Why is "I don't like it" not good enough?

[The Human Target]

All I know is, when a DM starts banning stuff right out of the gate without explanation, I fully expect problems.

He probably wants for me to play through the fantasy novel he planned in his head in the summer between 5th and 6th grade that combines the D&D cartoon with the Franco-Prussian war.

Oh and no Halflings or Gnomes, because he hates short races.

And no warlords, because Martial Healing wasn't in the Hobbit.

And keep in mind, I spend 80% of my time playing D&D as the DM.

 

[shadzar]

All I know is, when a DM starts banning stuff right out of the gate without explanation, I fully expect problems.

He probably wants for me to play through the fantasy novel he planned in his head in the summer between 5th and 6th grade that combines the D&D cartoon with the Franco-Prussian war.

Oh and no Halflings or Gnomes, because he hates short races.

And no warlords, because Martial Healing wasn't in the Hobbit.

And keep in mind, I spend 80% of my time playing D&D as the DM.

How is this the case, but even people who wanted to play gnomes, bought and played 4th edition before gnomes were a playable race?

It is ok for the publisher to ban things: half-orcs, gnomes, assassins, bards, cavalier, demons, devils, etc etc etc, when they are not even at your table or know you nor have to run the game for you; but the DM does it and "HOW DARE HE!"?



What in the world makes the DM bad for not including things, but don't shoot a miffed glare up unto the Wizards Tower along the coast?

The designers decided to make things, they never said it would all be allowed.

I knew this thread would end up a generic "DM doesn't allow X" thread.

The DM has the job of getting rid of the crap the designers put in that doesn't work, and fixing the things that never did work.

 

[thewok]

TL;DR: I got flamed on the WotC forums for not allowing stuff by default in my campaign world.

It's kind of funny with the timing of this thread. The other night, I chimed in on a thread on the WotC forums and was promptly flamed from multiple directions.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible...

Some background: Back when 4E came out, I tried DMing Keep on the Shadowfell. It was not my first DMing experience (that was a game of Vampire a year or so earlier), but it was one I was very much looking forward to. One player was so dismayed by the changes between editions that the game fell apart.

In the second half of last year, I had finally come up with a nice 30-level arc for my group to 1) allow me to DM and give the normal DM a break, and 2) help me flesh out my campaign world some. I gave the ultimatum: "I have an idea for a campaign that goes all the way to level 30. I have it mapped out in general terms, and I want to DM it. After the first of the year, I will do so." One of my friends (whom I aleady had told about this, and wanted to jerk me around a bit) asked me what I'd do if the group said no. "I'll find another group for two weeks a month. Online, if I have to."

Near the end of the year, I send out an RTF file as a campaign primer. I laid out the basics of the campaign, a (very) short bit of history, and the known state of the world. This accompanied a list of races and their descriptions. I made a surface version of drow (due to my love of EQ, and general dislike for inherently evil races) called, quite simply, dark elves. I made deva naturally more tragic characters than their PHB2 write-up hinted at (inspired by an article on the D&D site regarding Deva roleplaying). I included changelings, too. But there were no Warforged, and no races from PHB3. Similarly, I outlined that psionic classes are incredibly rare in the world, due to public fear of the phenomenon (i.e. manifesting psionics are generally lynched before they can grow into proper adventurers).

Why did I do this? First of all, I really dislike warforged. I just don't like them at all. The mechanical reasons I disliked them in 3E are gone (no more need for Repair spells), but I still dislike the flavor. So, I've reflavored them as an elite group of soldiers that the players have yet to meet, and no member of this unit would be able to reach where the players are currently located.

Second, I have never cared for psionics. Again, this is a flavor issue. In the thread I linked above, I gave the reasons that the public would fear psionics. "It's the same as arcane magic!" Arcane magic has rules. The caster must obey the laws that govern that magic (or, in the case of the sorcerer, mimic them with an inherent talent) in order to cast a spell and get the desired result. "It's like the difference between a paladin and a fighter!" Divine classes are granted their powers by divine beings or intense faith. Even if 4E's "Points of Light" campaign world says divine characters are permanently imbued with powers, in my world a paladin who loses faith or repeatedly and nonchalantly acts against his god's desires (or his virtue) loses those powers until he atones for his transgressions.

Thirdly, I really dislike the monster-as-PC phenomenon. No kobolds, no minotaurs, no goblins, and so on.

