DM Entitlement...

[Scribble]

Again, I'm not talking about an "anything goes" campaign...

I'm just saying it's a give and take process, and no one player (DM or not) should be considered "God."

 

[LostSoul]

This seems pretty odd to me. D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?

Yes. Everyone should have a say. I think that in almost all groups, everyone does have a say.

Some people run with the idea that "the DM is God, whatever he says goes." They end up playing with people who want that sort of game, and people who don't like that attitude just leave. (I find that the people who like that sort of game are the ones who just want to show up to be entertained.)

 

[Adrift]

IMO, DnD is a collaborative game. Everyone should be allowed to input on houserules/banning since they are all there for the same reason. Life is about give and take; playing this game shouldn't be any different.

Sure, the DM can drop a bunch of house rules and kill PC concepts, and those players have the right to tell the DM that they don't want to play in that game.

 

[Rechan]

D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?

Actually, I agree.

That's why I put banned classes/races up to a vote. And I offered the players the opportunity to propose things to ban.

As a DM, I still feel entitled to ban things that are broken or overtly ludicrous.

As a player, I have asked every DM I have ever sat under "So, can I play a kobold?" and I have been told no. And I do not begrudge them for it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

For myself I usually make a couple different settings/campaigns with all the restrictions/bans then the players decide which one to play. Afterwards if there is anything important they wish I will try to incorporate it into the setting,

 

[vazanar]

IMO, DnD is a collaborative game. Everyone should be allowed to input on houserules/banning since they are all there for the same reason. Life is about give and take; playing this game shouldn't be any different.

Sure, the DM can drop a bunch of house rules and kill PC concepts, and those players have the right to tell the DM that they don't want to play in that game.

I think it all depends. A broken character should be discussed before hand and banned. Pretty much at that point its the player who is out of line, since it most likely will be bad for the game. For other things, I think the question is does the dm always disallow it. I mean if I have an Iron Kingdoms story in certain cities, I dont want you to play a gnoll or a drow. Id suggest Ogrun and Nyss. However, in the next campaign world it be more reasonable for a Gnoll. One reason I like more than one campaign at a time. Most players I think are reasonable and will understand. Of course you need to explain the basics of the campaign first so they have the oppurtunity to say they have problems.

 

[Ktulu]

I second the above. While the DM should have say in what's presented (he's a moderator, NOT a god), it's also a group activity. If joe's favorite race is dwarf and he shows up to my new (dwarfless) game with a dwarf pc; he won't be happy. Sure, he could change his character, but I think it's more responsible and mature to sit down with the group and find out what they want as well.

I don't put a campaign world together that I don't get some feedback on my proposed changes. If I drop halflings due to them not making sense in world x, I do check and see if the players were intending on playing halflings. If not, it's easy to drop them.

I can see the other side of things, too. It's hard to give up too much freedom as many people see their campaign as a personal thing. For my group, the campaign is fluid. A player can mention a town he's from and a rough direction it's in and it can be added. The same goes for NPC's and plot devices. As GM, I fill in the details based on those things.

K

 

[racoffin]

It's the DM's job to put together fun adventures, an interesting campaign world (or at least to portray an interseting campaign world), and possibly to develop an intricate plot.

It's not only the DM's right, but his responsibility, to ban material that's going to make it harder for him to do the above. And yes, that includes sometimes banning races, classes, alignments, or what have you. I rarely allow evil characters, for instance, and I feel not one shred of guilt for doing so. If I'm running a Conan-like game, I'm going to ban most of the non-human races for PCs, for the sake of the aesthetic.

This isn't about power, and it isn't about entitlement. It's about the DM creating the world and setting in which he wants to set his game, and nothing ruins a game faster than a DM who's not enjoying it.

Is it possible to abuse this? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that it's always an abuse, or that it's unreasonable. Frankly, I'd rather a DM who has a strong enough sense of his intended aesthetic that he's willing to say "You know, X won't really work in this campaign" than a DM who allows everything, even if it won't work for the adventures or world he has in mind.

This.

For my part, when I DM I have a handout of player information and rumours (not all true) as well as what is allowed and not allowed for the game. This is what I am prepared to DM. If the group decides they'd rather play something else, that's cool with me, as long as someone else is DMing.

As far as house rules go, we discuss things between campaigns or at lunch and so on, and come to a collaborative agreement. But once the game starts, the agreement is that the DM (whomever they may be) has the final say on things.

 

[Mallus]

I'm just saying it's a give and take process, and no one player (DM or not) should be considered "God."

I sometimes --meaning: right now-- like to think of the DM as the democratically elected god of a constitutional republic, one that derives his or her power from the will and assent of the people...

In a related vein, it's always nice to remember who's doing most of the work. This is true in virtually all social situations, from dinner parties to D&D campaigns.)

 

[garyh]

As a DM, I still feel entitled to ban things that are broken or overtly ludicrous.

As a player, I have asked every DM I have ever sat under "So, can I play a kobold?" and I have been told no. And I do not begrudge them for it.

I can certainly understand a DM telling me "no" regarding a non-PHB option. But with a case like my elf-loving player above, or the countless "No tieflings and/or dragonborn in MY 4e game!" threads, when a DM disallows core PB options, I think the player has some right to be disappointed.

Broken stuff is, of course, a separate and valid issue.