this and one of the did result in me offering to let a player DM. No means no end of story in my games there is usually a reason for it though. 

 

And all of that is understandable. And seems fine reasoning.

 

But don't say that offering for them to DM is actually giving them what they want or equivalent to playing what they want. Or that they should accept it as such.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Foxface wrote:
Anything should be allowed.  But players and DM should be on the same page.  The DM shouldn't have to ban anything, since if the players are interested in the campaign concept they'll create characters that fit the concept.
 
Engage the players and you'll have no need to ban anything to "preserve the campaign".
I really don't think your getting it which is where the disconnect is. DM put out a call to a group that is larger than 5 people saying "Here's some info on a campaign I'd like to run. Appropriate PCs are races X, Y, Z and classes A, B, C. Does that sound like fun to anyone?" 5 players respond saying yes that does sound fun and they've got a cool concept using the listed options. N players respond saying they'd like to play but want an option that wasn't mentioned (and deliberately left out by the Adam). DM has his 5 players, the others get told maybe next time.


Things were banned, yet all the players were happy to play under those restrictions and have bought into the campaign flavour.


Foxface wrote:
In this scenario, at this time, the players aren't interested in an all-human GoT-type game.
Your assuming the players are gathered and then the campaign is decided upon. That's not always the case. Of my gaming groups (I've had 3) it was only the case in 1 group.

JohnLynch wrote:

 

Foxface wrote:
Anything should be allowed.  But players and DM should be on the same page.  The DM shouldn't have to ban anything, since if the players are interested in the campaign concept they'll create characters that fit the concept.
 
Engage the players and you'll have no need to ban anything to "preserve the campaign".

I really don't think your getting it which is where the disconnect is. DM put out a call to a group that is larger than 5 people saying "Here's some info on a campaign I'd like to run. Appropriate PCs are races X, Y, Z and classes A, B, C. Does that sound like fun to anyone?" 5 players respond saying yes that does sound fun and they've got a cool concept using the listed options. N players respond saying they'd like to play but want an option that wasn't mentioned (and deliberately left out by the Adam). DM has his 5 players, the others get told maybe next time.


Things were banned, yet all the players were happy to play under those restrictions and have bought into the campaign flavour.

 

No, I understand you just fine.  I think what you've laid out is just fine.  DM has an idea, presents it, players go along with it, everything's cool.

 

But the OP is questioning a trend (?) he's seeing on this board, where DMs take the position that unless they tamp down everything, the players are just bound to go buckwild and destroy everything the DM has worked so hard on.

 

My experience is that players generally don't do that, even if you let them.  My experience is also that the game experience goes better when players are playing what tehy enjoy, even if it means the DM has to go out of his way and ::GASP:: change his setting to better fit his players' concepts.

 

Foxface wrote:
In this scenario, at this time, the players aren't interested in an all-human GoT-type game.

Your assuming the players are gathered and then the campaign is decided upon. That's not always the case. Of my gaming groups (I've had 3) it was only the case in 1 group.

 

I fail to see how this is relevant.

 

You the DM have an idea for Campaign X.  You're searching for players.  You post a notice at your FLGS, or online on some forum.  You get no bites.  Looks like the (potential) players aren't interested in Campaign X.  Time to try something else (for now).

 

You the DM have a group of players.  You then run Campaign X by them.  They're not interested.  Again, it looks like you won't be running X (for now).

 

It doesn't matter how interested you are in running Campaign X if your players (potential or otherwise) aren't interested.  You can't force them to like what you like, or want (right now) what you want (right now).  That's not a "against the rules" thing.  That's a simple human thing.  You can't control other people and what they want.  So, save yourself a lot of heartache and stop trying.

Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.

Foxface wrote:
But the OP is questioning a trend (?) he's seeing on this board, where DMs take the position that unless they tamp down everything, the players are just bound to go buckwild and destroy everything the DM has worked so hard on.
As I said in my first post this is a gross misunderstanding of the viewpoint of people in the threads that were indicated. If you can find someone with this viewpoint please quote them for me.

