Saying "no" and equality

Big fan of the banhammer, here. (No--not that banhammer--ack! *dives for cover from sardonic moderators*)

Raven Crowking put it best in the other thread: When you have a thousand options, and you pick and choose for each campaign, the variety is endless. But when you incorporate everything, you have the same thing over and over. (Not exactly how he expressed it, but you get the gist.) As a matter of fact, I tend to define my campaigns not by what's excluded but what's included--a list of allowed races and classes.

Players get used to it. If they don't like it, they can always volunteer to run instead.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Something that I've been thinking about a bit in light of the "I don't like it" thread.

<snip>

Normally it would be most effective to specifically ban only the stuff I don't want to deal with (or allow only the stuff that I do)

That is the exact concept behind the "don't like it" thread. What the DM wants to deal with and what s/he doesn't.

Outside of the core books for a game, I would suggest to do what you mentioned next. Ban entire books, or as you prefer, just tell which books are allowed.

For the psionics, your group screwed up. They should have let the first person play it so you started to like the idea, rather than try to force more on you. You could ahve learned psionics from a different view, and the other players could have seen it working form a way that you found interesting enough to use. They might have gotten to use them next time.

But it does boil down to a bit of unfairness.

Someone walks into a game with a new book, if I am running a one-shot that allows anything, the only rule is everyone must get a chance to use something from that book if they want to, and then it will mean only when time to level can they add things from it. That prevents the unfairness form Ms. Moneybags being able to buy every book to have anything in them, but allows every player the same access tot he same content to choose from.

Even if not one of those rare one-shots, and a new book comes out, you have to bring enough for the rest of the class and share it with them if you want to have it yourself.

Either of 2 things happen when I DM:

1. People want to play something specific and I have the time, energy and willingness to run it.

2. People want me to run a game, then I set forth what will be included or not for use during it by the players.

Through PC actions you can destroy the work I put into making the game in much less time than it took me to make it, but a player, well nobody in life, will waste me time for frivolous reasons.

So if the players have decided what to play, and I agree to run it, Then they get the kind of game they want with what they want included and banned. If they want me to run my creation, then I will be the one creating it. I don't mind either so long as I have the time, energy, and willingness to do it. But I won't play tug-of-war with what time I have that should be spent playing D&D.

I solved my problems with assassins, bards, and psionics the same way. I had all-PC versions of those games so that different players could show different things, and NONE made me want to include them outside of those specialized games. So my mind is set in stone and cannot be swayed on those anymore, nor do I allow people to try to do so. Sometimes the foot has to come down, or line be drawn as not everything fits with everyone.

Just make sure when banning things the good idea is banning whole books and to say so up front. Any special thing should be made into some sort of list.

BANNED:
Evil characters
Psionics
Firearms


ALLOWED:
PHB
[insert equipment books here]


That way anything can be picked from those allowed materials, except the banned items and you will have less problems.

This best tells the players what resources they can pull from, and what things to avoid within them.
 

Just as with computer security, whitelist > blacklist.

Saying no is not a lost art, but sometimes, there's a (particularly!) vocal minority that might lead one to believe so...
 

Due to trouble I had in 2E, when 3e came out my rule was Core or Door. With the exception of if player had something happen in game which may allow something from x book to apply. Then that player and that pc may get special permission. But this only applied to players gamed regularly. The guy who appeared once a month and wanted to play x from Y supplement book got shot down quick.
Now some of you will cry foul but since there was metric ton of supplements before my rule I had this happen.
Problem Player, Can I play a paladin from this book. I will loan you the book and photocopy the specfic rules.
ME, Ok I look it over but go ahead and write it.
Game day would arrive.
Dm, Problem Player go ahead with your Paladin. Is there anything major I need to know about this kit?
Problem Player, No.
Later.
Problem Player, Peter Paladin pulls his +5 holy avenger and smite the skeleton!
DM and group"WHAT!!!"
DM, How in the beep does Peter get a +5 holy avenger?
Problem Player, You approved of the character and kid. YOU had all week to review it. The god gives the pc a +5 when he becomes 1 st level.
DM, yes I also had work, wife, other hobbies, yard work. And I ask you is there was anything major I need to know. It is +1 we talk later about how it will increase over time.
...
Goober wanted a +5 in game where one guy had +3 armour, 3 people had +1 weapon, and 3 people had no magic items yet.
 

Personally, I've got no problem saying No.

For example, I've said "No Psionic PCs in my games. Period." I have no problem then tossing a Mind Flayer at the players.

