DM Entitlement...

[Jackelope King]

The position of DM/GM is bound by a social contract of sorts. When you're running the game, it's your show, but only by the players' whim. If you want to run a game, and everything about the way you run it rubs your players the wrong way, you will not run a good game, no matter how much you love the game.

I've had an enlightening experience in this matter with a rotating GM game. Being able to discuss the world, the adventures, and the characters with the rest of the group, and sort of collaborate on what we all want out of the game is, simply put, fantastic. Everyone is open with what they like about the game, what they don't like, where their preferences are, and things that they'd really enjoy seeing in the game.

Yes, it's the GM's job to have the final say on what is or what isn't appropriate for the game, but before it comes to that, a good GM should turn to the rest of the group and say, "What do you think?" That doesn't mean that you should stop the game every time there's a rules despute, set up a house-rule committe with parliamentary procedure, and spend an hour figuring out what you all think is best. The GM should make a ruling, write it down, and continue with the game. After the game is over, or before the next one starts, is the time to decide what the best house-rule for something is with the whole group.

A GM who doesn't show respect for his/her players with an extreme sort of "my way or the highway" attitude doesn't do much to earn any respect for him/herself.

 

[Urbannen]

I think the real questions is: What game are you playing?

Are you playing the DM's game, or are you playing the implied game from the PHB plus splats? My experience starting a 3.5 campaign with people I didn't know was that everyone expected to be able to use every splatbook. The game that I was willing to run was core 3.5 plus core Forgotten Realms (FRCS and PGtF). I eventually relented to allow most FR books. After several months of high-level play, I think they're starting to understand why I wanted to limit the options a bit.

When a new player joined, he already had a character planned out using, yes, multiple splats. This was a character that he had planned before hearing anything about the campaign or my style. I relented a bit because we needed another person and I wanted to be welcoming. I've regretted it because his character has been made VERY powerful thanks to those extra options he was allowed. It's hard to balance everything because he is also a much more effective player than the others.

Frankly I don't like saying "No" as a DM. What I want to say is, "Here are your parameters, you can choose anything here. Everything is an automatic no. This is the game that I am offering."

The whole "Run option X by me first" seems unfair and messy, since the people you like and the peole who are more stubborn are going to end up with the best options, whether you mean it to happen or not.

 

[grickherder]

It is entirely a social contract issue.

There is one thing though that gives a DM a severe advantage in the negotiation of that social contract though. The ratio of DMs to players. I've got a waiting list almost 20 gamers long and I get an email from another person every week or two from postings I put on message boards looking for new gamers back from 2006 (which I had completely forgotten about).

More people need to take up the noble art of Dungeon Mastering. The 4E DMG is one of the best DMGs as far as actually guiding new people in their first foray into DMing, so that's atleast a plus.

The following things are banned from my campaign:

Party infighting.
Drow.

That is all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

I wholly agree with the mouse here.

I've been gaming with a bunch of guys for over (blimey!) 27 years now. There is an implied social contract when someone agrees to DM a campaign - they are going to try to produce fun adventures and a fun setting for people (possibly within their comfort range) and the players will accept limitations or options which the DM wants to set up that are important for the campaign world flavour.

After all, if someone wanted to DM a 'Midnight' campaign, wouldn't it seem strange if someone came along and said "but I've set my heart on playing a (class banned in midnight setting).

Some campaigns may be almost entirely core. One of our guys DMed a game which was "Core + psionics - prestige classes". My first 3e campaign had some campaign flavour rules that associated particular classes with particular nations and had only human starting characters. In addition, wizards could only be male and druids were called witches and could only be female. The players all accepted those as the parameters for the campaign world I'd created and if anybody was desperate to play a female elf wizard they didn't pout and feel put out because they knew that (a) there were plenty of fun options in this game and (b) another game would come along when they could play the female elf wizard.

Cheers

 

[Spatula]

I'm not saying that as a DM anything should go... But I feel that it's a two way street.

Sure. The DM does the work (running the type of game that everyone can find enjoyable, of course), and the players agree to meet the DM halfway within the parameters of that work. If you want something different and one particular DM isn't interested, go ahead and DM it yourself (assuming the rest of the group is ok with it). The DM isn't your slave and isn't slave to the books. Frankly, doing the same thing over and over gets boring. Probably moreso for DMs than for players, since DMs will generally spend more time thinking about the game world.