Now, there is a caveat to these restrictions: they are not carved in stone. This is how the world works. If a player wants to play a psionic character, he may, but there are possible repercussions if people find out what the character is. Similarly, I might allow a minotaur PC, so long as the player is okay with the fact that he will be feared and likely hunted by NPCs.

So, I tell the people in this thread about things that I do not allow by default in my campaign, and suddenly, I am the most vile creature in the world. In that thread, it was said that I:

1. See psionics through the lens of a game I have never played (Warhammer 40K),
2. am too old to appreciate psionics (I'm 34),
3. am "hosing over" my players, and
4. am a "d-bag DM."

I have yet to ask if DMs who do not freely allow divine classes in Dark Sun are similarly evil folk, or if DMs who do not allow Essentials material at their table are "d-bags," but I would surmise that they would not be.

I'm all for "Saying Yes" to the players. But the DM is a player, too. I want to enjoy the game I'm DMing, just as I want my players to enjoy the game.

 

[shadzar]

I'm all for "Saying Yes" to the players. But the DM is a player, too. I want to enjoy the game I'm DMing, just as I want my players to enjoy the game.

I couldn't read past the first few posts. The comment about "but in PoL...." made me want to wish D&D have never been invented. People that think the game is only what is in the books really make me sick. Sure there are some that want to play like that, go forth and enjoy; but the constant trying to force others with "RAW" or whatever style play is what makes me glad I do NOT visit WotC forums except when someone links to them from somewhere else.

I don't agree with some of the things you have in your world concept, but it sounds interesting none the less.

It dumbfounds me, like i said above, what people have against DMs altering the availability of things in any way, but a printed Campaign Setting can get away with it, "cause they own D&D" or some such.

Make your world and if your players like it, then play it and have fun and ignore looking for a witch to burn at the stake for not doing it exactly their way by the holy word of the designers.

 

[FireLance]

IMO, if a DM doesn't want something in his games, it is sufficient for him to simply say that he doesn't like it. However, it is seldom satisfying, especially if what he is eliminating is a fairly well-established game element and he does not give any supporting reasons for his decision.

In short, the DM has the right, but there is (usually) a broader social element to the way that he communicates his decision that he should be mindful of.

 

[Coldwyn]

Some thoughts on this:
First off, when you´re from an area (or even country) where Roleplaying and/or D&D are next to unheard of and quitting a group is more or less akin to quitting the hobby altogether, you quickly learn to say yes and roll with it.

Second, I think mostly lack of communication leads to that certain problem. If I as a gm start working on a world or campaign arc without talking to my players about what they actually want to play, I could as well write a novel and read it to them. Player imput should heavily influence the work we spend on our material here, else it´s a wasted effort.
Note that this doesn´t mean to simpy giving players what they want, you´re still the final arbiter of the game, but it´s easier to resolve conflicts well bevore they happen at the table.

 

[Bagpuss]

I have no problem with a DM saying "No, I don't like it". The DM is entitled to run the campaign he or she wants to run. Players are free to play or walk.

Sorry I thought RPGs were co-operative games, so negotiation and compromise were the sort of social skills both GM's and players should be bringing to the table, not "My way or the highway!" from the outset.

Also I've seen a number of people mention things along the lines of "the players are free to walk" that isn't exactly true for a number of reasons.

Often gaming is done with groups of friends people you want to be around, so walking from your regular game night raises other issues.

Then there is the fact finding a group to play at all in many areas is pretty hard, if the alternate to gaming with X group is not gaming at all, players and DM's are both likely to make compromises to meet each other wants/needs.

A highly authoritarian DM is likely to find he won't have a group to game with if his reasons aren't made clear and he makes it a choice of "like or leave."

 

[GQuail]

I'm a bad ENWorlder and did something I didn't usually do: I only read the first page.

I usually try to give more info than just "I don't like it" because, as Rel says, otherwise you can't really decipher intentions nor can you puzzle out an alternative. If I say no to mithril items without any backup data then my players can't tell if it's because I don't like the fluff concept or if it's because I don't like the mechanics or if it's because I have a plot concept built in for this setting that means they can't know about it yet or whatever.

