DM Entitlement...

[Banshee16]

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?

The game is about collective storytelling. But the DM has to spend the time and effort creating and managing the world, writing adventures, etc. If the players throw things off track by making characters that don't fit with the world, or displaying behaviour through their characters that doesn't work, or is problematic, it puts a lot of pressure on the DM.

If the DM loses interest, no more game.

I've never had any guilt about banning evil characters. I had two instances of players having their characters murder the characters of other players, and it's just generally antisocial.....and it breeds bad feelings. The first time it happened, I thought I was being fair, by allowing it to happen, since the player of the character doing the killing did it in a way that made sense, and within the limits of the rules. Unfortunately, the victim's player didn't appreciate it (obviously), and quit the game. The second time it happened, I kicked out the player of the evil character. After that, I just outright banned evil characters, and the games have been much smoother since. And no players have complained.

Admittedly, if the players don't like the game, they'll leave, and then there won't be a game either. But if the DM sets the ground rules and expectations at the beginning, the players really don't have a right to complain.

But overall, if the DM ain't interested in what he's running, the game will suck for all concerned, and that doesn't help anyone.

Banshee

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Anyone, player or DM, who wants to ignore the concerns and tastes and the fun for the rest of the group is wrong. I don't care if you have an incredibly detailed history for your world that magnificently ties together magical theory with the origin of the high elves becoming distinct from the wood elves and the setting is a masterpiece the likes of which you would, by all conventional standards, be hailed as not just the epitome of the high fantasy genre, but the rebirth of it: if your players are all sitting around wanting to play Eberron and just not getting your setting, you're wrong.

I disagree.

The last campaign I ran started off in a standard-type D&D PMP, but in the first adventure, they got abducted into another PMP to be stock in a private hunting preserve.

There were NO PHB races in this world. At all. They did not exist.

Should someone's PC have died, they would have had to choose their new PC's race from that world's races. Someone joining the campaign in process would have to do likewise...and the 2 who did, did.

If anyone (established or new) had raised a fuss about wanting to play a PHB race, they could have argued with me 'till doomsday- they'd have been Simply Out of Luck.

That's not wrong, that's playing within the campaign. If your PC concept doesn't fit within the campaign, that's a player's problem, not the GM's (regardless of genre).

 

[Greg K]

Definately a 3e meme and one that hopefully dies a terribly painful though blessedly rapid death soon. I have been seeing less and less of this attitude probably because it was yanked from WoTC's Meme Life Support System.
Wyrmshadows

I saw it on message boards back in 2e regarding Player's Options, Monster Handbook, etc.

 

[Hussar]

DannyA - PMP? Not familiar with that TLA.

The question I have though is why did you ban PHB races? Did you do so because you had a very specific vision for your campaign setting or did you do so simply because you didn't like them?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DannyA - PMP? Not familiar with that TLA.

PMP = Prime Material Plane

The question I have though is why did you ban PHB races? Did you do so because you had a very specific vision for your campaign setting or did you do so simply because you didn't like them?

Simple question, complex answer.

I had a very specific vision of that campaign setting- the races in question were simply non-existent. In my current setting work in progress, I had a similar vision, but allow Humans and some variant monster races- Goblinoids, Orcs, Gnolls and so forth. Again, the PHB races don't fit, and their places in the ecosystem have been filled. The exceptions, you'll note, are all races that are notoriously fecund...the "cockroaches" of the sentient races.

However, I've come to dislike the "Half" races- fantasy genetics have become largely distasteful to me. I don't eliminate hybrids completely, though- ancestry that includes otherplanar beings is an old, old trope in mythology and religion, so I usually allow "Plane-touched," and the WotC/DCv1 bloodline/heritage feats and so forth are also allowed, but they're all over the place.

So I'm currently reworking much of that into Nephilim, a Template (WotC standard), Racial Class (AU/AE style), or Heroic Path (Midnight 2Ed)- I haven't decided which, yet- in which a PC can trace ancestry back to some kind of powerful otherplanar being- "angels," devils, demons, powerful dragons, true Fey, etc.

Elves and Orcs need not apply.

 

[rounser]

The question I have though is why did you ban PHB races? Did you do so because you had a very specific vision for your campaign setting or did you do so simply because you didn't like them?

Does it really matter?

Why not turn the question around, ask WOTC why they foisted this unasked-for, arguably "wahoo", mythologically void stuff on the implied setting. The conspicuousness lies with them - they've made the change, not the banning DM. The banning DM is just maintaining verisimilitude, why should he bow to what appears to be a cynical branding exercise?

 

[jensun]

Does it really matter?

Why not turn the question around, ask WOTC why they foisted this unasked-for, arguably "wahoo", mythologically void stuff on the implied setting. The conspicuousness lies with them - they've made the change, not the banning DM. The banning DM is just maintaining verisimilitude, why should he bow to what appears to be a cynical branding exercise?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread. Is there any particular reason you try to turn everything into an edition war?

 

[DracoSuave]

I dunno, I'm of the old school where if a DM has devised a world, you can plead your case to get your 'non-appropriate' character in.... but if he didn't convince him, you didn't convince him, and whining about it is immature behavior.

Perhaps he might not like that race, perhaps the mechanics for that ability are too powerful in his opinion; Heck, maybe he just doesn't want to deal with the rules because they're too convoluted for his tastes. Or perhaps he has an idea for that race that makes a player character inappropriate. Perhaps they're the big bad?

Or perhaps some aspect of his game world just doesn't mesh with the traditional racial presentation.

Not to support 'playing god' but lately, D&D3+ has presented a far greater sense of player entitlement than previous editions, or even different roleplaying games in general. The DM has to arbitrate things because -unlike- the players, the DM's vested interest is in the continued health of the game and a better story. Players' vested interest is in the interest of their character.

 

[jensun]

I dunno, I'm of the old school where if a DM has devised a world, you can plead your case to get your 'non-appropriate' character in.... but if he didn't convince him, you didn't convince him, and whining about it is immature behavior.

I am also of the old school which says that when playing with friends some give and take is in order and that the goal is for everyone to enjoy themselves.

Then again my groups default position also involves a lot of player generation of game material.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So, some people favour (or are more accustomed to) collaborative world building, and some do not (or are not.)

Hm. And?