DM Entitlement...

[Rechan]

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.

At least for me, taking something away means putting something in its place.

If I want to remove Elves, Dwarves and Halflings (I personally do), then I feel the need to put something in their place to fill their archetypes. So, we have a swift, nature-venerating, somewhat fey race, a powerful, taciturn militaristic race, and a sneaky, mysterious and somewhat playful race.

 

[Scribble]

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.

As I said, I DM the majority of times I play the game... For me, the real reward is when everyone is having a good time, and enjoying the game.

Like I said though, I don't mean this requires the DM be told what and how to do things, or that anything the player wants should be granted... But it also doesn't mean that he DM can simply be a dictator.

I guess for me, I don't think the first response out of a DM's mouth should be no way it's MY game we do what I say... I think a better overall game would be achieved by the DM explaining his concerns, and discussing a solution that meets what people want out of the game.

 

[garyh]

At least for me, taking something away means putting something in its place.

If I want to remove Elves, Dwarves and Halflings (I personally do), then I feel the need to put something in their place to fill their archetypes. So, we have a swift, nature-venerating, somewhat fey race, a powerful, taciturn militaristic race, and a sneaky, mysterious and somewhat playful race.

That's a fair approach, and I think that would generally work well.

My elf-free game had humans (PHB 3.5), dwarves (PHB 3.5), goblins (MM 3.5), orcs (Warcraft RPG), and giants (AU). I didn't replace the fey/nature option, nor did goblins really fill the small folk role like halflings or gnomes (I like goblins, but they were the only unplayed race). On the plus side, any one who liked half-orcs in core 3.5 would have been in luck, getting to play the full-blooded version.

 

[fba827]

Sometimes DMs ban things because they don't like the item ("I hate having to deal with the shiftiness of kobolds"), sometimes DMs ban things because they feel they are broken ("I don't want to include sunrods because it is way too broken"), sometimes DMs ban things because the players don't want it in ("Please no swordmages, we just want to stick to things in the PHB"), and sometimes a DM bans things because it isn't appropriate for the tone, style, or story he wants to run ("I'm sorry but no evil or kobolds or reluctant-heroes, it won't work well with the story you're about to take part in"), I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Personally, I agree with some of them, and I have occasionally done others of them. But who am I to judge whether a DM in another campaign should or should not ban something? What works for them (ie "fun") may be different than what works for me and my game group. So if it works and it seems appropriate, ban something or don't ban something... Some DMs may think of that as entitlement, and perhaps it is, but it's just as much entitlement from the power and responsibility they have to run the game as it is their own ego.

 

[Scribble]

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).

But that's the thing... For me, the first part of that setup would be me, as the DM saying soemthing like: Hey guys, I want to run a midnight campaign, here's the general idea I'm thinking of: followed by listening to their input, or whether they're interested in the idea of a Midnight campaign in the first place.

The idea of a Midnight campaign has a conotation too... I know when I say "Midnight campaign" my players would have a general idea of what to expect, and can work things out with me from there.

That's (in my eyes at least) a world away from saying we''re playing Midnight. Roll up a character.

The first is more like: I feel like going out to eat tonight. Anyone want to come, or have any thoughts on what type of food? I'l drive.

The second is: I want to go to taco bell. Get in the car and buy some tacos to eat.

 

[garyh]

The idea of a Midnight campaign has a conotation too... I know when I say "Midnight campaign" my players would have a general idea of what to expect, and can work things out with me from there.

That's (in my eyes at least) a world away from saying we''re playing Midnight. Roll up a character.

The first is more like: I feel like going out to eat tonight. Anyone want to come, or have any thoughts on what type of food? I'l drive.

The second is: I want to go to taco bell. Get in the car and buy some tacos to eat.

Food metaphors clarify everything. Well put.

 

[Scribble]

Food metaphors clarify everything. Well put.

I'm hungry what can I say... You're going to have 4 tacos. With mild sauce.

 

[Set]

The second is: I want to go to taco bell. Get in the car and buy some tacos to eat.

Or, more accurately, *I'm* going to Taco Bell. If anybody wants to come with me in my car and have some of the Taco Bell food that I'll be buying, they're welcome to do so, but I'm just going to Taco Bell. If somebody wants Pizza Hut, they are more than welcome to take their own car and maybe I'll go with them and have pizza instead!

In non-food metaphors, the DM is doing the players a favor by running the game instead of playing (as most people prefer playing). Like a good cook, he's best served to find out what his potential customers like to eat, rather than just plop a steaming plate of beef tongue and boiled cabbage in front of them, but it's his kitchen, and ultimately, nobody has to eat what he's cooking, when they could all get out of the player chairs and go cook up something more to their taste and let *him* sit down and sample their fare instead.

 

[Jackelope King]

In non-food metaphors, the DM is doing the players a favor by running the game instead of playing (as most people prefer playing). Like a good cook, he's best served to find out what his potential customers like to eat, rather than just plop a steaming plate of beef tongue and boiled cabbage in front of them, but it's his kitchen, and ultimately, nobody has to eat what he's cooking, when they could all get out of the player chairs and go cook up something more to their taste and let *him* sit down and sample their fare instead.

... or he can just ask if one of the players could give him a hand in the kitchen.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I hope I missed the sarcasm tag somewhere...

I tend to find this attitude condescending, self-important, and downright rude. A DM's job is storyteller and rule-arbiter, not deity-who-is-always-right. While certainly most DMs do the lion's share of the work (game prep, etc) the game is a social, collaborative event of which the DM is but one participant. Remember, a DM without players is telling just stories to himself.

Then again, I tend to play with my friends, so most of these arguments are moot; we tend to agree on most of the same rules of broken and not-broken, and few of us ever break the spirit of the rules, so little if anything is outright banned.