 

Foxface wrote:
My experience is also that the game experience goes better when players are playing what tehy enjoy, even if it means the DM has to go out of his way and ::GASP:: change his setting to better fit his players' concepts.
My experience is that the game experience goes better when he DM is upfront about the campaign they want to run and ::GASP:: only people who are interested in playing that game come to the table to play.

 

Foxface wrote:
You the DM have an idea for Campaign X.  You're searching for players.  You post a notice at your FLGS, or online on some forum.  You get no bites.
It's never happened to me.

 

Foxface wrote:
It doesn't matter how interested you are in running Campaign X if your players (potential or otherwise) aren't interested.  You can't force them to like what you like, or want (right now) what you want (right now).  That's not a "against the rules" thing.  That's a simple human thing.  You can't control other people and what they want.  So, save yourself a lot of heartache and stop trying.
Please quote my post where I said I'm trying to force players to play something they have no interest in playing. In fact It's people who are under this idea that DMs must change their campaign that seem to think DMs can force players to play something they don't want to. I've been saying all along, players have the final say (by not playing).

Overall, the DM has to be more tolerant, flexible, and forgiving, when it comes to having long term success. But with that stated, a DM can save themselves alot of grief if they have strong opinions to make those preferences clear at the very beginning.

Passive-aggressive crap, aside, no, I have never witnessed these horrendous activities.

 

I have never played organised events, maybe that matters, relating to this absolute terrible concept going-on within these boards, rubbish, revolting, 

Uchawi wrote:

Overall, the DM has to

 

 

Ah, so, now, we're telling people what they have to to...?

Nautilus wrote:
I've been wondering whether some DMs just don't trust players, viewing players who question the DM's choices as menaces who are only trying to step around limits and smuggle in PCs that wreck the DM's carefully crafted setting.

 

How accurate is this rather cynical view of players and their motivations?

 

Seems an accurate portrayal of that particular viewpoint from personal experience and what I see on this forum and others. People often have a sense of ownership over their ideas. Authorial-type DMs spend time making campaign settings and/or storylines that they want to be or go a certain way. Things that aren't that certain way can be problematic for them, so they try to exercise control over player choice. Players trying to "step around" limits are, in effect, rejecting part or all of the DM's ideas and challenging their control. That's hard for some to swallow and can be taken for an attack on the product of their creativity or their authority.

 

Nautilus wrote:
Is the DM really obliged to clamp down hard on any perceived insubordination or have to endure being dictated to by the players each session? The fear of 'munchkin' or overpowered PCs is as old as D&D, and there's been some angst about the prospect of "setting-inappropriate" PCs, which may not be mechanically superior but clash with the DM's intentions. If the DM wants to run a Feywild campaign featuring fey races, does she have to strictly police player choices or be faced with a party of humans, half-orcs and dragonborn - anything but fey?

 

I have found in many cases that the greater the DM's sense of ownership over "his" world or "his" setting or "his" game, the greater the desire for exercising control over player choices both during character creation and during play. (Controlling choices can be done indirectly as well through various illusionism techniques.) A DM wanting "to run a Feywild campaign featuring fey races" does not have to "strictly police player choices," but many do. Players opting to be "anything but fey" can still be in a campaign among fey and dealing with fey concerns and NPCs. It only requires the DM work with the new idea, integrating it with his own, rather than rejecting it outright.

 

As for "munchkins" or "overpowered" PCs, the DM has infinite flexibility when it comes to presenting challenges, so I find little problem in challenging players with powerful characters. Some DMs, however, may find such power a threat to their control over outcomes in the game and such outcomes may not work with whatever ideas they have in their head or have committed to their setting bible or the like.

 

Nautilus wrote:
The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.

 

I agree with this. It's very easy for me to do that since I engage in techniques that do not give me a strong sense of ownership over the campaign.

 

Nautilus wrote:
How do you generally view players and their motivations? Mostly the former description, with not much of the latter? The other way round? A mix of both? Capable of either, dependening on the situation? Do other major factors not mentioned above influence the typical player, such as the urge to be drawn in by a compelling story or explore as much of the gameworld as possible?

