3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Testament]

Heck yes, it was necessary the first time around, especially considering I had told him that I was not going to use that idiot CR/XP calc tool on all my encounters when he e-mailed me with the XP he "should" have received from the session of the week before. I do not appreciate telling someone "no" in private, then having someone calculate XP based on his knowledge of the MM and tell the players in the group how much XP they should get.

It was rude, I had spent hours on designing that encounter, including adding class levels and template to the creature and I had already determined the XP of the encounter. His number was smaller, but that is what everyone received.

It someone is being a jerk, then they deserve the DM stick of wrathful smiting.

Holy nut monkeys. It was the first time at a session, but this gimboid git had been at it previously, AFTER you'd already told him no?

OK, at that point he needed to be whacked upside the head. Your cigar.

 

[Henry]

Nutshell is, I'm arguing for a level of compromise, RC and BU are saying that compromise is less important. I'm arguing democracy, they're arguing belevolent dictatorship; its Locke v Hobbes all over again. That's how I'm understanding it, and both of you have the right to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Actually, it's closer to the debate between a Republic and a Democracy. Just like we elect an official for X years, and they for that time have full authority until their term is up; unless they do something egregiously stupid (like corruption, or murder, etc.) then they keep that position until their time is up. That's the way I feel about the position of DM. A good representative listens to the people he's representing, but the final responsibility is on his shoulders. The problem is, that this representative is hamstrung in his duties in two respects:

1) The code of laws that put him there is so rigid that he has no authority to fix a problem if it arises, and

2) If every decision he makes has to be passed by the elected body to make it happen.

In example 1, if say the code of laws says that something must be done in a certain way, yet that way is very time-consuming or wasteful, then he has no authority to act differently. Instead, if the law says he must simply get the job done, then he can try new innovative ways to accomplish it.

In example 2, no one is satisfied because there's always a disenfranchised group, and to come to a consensus is a long drawn out affair that takes a lot of time.

When it comes time for the Rep's duties to cease, then someone else can step up if they feel they can do better.

That's my take on DM'ing. A final authority says, "this is the rules I prefer, this is the way we'll do it." If someone feels they have a better style, then they're welcome to do so, with my blessing, my deference, and my advice, should they need it.

 

[The Shaman]

That's my take on DM'ing. A final authority says, "this is the rules I prefer, this is the way we'll do it." If someone feels they have a better style, then they're welcome to do so, with my blessing, my deference, and my advice, should they need it.

I agree. I do my best to spell out in advance what the game will include and what options will be considered (with respect to source books and the like): "This is a d20 Modern game using the core rulebook, Weapons Locker, and the Urban Arcana web enhancement. Classes, feats and schools from Ultramodern Firearms, Martial Arts Mayhem, and Modern Player's Companion will be considred on a case-by-case basis. No other third-party material will be allowed. There is no FX in this game." There it is - those are your parameters for making your character, and the guidelines around which the world functions. A player may certainly ask to include a feat from Blood and Fists, or take a talent from 22 Talent Trees, but the answer quite honestly is most likely to be no.

Why? Why not allow something if it's not obviously broken? A couple of reasons come to mind:

• I don't like the game to become an escalating arms race of "s/he who buys the most books wins"
• I'm not personally familiar with the book the player would like to use
• I am familiar with the book but don't like the content for the game I'm running
• The material that I cited as permissible is what I've used to create the game-world and is the closest thing to the "laws of physics" for how that world works
• The material doesn't fit with the setting

With respect to the first three reasons, I've encountered gamers who would say that I'm not working hard enough to make the game fun for the players, that I'm lazy as a GM, and so on. Perhaps they're right: I don't claim to be a good GM - average is a reach for me on my best days.

I do know that there's an upper limit to the amount of time I can reasonably spend on game prep, and the more material that's introduced the more time I have to spend on mechanics interactions that takes away from adventure and non-player character prep. Given the choice between adding in crunch to satisfy a player's jones for the feat-of-the-month, and working on developing challenging encounters and interesting non-player characters, that's an easy call for me to make.

The fourth and fifth reasons are fundamental for me. I select the rules that reflect both the physical and social/cultural 'reality' of the game-world. The player's character must live within those parameters. If the character does not fit the setting, the player changes the character - full stop.

In preparing for our Modern military game I had a player ask to run a chaplain character. While I liked the concept, it wasn't going to work well with the rest of the characters or the adventures for a number of reasons, so I said no. In another bulletin board thread I was taken to task for saying no, that it was my responsibility as the GM to work the character into the game rather than reject the player's concept. However, to do would involve ignoring important setting considerations while pushing hard against the limits of suspended disbelief. I wasn't prepared to change the fundamental assumptions of the game enough to allow the character.

As a GM, my fun comes from creating a setting and campaigns and sharing them with the players. I invest a lot of time and effort to provide a richly detailed setting and three-dimensional non-player characters with which the adventurers may interact. When I need to change the setting assumptions to fit a character, that takes away from my enjoyment of the game. My response to that is simple: when I'm a player in your game, I will create and run a character that conforms to your setting, and I expect the same from you in mine.

(In the case of the chaplain character, I suggested a couple of alternatives to the player that would work with the game, such as a former or future divinity student - in the end, the player chose not to participate, which was ultimately the best choice for both of us.)

