Had a player recently tell me during the character creation phase that he was not going to follow the character creation requirements of the campaign.  Specifically, that he was not going to use the slightly modified standard array I wanted the characters to use.  The modified array was 15, 14, 13, 12, 12, 10.  He insisted on using the standard DnDBeyond array.

Now, I know I could allow him to deviate just to please him, but the simple fact that he wanted to control how the campaign world and character creation was designed (it is a homebrew after all) suggested that he was going to be a troublesome player.  This was not about allowing for "player agency" or "railroading" the character.  Rather, this was about "player being a dick agency".

I've decided that I will no longer allow players to dictate anything about the base campaign rules. Either follow them or find another DM.

Discuss...

I agree with this entirely. Especially with character creation, the players should be following your rules. This seems relatively minor, but if you allow them to go outside of the rules, it will escalate quickly. If character creation has rules, the players should be following them. For instance, if a certain race isn't present in your world, you don't want players to just ignore you and choose whatever they want to do. They should at least ask permission instead of just saying no.

This is just the start. How long until he starts demanding changes elsewhere?

This is also a huge red flag just in terms of being a good player at your table. If he's not going to respect your day 1, very first rule, how could you be surprised when he's blowing up at the table rage quitting because his way to roll crit damage is different than yours? I'd either shut them down now or they can find a new table.

It goes beyond just adhering to your rules, it's a matter of respect. Based on your telling of it, there wasn't any compromise or discussion: just "That way is bad I'll do it my way thanks." No way that doesn't start a pattern of disrespect and jerkiness. 

Agreed and agreed again.

If you look at my earlier post on this forum you will see that I was (past tense) having an issue with a player.  I pulled the plug on him playing in my campaign, and neither of us will likely ever play together again as a result of their behavior. 

However, I still want to be open minded and consider some of the things he said, reflect on some of my decisions, and if I was in the wrong in some way then adjust my DM style accordingly.  So I've been researching, watching dozens of videos, scrubbing forum posts, etc. all in an attempt to glean if I should adjust my style or campaign design philosophy to avoid similar outcomes in the future. 

In the end, or at least so far, I do not see the need to change anything.  I just had a player that was historically only ever a DM, and as a result had forgotten how to be a "player".  Very sad...

Nope - I wouldn't stand for this either.

It's a totally different kettle of fish if a Player came to me and said "I don't like restriction ________, because what I enjoy from the game is ___________, and this restriction prevents me from doing that, or having that kind of fun". That at least gives me a position where I understand why they don't want to abide by it and can - maybe - work with the Player to help them find some arrangement where they can still get what they want under the restrictions I feel are required for this campaign. 

But a Player said "I'm not going to do it your way" - no room for discussion or negotiation? The answer is "I'm not going to DM you, then".

However - I am curious as to why you feel you need to put that restriction in your Campaign. I'm not disputing it, merely curious. If it's central to the kind of Campaign you want to run ( everyman heroes? Gritty realism? ), then I can see you needing to stick to those guns. If it's merely a whim, or a personal preference, you have to ask whether it would be worth easing a Player out of the group over?

At this point however - if the Player has dug their heels in and made it a pissing match, and not a negotiation/discussion - then to keep from being a doormat, you need to stand your ground. If they back down, and come at you for a discussion maybe you can work something out - but so long as they're being confrontational, don't let them get away with it.

It’s hardly a restriction. OP’s array is better than the standard array the problem player insists on using.

I still agree with everyone else, it’s a major red flag, even if they’re not trying to make their character more powerful by it.

Quote from Shadeflayer >>

Had a player recently tell me during the character creation phase that he was not going to follow the character creation requirements of the campaign.  Specifically, that he was not going to use the slightly modified standard array I wanted the characters to use.  The modified array was 15, 14, 13, 12, 12, 10.  He insisted on using the standard DnDBeyond array.

Now, I know I could allow him to deviate just to please him, but the simple fact that he wanted to control how the campaign world and character creation was designed (it is a homebrew after all) suggested that he was going to be a troublesome player.  This was not about allowing for "player agency" or "railroading" the character.  Rather, this was about "player being a **** agency".

I've decided that I will no longer allow players to dictate anything about the base campaign rules. Either follow them or find another DM.

Discuss...

 What’s there to discuss.

problem player. It either works for him or it doesn’t. Not everyone can play and get along with everyone.

I agree and wouldn't allow him to play. 

If he's not following the rules now, he won't follow the rules later.

It's legitimate to ask the DM whether you can use an alternative. It's not legitimate to just declare that you're going to use an alternative.

Quote from Vedexent >>

 

However - I am curious as to why you feel you need to put that restriction in your Campaign. I'm not disputing it, merely curious. If it's central to the kind of Campaign you want to run ( everyman heroes? Gritty realism? ), then I can see you needing to stick to those guns. If it's merely a whim, or a personal preference, you have to ask whether it would be worth easing a Player out of the group over?

No problem sharing that.  The player characters are uncommon people, hand selected by a organization in my world called the Worldguild, and dedicated to protecting the world from destruction by evil/whatever forces.  That organization seeks out children who have just come of age but are extraordinarily gifted (hence the higher starting stats).  They are offered a chance to change the world for the better.  The characters agree, swear the vow, and are transported to the Worldguild HQ where they undergo training for the next three years.  When Game 1 begins they start out at 3rd level, having just graduated from the organizations training program (mage, paladin, fighter, rogue, whatever), and are being sent on their first assignment.

I agree this is unacceptable behavior. 

But I do allow a minimum of negotiation.  If there is a reasonable problem with doing it with a standard array, I would let him roll 3d6, if he prefers.      But he has to play what he rolls - no killing it off before he adventurers.

I agree. If the DM wants the starting stats to be calculated a certain way then that is the way they are calculated. The player is welcome to politely ask for an exception and explain their reasoning if they like but when the DM specifies something like this before the game even starts it isn't something the player gets to choose to use or not ... it is what they must use or choose not to play, which is also their choice.

Negotiation is all well and good, and should be allowable, at least potentially.

"I'm NOT doing it that way," from a player to a DM, is not acceptable.