 

I harness player motivations to make the game better for everyone. Their ideas and input are gifts that, when used, lead to greater engagement for that player (and others when the idea is combined with the ideas of said others). This combination of ideas leads to a product that is often unique and unexpected, a pleasant surprise to all involved - including the DM. When the players pursue their characters' motivations and goals and the DM places genre-appropriate challenges in their way, a compelling story is created through playing the game. I find coming up with the story prior to that time is putting the cart before the horse and leads to the feelings of ownership and the desire to control that I described above.

 

I say "Yes" to the players' ideas and play to find out what happens. This is a very entertaining way to DM.

Foxface wrote:

 

But the OP is questioning a trend (?) he's seeing on this board, where DMs take the position that unless they tamp down everything, the players are just bound to go buckwild and destroy everything the DM has worked so hard on.

The OP invented that fictional trend for this thread.  He's not questioning anything grounded in the reality of these boards.  Even Xun, the one person who said my way or the highway, didn't say that he had to do that or the players would go buck wild.

 

Noon wrote:

Nautilus wrote:
The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.

So far such a player hasn't said yes to the DM on anything.

 

If people think it'll work out where only one party says yes and the second party just insists the first says yes but the second never says yes themselves, then I guess people think that'll work out.

Well, they didnt say "NO". Or really express any much opinion for that matter..... For my current game, I directly asked the players what they wanted. And they're free to add input at any time. Here's what I got: P1 - "adventure" (me: well ok, that's a bit vague, that's why I'm asking the ?). P2 - sacks of gold sitting outside city walls. (Me: Wtf? Eh, it's a bit limited/oddly specific, but I'll see what I can do to make it interesting....). P3 - "I want to play a Gripli". (Me: ok.) P4 - was but hurt that we'd just dropped his completely awefull superhero csmpaign, so provided NO imput at all & proceeded to be as difficult as possible before dropping out. P5 - an air or water based adventure. (Me: Ok, I've got an idea for that almost ready to go!) And then 3 weeks into the theme p5 requested his work schedule changed and he hasn't gotten to play. But none if the other players have said no....

Brock_Landers wrote:

 

Uchawi wrote:

Overall, the DM has to

 

 

Ah, so, now, we're telling people what they have to to...?

Like anyone listens to what other people have to say on these boards

Elfcrusher wrote:

I'm so happy that I've never encountered a situation where the topic of this thread is relevant.

 

Y'all need to find some new gaming friends, I think.

Truth be told, all these 'horror' stories of players have almost always been that for me: Stories.  Sometimes, I've met people LIKE the ones in the comics, but I've never gamed with them.

 

I just wish the stories would stop and we'd get on with out gaming lives.

iserith wrote:
Seems an accurate portrayal of that particular viewpoint from personal experience and what I see on this forum and others. People often have a sense of ownership over their ideas. Authorial-type DMs spend time making campaign settings and/or storylines that they want to be or go a certain way. Things that aren't that certain way can be problematic for them, so they try to exercise control over player choice. Players trying to "step around" limits are, in effect, rejecting part or all of the DM's ideas and challenging their control. That's hard for some to swallow and can be taken for an attack on the product of their creativity or their authority.

 

...

 

I agree with this. It's very easy for me to do that since I engage in techniques that do not give me a strong sense of ownership over the campaign.

 

Do you feel that it is an inferior way to play for the DM to have a strong sense of ownership of his campaign ideas and require players opting-in to adhere to those ideas?

 

Nautilus wrote:

 

Noon wrote:

 

Nautilus wrote:
The contrary view is that players want to co-operate with the DM, respect the effort she puts into the campaign setting, and are more interested in having a fun time playing than wreaking havoc. When a campaign is specifically focused, this type of player wants to work with the DM to ensure they get a PC that they enjoy playing and makes sense as part of the DM's creation. Saying yes to them leads to a better game, not a broken game.

So far such a player hasn't said yes to the DM on anything.

