DM Entitlement...

[CountPopeula]

Hussar is the one who said he would "gank" the players - and that's not a positive term. It's typically considered underhanded. So I think you and Cadfan should cool your jets about grickherder's indignation. If Hussar really did mean "gank" and not something more innocuous like "woo away", the indignation is correctly placed.

Semantics and terminology aside, I fail to see the difference between a player talking to the group about removing the DM and the DM talking to the group about removing a player. Provided the DM does talk to the group and doesn't act unilaterally.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Did you ever have a player come to you and ask to create a character of one of the races in Frostburn or Book of Vile Darkness?

I don't like gnomes. I can't remember the last time I used a gnome npc. I've also never had a gnome player character in one of my games.

But I really haven't "banned" gnomes.

Is your situation similar?

Very similar actually.

I have a listr of available races and its a damn open-minded list including half-orcs, orcs, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, vitharr (a setting specific race), a couple races of elves (no aquatic elves....bleecch), humans, halflings, gnomes, deurgar, dwarves, night elves (setting specific drow), etc. Now all of these cannot possibly work for every campaign, but I am reasonable.

Because I have a broad list, my players never demontrated anything more than a passing interest in a race I didn't like. In every case I never had to be draconian, instead I recommended alternatives and ultimately the alternative worked out well. However, if I met resistance, ban I would because ban I must.


Wyrmshadows

 

[Wyrmshadows]

double post

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Note that both Star Wars and Planescape have their fans...

Note that my campaign is neither nor do I wish it to have the feel of either setting. They have their place, but I have no desire to have my campaign share their feel.

Really, it's not hard to run an exciting cosmopolitan setting (and there are all sorts of ways to provide setting cohesion/unified theme). I've be doing it for almost 5 years now in my current campaign. If cosmopolitan is boring you're doing it wrong. Trust me, I live in a city.

Cosmopolitan, is fine and fits in my campaign....Mos Eisley Spaceport is too much for my taste or my setting.

No, all it means is the people in that town will be accustomed to demon-folk. A cross dressing were-dog priest would get their attention. Trust me, cross dressing were-dog priests always raise a few eyebrows.

Demon-folk....that's the problem. They are the offspring of humans mating with creatures of absolute and irredeemable corruption and evil. I don't do a medieval campaign with post-modern sensibilities. Devils, demons, and their spawn represent the worst of the worst in the multiverse and no one IMC ever accepts demon-folk. There's no "Oh that's Bob, he's part demon, but he's a nice guy." If you want to play a redeemable monster play an orc, gnoll, night elf, etc. It'll be tough, but it'll give lots of unique role-playing opportunities.

So your imagination is informed only by... your imagination? What ever happen to stealing every idea that wasn't nailed down? That's how I build D&D setting back in the old days... well, actually, it's how I build them now, too.

No, but I am pretty solidly aware of the races I want in my setting after 12+yrs. I don't have any room for dragonborn, warforged, goliaths, half-giants, half-dragons, thri-kreen (I loved them on Athas) or whatnot. Why do I need to add a race a month if I have a working setting with a lot of options for the players?



Wyrmshadows

 

[Fenes]

So your imagination is informed only by... your imagination? What ever happen to stealing every idea that wasn't nailed down? That's how I build D&D setting back in the old days... well, actually, it's how I build them now, too.

Not everything is good enough to steal, and not everything is fun for everyone. I think you should try to understand that not everyone thinks like you, and enjoys the same campaigns.

 

[Greg K]

And, as a side note, I'd do it to any DM who tried it on me. If the only reason that you're banning something is due to your own aesthetic issues and nothing else, and you cannot be swayed from that, I'm going to gank your players and start my own group.

Of course, try that and you could find yourself kicked out by the other players and, depending upon the group, find yourself blacklisted from several groups in the area (gaming networks can be such a nice thing- especially, when players are involved with multiple groups).

And, as someone that plays in a group with multiple DMs, we respect the right of the DM to place limits based upon their view of the setting.

 

[Greg K]

Then again, with a game like D&D, which lends itself to broad kitchen-sinking play environments, that DM better be selling something really damn good before I give my god-given right to cheap puns and absurd characters...

As someone who despises broad kitchen-sink play environments, cheap puns and absurd characters, neither of us would want to play in the same game. Thankfully, initial discussions prior to playing would reveal that our styles are incompatible and we would never sit at the same game table.