 

[Hjorimir]

Yes, campaigns should be a give-and-take affair...and seeing how the DM gives about 20x more than the combination of all the players the DM gets to take away whenever he or she feels it is necessary for their creation.

Most DMs I know take their campaigns pretty seriously. They put a lot of creative effort into their respective homebrews. In return, the players respect that work (as they are expected to) and create a character that works within the creation of the DM.

It's the player's story, it's the DM's world and plot(s). Or, as I normally say it, "DMs write plot, players write stories."

 

[garyh]

I wholly agree with the mouse here.

I've been gaming with a bunch of guys for over (blimey!) 27 years now. There is an implied social contract when someone agrees to DM a campaign - they are going to try to produce fun adventures and a fun setting for people (possibly within their comfort range) and the players will accept limitations or options which the DM wants to set up that are important for the campaign world flavour.

After all, if someone wanted to DM a 'Midnight' campaign, wouldn't it seem strange if someone came along and said "but I've set my heart on playing a (class banned in midnight setting).

Some campaigns may be almost entirely core. One of our guys DMed a game which was "Core + psionics - prestige classes". My first 3e campaign had some campaign flavour rules that associated particular classes with particular nations and had only human starting characters. In addition, wizards could only be male and druids were called witches and could only be female. The players all accepted those as the parameters for the campaign world I'd created and if anybody was desperate to play a female elf wizard they didn't pout and feel put out because they knew that (a) there were plenty of fun options in this game and (b) another game would come along when they could play the female elf wizard.

Cheers

If you say you're playing Midnight, then that establishes the baseline for the game, and I see no problem with sticking to the Midnight book.

I think it's a different issue when you say "We're playing D&D 4E... but I don't like tielfings, dragonborn, halfling, eladrin, or half-elves. So you can't play those."

That's another thing - many of the "I'm not allowing X" posts here are because the DM doesn't like X, not because there's some serious problem that X poses. That seems a poor reason to me. Some folks say they don't want to put new element X into an ongoing campaign, and I can respect that. But for new campaigns, I've swung towards thinking it's bad form to disallow core options without a REALLY good reason.

 

[Rechan]

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.

I think it depends.

If for instance, DMs who want to run low magic "Only martial classes with access to ritual caster" games, ala Conan or LOTR. The other classes don't fit the tone of the campaign.

In those situations, you know what you're getting into ahead of time. Otherwise it's like deciding "I'm going to play a non-combatant social character!" in a dungeon-crawl campaign - you're going to be unhappy, and stick out.

If I wanted to run a "Lost World" campaign where everyone were primitives, I would feel justified in limiting the class options to "Sorcerer/Barbarian/bard/druid/ranger". In a Thieves Guild game, a player who went full fighter would be very unhappy since they don't have the skill points to do any, well, thiefy stuff like the entire rest of the party.

However, I'm of the mind that you negotiate with the player. For instance, in your example, the player wanted to play something fey-like. An elf was the easiest answer, but not the only answer. You think elves are weak? Offer a satyr.

 

[Imp]

First of all, I completely agree with & applaud Mouseferatu here.

Secondly I think where input from the players is really important & useful is where you run the kind of adventures they want to have. If they want to go exploring uncharted wildernesses, looting tombs, saving the kingdoms, fighting in arenas, whatever, this is the sort of thing you ought to ask them and comply with (to a point). Banning races/classes/feats is by comparison small potatoes, or ought to be.

 

[JeffB]

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.

Great Post.


For me, I feel that the DM has a unique perk- the creator of worlds, which can be just as fun (and often is a labor of love) as the play experience. I'm all for the DM having that perk whether I'm a player or a DM. Playing D&D is easy, DMing can be a real chore and I consider this perk as "compensation" of sorts for all that extra work the DM does.

And if you don't care for certain restrictions, take up the mantle of DM for the next campaign in your group and do things how *you* would like to see them! That's what the game is all about!

It's all good in the end as long as the game does not suffer because of the DM's creation.