 

If people think it'll work out where only one party says yes and the second party just insists the first says yes but the second never says yes themselves, then I guess people think that'll work out.

 

 

When the DM's requests are perceived as reasonable, they're far more likely to get a 'yes'. Same goes for the players. Limits that seem unreasonable or arbitary are far more liable to get pushback than those which make sense. If I was playing in a game where the DM wanted to emulate Lord of the Rings, it'd be fine to have a race list of humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves and halflings.

You're still stuck thinking what you call unreasonable is what every single other being on the planet would call unreasonable. And so you think when something is 'unreasonable', you're justified in taking whatever action that appears to involve. When it's just taking action because your subjective tastes weren't catered to. You didn't like it, so you say he's having an ego thing. Your ego didn't like it, so you say he's having an ego thing.

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

While everyone does seem to be focusing on the class/race restrictions as the source of disruptive players (aka any of them who ask about why a restriction is there or ask about a character concept that may not fit exactly with the list of allowed content by the DM) in my experience the disruptive players aren't the ones who question restrictions, they're ones who are disruptive despite fitting within the restrictions.

 

From my early days (many many moons ago): a player who joined the ongoing campaign and attacked everything on sight. He didn't even learn his lesson when the DM tried to show him through in-game penalties that what he was doing was disruptive. The DM and other players finally agreed something drastic had to be done so I got the task (which I actually enjoyed because this player had taken over 2 of my characters because we only had 3 players once he joined in) of killing off his characters during a nighttime "wandering monster" encounter. The player never rejoined and we had fun once more with our campaign, minus 2 PCs of the original party.

 

From a long running Encounters group more recently. We had one player who always played a rogue and was always trying to find ways to steal and sabotage player progress. He even got us a TPK against the dragon at the end of the Neverwinter Encounters season when trying to steal/wear the Crown of Neverwinter himself.

 

The only other disruptive players I've dealt with were similar, they were well within the boundaries of the DM's campaign parameters but it was their personalities and playstyle that was disruptive, not their character concepts (with one exception but his concept was a bit too "special snowflake" and he didn' tlike it when he got singled out for his background facing the negative consequences of setting himself up as some unique and valuable member of a race, though the rest of the party didn't mind it too much as it did at least provide an interesting encounter in an inn involving naked fighting).

No campaign plan survives contact with the enemy...err...players.

      -- Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, DM and originator of "Helmuth's Realms of Whimsy" campaign setting.

 

Grazel wrote:
From my early days (many many moons ago): a player who joined the ongoing campaign and attacked everything on sight. He didn't even learn his lesson when the DM tried to show him through in-game penalties that what he was doing was disruptive. The DM and other players finally agreed something drastic had to be done so I got the task (which I actually enjoyed because this player had taken over 2 of my characters because we only had 3 players once he joined in) of killing off his characters during a nighttime "wandering monster" encounter. The player never rejoined and we had fun once more with our campaign, minus 2 PCs of the original party.

 

You didn't mention talking to the player first. It sounds as though you just pushed a person out before even bothering to find out what was going on.

 

From a long running Encounters group more recently. We had one player who always played a rogue and was always trying to find ways to steal and sabotage player progress. He even got us a TPK against the dragon at the end of the Neverwinter Encounters season when trying to steal/wear the Crown of Neverwinter himself.

And what did this person say when you talked to him out of game about his disruptive behavior?

 

The only other disruptive players I've dealt with were similar, they were well within the boundaries of the DM's campaign parameters but it was their personalities and playstyle that was disruptive, not their character concepts (with one exception but his concept was a bit too "special snowflake" and he didn' tlike it when he got singled out for his background facing the negative consequences of setting himself up as some unique and valuable member of a race, though the rest of the party didn't mind it too much as it did at least provide an interesting encounter in an inn involving naked fighting).

Third times the charm?

 

Do you even bother to talk to the people you play with? Or just oust those that do not automatically fall in line with your own ideas wether you express them or not?