I mean, even the OP didn't just say "I don't like them": he said "I don't like these fantasy metals because theyr'e so over-used". A little bit of data beyond "I think it sucks" is the only way to work out if you should drop the topic or if you can adjust the idea to suit - for example, if I just need to accept all weapons will be made of "normal" metal or if I could still use all the mechanics for adamantine but call it something different like Dwarfblood Iron complete with it's own fluff. ("Metal mined from the mountains of the Dwarf catacombs: they say it gets so hard because the blood of the ancestors mingles in with it, for the only thing harder than steel are Dwarves)")

That said, "I don't like it" with a short rider is basically where I'd stop. If the player doesn't like that then the door is that-a-way, and if enough of them take it then maybe I'll need to reconsider how much I don't like it. Sometimes I specifically don't want to drag a session down with an hour-long debate on whether I'm right or not to, say, not like psionics or goliaths or half-vampires or whatever, for the same reason I don't like a session to turn into an hour-long debate about whether or not the Truespeech system is underpowered or the business rules in DMG2 are too difficult. I want to "get to the good bit" and overly long debate won't help.

For example in a D&D 3.5 group I ran for before, one of my players insisted on playing a Half-Celestial and had this huge list of plans for their character, one of which was "get a demon like a succubus and convert it to good": I think the intention was to take Leadership at some point and make it a cohort. (It was a high level game, so this wasn't completely mechanically impossible) informed said player that I wouldn't be up for that plan because I didn't like the idea of demons/devils/etc as anything other than Personification Of That Alignment's Beliefs. In short, I Didn't Like Good Demons, but was open to some other similar notions. (Like, say, a good Tiefling or a good Drow)

...And cue much complaint, spread over several days, as to why I was wrong and should just say yes. Both in the flesh and over MSN the topic just would not drop, complete with examples from various campaign settings... even though we were playing in a custom one, complete with a different origin for demons as outlined before we even played in a little campaign booklet. "I don't like it" wasn't good enough for him, but I'm not sure what would have been apart from "Sorry, you were right all along".

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sorry I thought RPGs were co-operative games, so negotiation and compromise were the sort of social skills both GM's and players should be bringing to the table, not "My way or the highway!" from the outset.

It is a hobby, with specific qualities - and specific traditions, for that matter. It isn't just socialising. Yes, it is a social activity - like any shared hobby, I guess.

But anyway. Traditionally, the roles of DM and player are very different indeed. And no, campaign/setting makeup is *not* (traditionally, and still to many DMs and players) an area where it's "co-operative" [sic]. At least, it needn't be. It's an optional, alternative approach, to whatever extent, and there's nothing wrong with choosing to adopt that, if/when desired.

However, generally speaking, setting and campaign setup is the DM's prerogative. Setting up the players' [characters] "playground", as it were, is the idea here. Of course, onwards from there, the players have all the say in the world, as to what their characters do and choose, how they explore and manoeuvre, approach and (with any luck!) overcome challenges, and essentially, whatever else they so wish.... within the boundaries of setting and - to an extent - game system, that is.

And likewise, as per setting/campaign groundwork, system changes (i.e., house rules) are the domain of the DM as well. This is traditional, it's a system that works for many, many groups, and it's perfectly fine and fair, what's more. And yes, once again, I say this equally as a player and as DM. I am content with this arrangement, in both cases. As is everyone else I game with, and ever have.

TTRPGs are not the only shared activity/hobby wherein the roles are "uneven", and just, well, different. I suppose there are those railing against such things elsewhere too. No doubt! Bizarre forms of political correctness should make their way into nearly every aspect of society and personal lives, according to some. Just for example. Not that *this* would *have* to be so, but in some cases...

And that doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally wrong with "unbalanced" roles - even if they're not really! - and that they should therefore be "fixed", ignored, turned on their heads, or whatever else.

By all means, those who wish to do just that, should! But, just to be perfectly clear here, they are not automatically "more right" than those sticking with the way things have been done for ages now. Nor are they necessarily more "enlightened", or even, let it be said, going to have a better gaming experience becuase of said choices!

 

[shadzar]

Sorry I thought RPGs were co-operative games, so negotiation and compromise were the sort of social skills both GM's and players should be bringing to the table, not "My way or the highway!" from the outset.

Doesn't work with every part of the game.

Also I've seen a number of people mention things along the lines of "the players are free to walk" that isn't exactly true for a number of reasons.

Often gaming is done with groups of friends people you want to be around, so walking from your regular game night raises other issues.

You are still free to leave the game. Always drive yourself. No one or no ting can force you to stay in a game you don't enjoy.

There are other things to do other than play D&D while you wait for a group. Might stink while you can't play, but is better than playing something you don't like.

To stay IS a choice, so is to leave.