Likewise, just because the PCs don't have wings or a breath weapon (no scalies in my game, either), I'm not about to ban dragons from the game.

I am quite happy with the asymmetry.

I recognize that many players find this repugnant wouldn't play in my game. The feeling is mutual and I sure the hell don't cry myself to sleep over it.
 

The style of our group is that we like for campaigns to last somewhere between 6 months and a year most of the time. I'm one of the primary GMs for the group and we like to play a variety of systems and settings. So I'm fairly frequently posing new campaign ideas.

I've found that the approach that works for me is for my campaign development to center on a focus rather than on restrictions. As an example, my current game is a Gothic Horror Fantasy game set in a fragmented Empire in the midst of civil war. I didn't even consider coming up with a list of stuff to ban. I just told the players, "This is my concept for the campaign setting. Do you think this sounds cool and ripe with lots of ideas for characters?" They replied in the affirmative.

The three characters they came up with are (put in as simple terms as I can) a Monster Hunter, a Werewolf and a...Guy Who Almost Got Sacrificed To A Dark God So Now He Has A Gate To The Nether Realm In His Belly. These were all concepts that absolutely fit with the proposed theme of the campaign. I never had to expend any energy on a list of stuff that wasn't allowed because the players understood the concept of the campaign and made appropriate characters.
 


Personally, I've got no problem saying No.

For example, I've said "No Psionic PCs in my games. Period." I have no problem then tossing a Mind Flayer at the players.

Likewise, just because the PCs don't have wings or a breath weapon (no scalies in my game, either), I'm not about to ban dragons from the game.

I am quite happy with the asymmetry.

I recognize that many players find this repugnant wouldn't play in my game. The feeling is mutual and I sure the hell don't cry myself to sleep over it.

Just thinking aloud, but is the perceived "asymetry" not born of the simulationist approach some games take? When everything in a game comes delivered with a for-players tag, with a sticker attached "Yes, you can use me, too!" (i.e. LA/ECL) than you could earn certain looks when you declare yourself the only user of that stuff.
 

That sounds like good advice, but I've had an issue, in the past, with players not being willing to participate in the game until I'm "actually ready to run". I suppose that would just put us into the later time, and there would at least have been the possibility of working something out...

You do have to push a bit, and make it clear what is happening. This is where some hard limits are actually useful to communication. :) Nor does the "yes period" have to always be before the game is prepared--that's merely the most obvious time. But nothing wrong (if you can work with it) of playing, say, the first few sessions, or complete adventure, and then allowing tweaks.

A player thinking that, "I can ask for anything I want, anytime I want, without putting a lot of effort or thought into it, and expect you to just make it happen for me..." is ludicrous. You should be refusing that.

OTOH, if you don't have ways, times, etc. in which the players can let you know what they want, before things get too set, then you should be more open. Heck, the way some GMs do handle this issue is essentially to say, "I don't want to fool with any of that ahead of time. If something comes up, I'll work it out with the player." Which is fine, if it works for that guy.

When you aren't that guy, it's your obligation to give* the players a clear avenue to participate as much as the groups' consensus says they should. It's the players' obligation to take advantage of those opportunities or, failing to do so, accept gracefully the decisions of those who did.

* Accept, allow, work towards with the players, whatever. Depends a lot on the players and how proactive they are, exactly what you do. If you've got wallflowers, I say you ought to draw them out. If you've got ultra proactive, assertive players, all you have to do is listen. :)
 

That sounds like good advice, but I've had an issue, in the past, with players not being willing to participate in the game until I'm "actually ready to run". I suppose that would just put us into the later time, and there would at least have been the possibility of working something out...

Exactly. Anybody who wants to show up on game day and play whatever's on offer is welcome to do so... but anybody who wants a say in the building of the campaign world had damn well better speak up before it's done being built. You snooze, you lose.

Obviously, you should announce the fact when approaching a "Speak now or forever hold your peace" moment. But when the moment is past, those who didn't speak have no complaint coming.

If you've got wallflowers, I say you ought to draw them out.

A bit off topic, but I strongly disagree with this. It's a popular myth that all wallflowers want to be drawn out and made to open up and participate. Sometimes that's true, but many times the wallflower is happy to be a wallflower and will be uncomfortable getting dragged into the spotlight. In this particular situation, a lot of players are the "show up on game day and play what's on offer" type, and that's perfectly fine.

It's good to invite people to participate (to whatever extent you're comfortable with them participating--set whatever boundaries you need to in order to make sure you're happy with your campaign world), but if they aren't interested, don't push it.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top