DM Entitlement...

Scribble

First Post

• Aug 19, 2008

• #1

So I've seen a lot of posts (especially with some of the changes in the new edition) that have people saying things like:

"In my game there will be no (insert random thing to ban from campaign.)"

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?

I understand that sometimes, yes, as a DM it falls on your shoulders to spot problematic rules, or things being used "inapropriately" but to outright say "X cannot be used in my game because I don't like it..." just seems way to bossy...

I don't like evil characters. I have a hard time coming up with adventures for evil characters, and feel they tend to cause more game problems then non-evil characters, so I make my feelings known to my players. Some of them, however, enjoy playing evil characters. I won't say no if they really really want to be evil. They're playing the game to, so it should be fun for them as well. They're not just there to facilitate my amusement.

Maybe it's because most of the games I run tend to be with friends I've known since junior high or longer?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mouseferatu

Hero

• Aug 19, 2008

• #2

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.

 

Scribble

First Post

• Aug 19, 2008

• #3

I'm not saying that as a DM anything should go... But I feel that it's a two way street. I should, as a DM, understand when something helps make the game fun, just as the Players should understand when I tel them something will reduce my fun...

Like witht he evil characters, I've told them I don't like evil characters, and why. Most of the time they say, I can understand that, and play non evil characters... There are times, however, when a player will say- "Hey, I know you don't want evil but I had this idea of yada yada..." In these cases, I usually "allow" it, as it's obviously something thats exciting the player...

 

J

JDJblatherings

First Post

• Aug 19, 2008

• #4

wow it's hard to imagine the player that puts the most effort into the game wold feel any degree of entitlement to authority. You'd think the term DungeonMaster implied some degree of control and authority was implicit in the role.

(notice the subtle sarcasm above?)


The DM most certainly is entitled to make decissions about what they are willing to deal with in the campaign and how the rules will be dealt with while running the game. If the DM is a jerk and does not present a fun campaign well then the players should move on or one should take the mantle of DM themselves and as such discover/experience the explicit control and authority over the game as they play it when they are DM.

 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Staff member

Supporter

• Aug 19, 2008

• #5

To echo and expand upon Mouseferatu's post- unlike any other player of the game, the DM has to create an internally consistent play environment for everyone else.

If his world is inconsistent and flaw-riddled, it will detract from the enjoyment of others...and sometimes, the only way to ensure that something works is to remove a part. Or several parts.

If this is required, though, it is also the DM's duty to inform the players ahead of time that he's excising something from the game. A player who designed his dream paladin for a game only to find out "No Paladins Allowed" on the day he sits down at the table, dice in hand, is going to be quite put out. That might not just ruin the day, but the game entire.

 

Darrin Drader

Explorer

• Aug 19, 2008

• #6

As a player, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the DM is god. The DM creates the world, the adventures, the DM sometimes cheats to make the encounters more interesting or enjoyable. Without the DM there is no game. So if the DM says that X race or class does not appear in this campaign world, that's just the way it is. Players who push issues like that with me get ejected from the game, which is also my right.

DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group.

 

JediSoth

Voice Over Artist & Author

Epic

• Aug 19, 2008

• #7

I tried an "anything goes" campaign once when I ran my World's Largest Dungeon campaign. In it, I saw some of the most broken PCs ever, at least in regards to how that adventure was written.

I think it's part of the DMs job to evaluate the types of adventures and scenarios in which he is going to place his players and ensure they can't break the scenario (whether intentionally or not) and make the game less than optimal for anyone involved.

 

Agamon

Adventurer

• Aug 19, 2008

• #8

I try to give my players as much say as they want. They tend to only think of the game when we sit down and play though, so seeing as I'm putting the work into the game, I get most of the say in what goes into the game. Just turns out that way, for the most part.

 

garyh

First Post

• Aug 19, 2008

• #9

The last game a ran I homebrewed this great world with all the races and classes I liked. Then I invited the players to create their characters, and one of them wanted to play an elf. I had not included elves, as I cut out what I'd considered all the "wimpy" races to better fit my "vision of the world." The player ended up settling on playing a human with air-elemental blood (Unearthed Arcana in use), since she was looking for more of a fey sort of character.

Looking back, I feel bad about it, as it wouldn't have been that big a deal to include elves in the setting (no reason I would have even had to feature them prominently, after all), and then this player would have have that much more fun in the game.

I haven't DMed since that game but, since I still feel bad looking back at not allowing this player her elf, I know that if I do, I'll start off by asking the players what they're looking for in the game. Yes, a happy DM helps make happy players, but simple things like this can make happy players, and happy players can help keep the DM motivated, too.

 

Obryn

Hero

• Aug 19, 2008

• #10

Darrin Drader said:

DMs are entitled to make decisions like this because it is their game. If the players don't like it, they're always welcome to take their self entitlement and find a different group.

Click to expand...

I dunno. I grew up when the only school in town was old-school, and was reared from an early age on the sweet milk of Gary's 1e DMG.

But with the game I run, I really tend to think of it as our game, not my game. Sure, I more or less run the show. I control the setting, the NPCs, and what I say goes. But if I'm a petty tyrant about it, and don't listen to my players, I'll be awfully lonely on Wednesday nights, sitting with my books, dice, and the knowledge that I alone was right.

-O