 

[racoffin]

The problem I've had over the years (although not so much anymore) is that there are players who can and are willing to write elaborate backstories and pitch their idea with the fervor of a used car salesman. That energy and enthusiasm is wonderful, but (and there is always a but) it doesn't mean that I should toss the equally (if not moreso) elaborate setting notes and player documents just because Bob came up with a new idea this week.

And that is the thing: I've had (and I am sure some of you have too) players who want to change characters every time the wind blows to a new fad. Be it a new movie, novel, commercial, splatbook, whatever, they have this awesome idea they just HAVE to try out or they will just die.

I feel no shame in saying "No." I'm glad they like the idea of an evil PC, but that isn't what we are playing. I'm sure that the Dragonborn are a lovely race with many great qualities, but they do not exist on this world. No, you may not have a +5 Holy Avenger to start with, even though you did a wonderful background with full color illustrations about how your great grandfather left it to you after the Great War.

The things that are disallowed in my campaign come in for various reasons. Some are balance reasons, some are thematic reasons, and some are, yes, just because I do not care for them. I don't like evil PCs, for example, because that isn't what I feel the story is about in the world we are in. Evil PCs and campaigns are a lot of fun, and many people enjoy them. I've played in them myself. I do not feel obliged to run them, however, no matter the really cool explaination I get from a player on how they can make the idea work.

I don't care for Dragonborn. They don't work on my world, I don't plan to shoehorn them in. I, like a previous person, do not care for dragon-like humaniod being player characters, half-dragon whatever, etc. There are many and varied races to pick from in our campaign. If a player just HAS to have Dragonborn or they won't be happy and won't play, then .. they won't be happy and won't play. I'm not going to give in "just this once" so the pouting will stop, because it is NEVER just once. Once you establish the precedent, it gets harder to say No the next time, and then you have a game full of characters, Prestige Classes, and so forth that you already didn't want.

The DMs job, in the end, is to sometimes be the Bad Guy and say No. No, we aren't having Drow PCs. No, you can't play a half-balrog half-Legoman cleric of the God of Tapioca. No, you can't play a gnome in a wagon-sized wheelchair with a catapult. No, stop trying to be weird. No, stop trying to minimax with every splatbook to make the build you saw online.

The DM has a responsiblity to the players. All the players. The time I have to spend arguing with Bob about his Build Of The Week takes away from the Happy Fun Time the rest of the players are going to have. Frankly, I seldom have to say No anymore. My other players deal with the problem and let the Bobs of the world know where the line is, what is permissible, and what they don't want to see.

 

[Remathilis]

Of course, try that and you could find yourself kicked out by the other players and, depending upon the group, find yourself blacklisted from several groups in the area (gaming networks can be such a nice thing- especially, when players are involved with multiple groups).

And, as someone that plays in a group with multiple DMs, we respect the right of the DM to place limits based upon their view of the setting.

Maybe the gaming around MI is poor, but I've successfully poached players from other games by, oh, simply running a better game than the jeckwad DMs they used to play under.

No blacklist for me!

 

[Imp]

This triggered a thought. How many races would a world have to have before it became overwhelming? Three+ races of dwarves, six+ of elves, orcs, three goblinoids, goliaths, kobolds, gnomes, tieflings, dragonborn, elan, genasi, yuan-ti, shades, half-giants, thri-kreen, githyanki, githzerai, dromites, gnolls, and a host of others.

I really don't want to play in a setting where all of those exist as significant entities. Just like any other story form, a D&D setting needs to pick a scope and theme and focus on it.

I do this, because yeah, way too many races. But one thing you can do to open things up a bit is to demote some monster types from "race" to "clan", "accursed (or blessed) family", or "unique" – basically, the lens of evolutionary biology, which so many of the monster descriptions take for granted, is not necessarily your friend in making a fantasy setting.

Now, wrt PCs, it still winds up being effectively a ban on some outlandish races because it means they'll be outcasts, but it might be possible to work some things out. Still, it might be a way for a player to play, say, a "warforged" (a wizard's escaped homonculous of sorts, maybe) without the GM having to write the bleepers into their setting. Or not, which is fine.

There's some conceptual space between bannination and capitulation.

Now back to your regularly scheduled "you're entitled!" "no, you're entitled!"