DM Entitlement...

[Wormwood]

I approach DMing as I would approach being the chairman of a board.

I execute the will of the players, I offer ideas, and I settle disputes. My goal is the same as everyone else's: maximize fun.

We vote on just about all decisions (from house rules to rule interpretations to what kind of adventure we're doing next)

I didn't always run games this way---but I've found its the style that works the best for me and my groups.

 

[Wormwood]

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

In 4e, I'd say doubly so.

 

[Monkey Boy]

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?

I had written something pretty long but the site ate my post!

I am confident someone will have posted along these lines but the gist of my post was that the game must be fun for EVERYONE and that includes the DM. If you bring some stupid character to the game and it wrecks my fun you aren't coming back. Why should I as DM put in so much time and effort only to have it wasted by you.

Show some courtesy and bring a character that will enhance the fun of everyone at the table.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

i always help my players come up with setting appropriate character concepts and see no reason to change the way i do buisness since it has worked for nearly a quarter century. Anyone who has a problem with me running my game as a benign dictatorship can start up their own game.

amen brother!!!!

 

[JediSoth]

I limit the options available to my players for several reasons:

• I hate being surprised by class abilities I'm not familiar with because someone used a class out of a book I don't have
• I host the games exclusively and have spent a lot of money on gaming regalia to make the experience better for everyone
• Most of the time I ask someone else to step up and DM something, even for a few sessions, I have no takers

So, for the most part, I am the DM of the group and the ONLY DM. I put far more time into the game than any of the players do (and the proof of that comes when I expect them to know something I sent to them a week ago, or something in a player's guide I provided and I get blank stares back and admissions they didn't read it). Therefore, I feel a little justified putting restrictions on the types of characters they can play. Normally, I provide a document 3-4 weeks before the start of my campaigns that give an overview of the world (unless they're familiar with it, and then I just write-up some flavor text to convey the mood of the game), give a list of the races and classes available, any special character creation guidelines (which attribute generation method, any free starting equipment, etc.), and any house rules we'll be using. I also always include something like "If there's a class or race you want to play that isn't listed, discuss it with me and I'll probably allow it."

A few people have taken me up on it, hence the kobold beguiler (neither of which was on my list) and kobold unfettered (the kobold wasn't on the list, the unfettered was) in my last Ptolus campaign.

I've found if I don't give some hard and fast guidelines, I get things like parties comprised entirely of various melee classes with no casters whatsoever. And I can tell you, in the World's Largest Dungeon, that made things VERY difficult on them until some of the characters were swapped out.

 

[Mercule]

It's not that the DM dictates every little bit of fluff. The DM is responsible for the larger story arc, the setting, tone, and consistancy.

As a DM, I've swung from power trip to whatever you want. IMO, the best place is somewhat to the authoratative side. It's good to have bounds that define the "playing field". If a player comes up with an exceptional concept, then it's probably a good idea to work with them and see if it can be included. If they just have an idea that's "different" or want to avoid the mold just because, then I'd be dis-inclined to bend.

I DM largely because I enjoy trying to create a world with an interesting and compelling history for the players to interact. There is some give-and-take regarding many things, including character concepts and making sure the PCs, rather than the world, shine. Still, telling me that I am not able to include, exclude, or change various elements in a way I find compelling and internally consistent is a bit like telling a player that he isn't going to be able to choose the feats for his character (or, maybe even that he'll be handed a pre-gen). I'd walk from a game in which the GM said that (without good reason). I'd also walk from the DM role if the creative aspects were stripped and it was turned into little more than a referree.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

There is something to the idea that humans assume automatically that if its written/published by some official source the DM has to use it.

For example, if in my homebrew setting I have certain races and classes with rich histories, background and themetically appropriate elements and then lets say a sourcebook written by Rich Baker, Monte Cook, or game designer dujour comes out with a bunch of new kewl stuff there was a time when my players would act as if I was supposed to add this stuff....because it was now official.

This is a part of human nature. There is a tendency to give particular validity to that which is in print or that which is given the "official" imprimatur of the gaming gods.