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Zappy wrote:

 

Grazel wrote:
From my early days (many many moons ago): a player who joined the ongoing campaign and attacked everything on sight. He didn't even learn his lesson when the DM tried to show him through in-game penalties that what he was doing was disruptive. The DM and other players finally agreed something drastic had to be done so I got the task (which I actually enjoyed because this player had taken over 2 of my characters because we only had 3 players once he joined in) of killing off his characters during a nighttime "wandering monster" encounter. The player never rejoined and we had fun once more with our campaign, minus 2 PCs of the original party.

 

You didn't mention talking to the player first. It sounds as though you just pushed a person out before even bothering to find out what was going on.

 

 

From a long running Encounters group more recently. We had one player who always played a rogue and was always trying to find ways to steal and sabotage player progress. He even got us a TPK against the dragon at the end of the Neverwinter Encounters season when trying to steal/wear the Crown of Neverwinter himself.

And what did this person say when you talked to him out of game about his disruptive behavior?

 

 

The only other disruptive players I've dealt with were similar, they were well within the boundaries of the DM's campaign parameters but it was their personalities and playstyle that was disruptive, not their character concepts (with one exception but his concept was a bit too "special snowflake" and he didn' tlike it when he got singled out for his background facing the negative consequences of setting himself up as some unique and valuable member of a race, though the rest of the party didn't mind it too much as it did at least provide an interesting encounter in an inn involving naked fighting).

 

Third times the charm?

 

Do you even bother to talk to the people you play with? Or just oust those that do not automatically fall in line with your own ideas wether you express them or not?

 

 

In all 3 cases I was a fellow player and as far as I know the DM talked to 2 of the 3 examples used to try to dissuade them and get them to correct the behavior. The first one the killing off was a last ditch effort because me and the other PC player (who were the original players) were about to walk away from the game because of the new player and it was decided he wasn't going to change because he only wanted to play genocide against all NPCs (in his first game session he used a scroll of fireball to nuke a small village of friendly natives AFTER he pulled a beserker rage type attack against their pet giant beavers).

 

The second case the player (a 12 year old) was repeatedly blocked by the DM from doing stuff and discouraged but was never removed from the game as his uncle was one of the two DMs for the store. He was the cause of a few players leaving and no longer playing because of how disruptive he was.

 

The third case the DM tried to discourage the player's choice during character creation (he DM'ed the way I do, working with each player to create their character to give it the best fit with the campaign) but the player wouldn't listen. Also he only became disruptive because he got whiny when the DM used his own created character background as adventure and encounter hooks. I think the guy expected to be treated like some sort of messiah of dragonborn rather than a target for money-hungry assassins who felt that his "rare and unique hide" was worth his life.

 

My point is that disruptive players are in my experience are ones that work within a DM constraint but are disruptive because of how they play and how they treat the other players, not because they're questioning the DM's restrictions for the campaign. Of the three I listed (and there's a 4th but he was disruptive more on a personal level with me because he was a loud, obnoxious, rules lawyer who told me I was playing my character wrong more than once) only 1 of them was over 18 though admittedly the one who was over 18 seemed to lack the mental maturity of his physical age and if he wasn't the roommate of the DM (and we played at the DM's place) he probably wouldn't have been included in the game to begin with.

Orethalion wrote:

 

Foxface wrote:

 

But the OP is questioning a trend (?) he's seeing on this board, where DMs take the position that unless they tamp down everything, the players are just bound to go buckwild and destroy everything the DM has worked so hard on.

The OP invented that fictional trend for this thread.  He's not questioning anything grounded in the reality of these boards.  Even Xun, the one person who said my way or the highway, didn't say that he had to do that or the players would go buck wild.

 

 

This exactly.  He's strawmanning a trend because some people like myself blanket-ban Dragonborn for a wide variety of reasons formed over a period of decades,  rather than deal with the fact that people like myself blanket ban Dragonborn for good reasons,  he's strawmanning out some DM power trip thing.

 

Some people ban Gnomes,  many people ban PC Kender,  some people even ban Halflings.  I ban Dragonborn.  The Dragon Sorcerer is going right along with them.