DM Entitlement...

[Draksila]

....

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.

That's a shame. Some of the most interesting characters we've had in my group's campaigns over the years have been a kobold, a saurial, three minotaur sisters, and a goblin. A well-thought out and designed character should be permitted regardless of prejudices, as long as the player is willing to work under the hardships inherent in being so very different.

 

[Ourph]

I went through my "I am the DM, I am god, what I say goes, my way or the highway"-phase at one point. What I learned from that experience was that, yes, there are players who will tolerate such a DM, but they were rarely players that I enjoyed running a game for. The good players, with something positive to contribute to the game, will usually go and find a game run by a less totalitarian DM. I've found I have a much better chance of getting together a game with people I actually enjoy running the game for if everyone at the table has a say in how the game is run.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

The Mouse has spoken well.

Additionally, part of what the DM is responsible for is what you might call the "mood" or "feel" of the game. So, if we're doing (as the Mouse mentioned) a Conan-esque game, certain things will be allowed and certain things will be disallowed. You're not bringing a saucy Kender to my Conan game. If you run a game, it can be called SaucyKenderLance if you want. But in the game I'm responsible for, the game I am blamed for if it sucks, I feel perfectly comfortable laying down reasonable parameters. And if you don't trust my parameters to be reasonable... you're daft for playing with me in the first place.

Another person mentioned dinner parties. The analogy is apt. I know a married couple... the fellow's wife cooks like nobody's business. When I'm lucky enough to get an invitation to their house for dinner, I would never dream of presuming to try to dictate what will be cooked. It's not my house, I'm not buying the food and I'm not cooking it and if I were cooking it the food would not turn out 1/1000th as good. So I'll trust the chef... and what's cool about that is that it actually works: I get a delicious meal! It would not work out half so well if I tried to arrogate authority to myself in the matter.

 

[Kzach]

Nothing is more disheartening to me than preparing a lavish meal only to have people turn up their noses at it, simply because it isn't in their taste.

So... you go to all the effort and expense of creating a lovely meal, a nice setting and inviting people around for a good social night out, and some gobstopper turns his nose up at your food and you're the one who feels bad?

I would so kick them out on their arse for being completely ungrateful, selfish gits. It's all well and good not to like something, but there are also such things as manners.

 

[Spatula]

I think some people are reading too much into the "I am the dungeon master" comments. If you're playing with friends, you all already know what kind of game that everyone enjoys. It's not a matter of saying, "you're going to play in my hack-n-slash campaign or you're going home." Because if you've been with a group for a while and they like hack-n-slash gaming, you probably do too, or you wouldn't still be playing with them. Everyone is already on board with the choice of the dinner menu, so to speak.

So we're primarily talking about variations on the menu... to which I say, is this really a big deal that you can't play an elf (or whatever) for once? "Elf" isn't a character concept. D&D races are just collections of mechanical bonuses with some roleplaying hooks attached.

/scrubs self clean after using food metaphors

 

[Fenes]

It's all about making sure everyone, the DM and the players, have fun. And just as there are things people require to have fun, there are things people need to be absent to have fun. When those two things overlap in a group, then a compromise is needed, or someone needs to give - or leave.

And given how much work a DM does, he or she usually has a bit more "clout" than a player when it comes to compromising.

 

[Phaezen]

So... you go to all the effort and expense of creating a lovely meal, a nice setting and inviting people around for a good social night out, and some gobstopper turns his nose up at your food and you're the one who feels bad?

I would so kick them out on their arse for being completely ungrateful, selfish gits. It's all well and good not to like something, but there are also such things as manners.

Granted, but as host it is also your duty to check with your guests what they enjoy eating and if there are any foods they don't or won't eat for health or other personal issues.

Same thing when I am proposing a campaign I check with myplayers what they would be interested in, system, setting, if they would accept certain limitations and houserules etc. ON the flip side, I do ask to check character sheets and builds beforehand to try and cut down on the most blatant of the rules abuses and to check the characters will fit the campaign.

Phaezen

 

[Fenes]

In my experiences, characters are best made together with the whole group. That way, players know what to expect.

 

[Steely Dan]

While I cannot stand control freak DMs, I do like that 4th Ed has toned down a bit the player pleasing/DMs go screw yourselves vibe that 3rd Ed had, IMO.


And I'm all for DMs restricting things based on flavour, such as "Hey, guys, in this campaign setting there is no divine power source (no gods), so cleric and paladin are unavailable in this world."

As long as there is a reason and everyone knows up front it should be fine

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I think the DM has every right to mold his setting as he sees fit. The funny thing is that this is totally accepted when the changes are printed in a campaign setting but some players cry "FOUL" when a DM does so for a homebrew setting. I'll give you an example...

Midnight - In this setting the magic system is different from the 3E rules. Magic in the setting is also treated differently. As such almost every core PC magic using class from the PHB has been excluded and not all of them has been replaced with a non-magical equivalent. There are no Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Monks, or Druids. The have been replaced with Defenders, Channellers, and Wildlanders. However, I've never had a problem with players picking up the book and creating their characters with the classes offered in the Midnight book. Not one gripe. Switch now to the DM who were to create a homebrew setting that was similar setting to Midnight but excludes the 7 PHB classes listed above and creates his own. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a group that didn't contain at least one player who would get ticked that the DM didn't allow their favorite class. It seems that something being published grants "authority" to the decision to exclude certain races and classes even when the DM should have that authority all along.

What if a DM decides that they want to run a setting where the gods either don't get involved or don't even exist? If the DM wanted to throw out all classes that use divine magic I think that they have every right to do so because it supports their setting.

What irks me the most is that all a Player really has to do is just show up and they expect to be entertained. With the exception of Game Day they don't even have to think about the game all week. It is the DM who brainstorms or pours through a modules to prep for the game. I think everyone will agree that preparing for a game is "Work" even if it is a labor of love. For crying out loud, make it easy on the DM by letting him/her do what they want with the game they are running.