Well, not at my table. If what is published fits the type of game I am running I'll happily add it. If something doesn't fit, I don't care if Monte Cook thinks its the greatest thing evah it isn't seeing the light of day in my campaign...and I really like Monte's work.

IMO the worst of 3e's legacy was its (as someone else elegantly put it) its "screw the DM" attitude. Anyone with a lick of sense and a bit of knowledge about marketing can see why WoTC would want to dramatically "empower" players. The fact is that there are more players than DMs and if a company creates books that are offering "options and not restrictions" so as to give players the "full D&D experience" they are doing it for the money. Pander to every power-gamer on the market and you will make a lot of money.

Many 3e DMs drank the Kool-Aid and bought into a gaming meme designed not to improve their individual campaigns but to sell more books to the largest common denominator...the D&D player. DM's started parroting the party line and lost their control of the game and then cried foul saying "OMG! 3e is sooooo broken!" when in fact that the power creep THEY ALLOWED TO HAPPEN was to blame. I don't really blame DMs who only ever DMed 3e but the old guard who actually bought into this nonsense are certainly blameworthy.

I don't personally like 4e but if 4e helps some DMs regrow their cajones and act like DMs and not mere rule arbiting DMbots that's great.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Cadfan]

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.

Responding to this as a literal statement rather than a metaphor, I HATE this attitude.

Nothing fills me with rage faster than someone giving me something I actively DO NOT WANT, refusing to allow me to politely decline, and then pressuring me to express gratitude for it. It makes me want to do the same thing back to them. You know, spend 15 hours painting their house bright pink, then getting SERIOUSLY ANGRY that they're not grateful. What do they mean, they don't like pink? What do they mean, they didn't want their house painted? I DIDN'T WANT THE STUPID MEATLOAF EITHER! Insisting that I not only choke it down, but also pretend that I liked it, thus ensuring that they make the same terrible meatloaf for me again? Its like an act of culinary warfare! It will be responded to in kind!

Rage!

 

[ExploderWizard]

The DM has the right to define what is included or excluded from a game he or she is running. With this right comes the responsibility of making sure prospective players are well informed of these things before characters are created.

If the players do not like the game being offered then the option for one of them to run something else should be made available. It comes down to a simple case of putting your money where your mouth is. The amount of input about what gets included in a game is proportionate to the amount of time one is willing to run a game.

Time spent preparing a game world and adventures should be shared as equally as any input regarding what gets included or excluded. If all the players want to work together developing a campaign world and take turns running adventures in that world then yes, all decisions should be made as a group.

 

[Obryn]

I'm still confused.

Yeah, I put a lot of work into my game - but it's because I enjoy it, and I love running (and playing!) D&D. It's not a chore for which I need to be rewarded. A simple "Thanks!" is more than enough. I thank my players, too, for making the experience enjoyable.


Pretty recently, in my last attempt at 3.5 for a while, I decided to run a Wilderlands game. At first, I decided to try and hew as closely as possible to a swords & sorcery setting - sticking only to core books, using only races mentioned in the Wilderlands Players' Guide and so on.

I also decided that I'd run it sandbox-style, with adventure hooks scattered all around the place. I even bought the Mother of All Encounter Tables off RPGNow for added oldschool-style goodness.

None of my goals really worked out. It turned out that (1) my players, after months of playing non-3.5 games had all been thinking about characters they'd want to run; (2) they like being led around a bit more than is expected for sandbox play; and (3) sword & sorcery tropes don't resonate with them like they do with me.

I could have put my foot down, sure, but I elected not to. Instead of a typical fantasy group I ended up with oddballs like a modron rogue and a goblinesque warlock.

I could have done a few things at this point. I could have put my foot down. I could have cancelled the game and run something else. I decided to just roll with it - really, I want my gaming group to have a good time at the table. I will have fun regardless, but I didn't want to try and force my long-term gaming group into having the exact kind of fun that I was imagining. It just seemed counter-productive for me... Which is more important - the integrity of a campaign style that exists only in my head, or my players' enjoyment of the game? The latter wins out, for me, every single time.

-O