With respect to the workload issue, I do believe the players have the responsibility to bend their expectations, not the GM - there is simply no comparison between players and GMs in terms of what it takes to make the game possible. Players need to understand the setting and conform to the GM's parameters on what is or isn't permitted in terms of character creation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Consider DMing like a business, if you like. The DM hangs out a shingle. The DM specifies exactly what wares are on sale (i.e., DMing style, what the game will be like, etc.). If you want to buy (i.e., play), that is your choice. If not, that is also your choice. This is something sometimes referred to as "Marketplace Democracy".


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ensuring that the game is fun is, generally, the job of everybody at the table. Although the weight of that job falls mainly on the DM ("With great power comes great responsibility" - Spidey's Uncle Ben), the DM has, quite frankly, bigger fish to fry. The DM has to think in larger terms than "what would be fun for player X right now?" if he is going to have a campaign that lasts.

Is there any bigger fish in the playing of a game than the having fun of playing the game? Put simply, if not everyone is having fun at the table, there's no game. The DM, as the final authority on what is permissible and what isn't at the table, has the power to determine what the players have fun doing. This means that the players' fun is entirely in the DM's hands...the buck stops there. If you have fun doing something, it is the DM's purview to say "OKAY!" or "NO WAY!" Players "these days" are getting used to Okay, because the 3.5 system is good enough that there are many more situations where the DM can say "Okay!" and everyone will have fun. This is in comparison to things like 2e, where if the DM said Okay to certain supplements, fun may be lessened.

What's the "bigger fish?" Story? Feel? Atmosphere? Challenge? If done right, these things serve the concept of fun and enjoyment, making fun an enjoyment #1 priority.

Having your character die? Not fun. However, the possibility of death makes accomplishment more sweet.

Having the possibility of failure makes accomplishment more sweet. There aren't a lot of accomplishments IRL that risk death...simply because I didn't risk death to, say, write a novel, doesn't make the accomplishment writing of that novel any less sweet. The risk involved is not the risk of death....it is the risk of *failure*. Death is only one kind of failure. The most ultimate kind, but still simply one type.

It is fun to risk the failure of your characters. It is not fun to have you characters die. There is a compromise that can be reached here: risking failure without the painful risk of death. The idea of permenant PC death could be excluded from the entire game and not make the game any worse.

Encountering roadblocks to what you want? Not fun. However, it is impossible to overcome roadblocks that you do not encounter, and overcoming roadblocks is a great deal of fun.

But roadblocks that you cannot overcome? That make what you want not worth the effort? That make you regret ever wanting it in the first place? Where is the fun in crushing someone's desire to be a big strong monster?

It is also true that as a DM challenges players, players should challenge DM's.

Saying that the DM's primary job is to make sure everyone is having fun right now is equivilent, imho, to saying that the DM should give the players what they want. Again, imho, the DM should consider the long-term effects on the campaign world as being the foremost consideration (if he intends long-term play). He should consider foremost what style of play he enjoys (as the single person at the table who put in the most work, and as the single person at the table upon whom the game depends). Then, and only then, he should consider what the players want.

What the players want is to play a game, to be challenged, and to enjoy the campaign world. The DM should give them that first and foremost. Sometimes, to give them that, it means saying 'no.' It always means that they will experience some risk of failure, because that's what's fun for everyone.

A DM should only consider campaign world and his own desires if that is what would enhance fun for everyone at the table. Obviously, a coherent campaign world is fun, as is a DM who enjoys what he's doing. However, the DM's desires do not and should not take prescidence over the player's. It's not much fun for anyone except one player when a player is selfish, but it's easy to kick out a player. It's no fun for anyone except one DM when a DM is selfish, and it's much harder to kick out a DM.

Every player I have ever encountered would agree with you to say it. Almost every player I have ever encountered, when actually engaged in the game, has ultimately appreciated the double-edged benefits I sometimes present.

I imagine that you don't use cursed magic items in your world?

#1: I do make use of cursed magic items, but only when the party can overcome them. They are challenges, not ways for me to punish them for seeking treasure.

#2: Double-edged benefits aren't the problem. The problem is selfish DM's, just like selfish players can be a problem. And I'm not accusing you of being one, I'm just saying that the 3.x ruleset is the first to consider selfish DMing a bad thing, and part of the way it does that is by balancing the ruleset fairly well and empowering the players to know the system.

A rules-lawyer, a power-gamer, a spotlight hog, a munchkin? The problem with all these players is ultimately that they are selfish. They don't consider the group as much as they consider themselves.

What hasn't recieved much attention is that the DM is just as likely to suffer from these problems. And while a bad player can ruin a night for a group, a bad DM can ruin the entire game for every potential person they play with. A selfish DM is a rules-lawyer who can make up their own rules, they're a power-gamer who can invent new tricks, they're a spotlight hog whose story and world are at the center of the game, they're a munchkin more concerned with their neat-o imagination than the other people that they share a game with.

While a good DM might make turning into a dragon frought with problems, they would also allow him to revel in being a dragon for a time, allow him some use out of his nifty powers, make his draconic form essential to the story. And if that good DM had a problem with dragons, he would let the player know that turning into a dragon is not something he's prepared to let the player do. A selfish DM might instead use the transformation as a way to PUNISH the player for trying to have fun. They might consider their own sacred canon above any petty player's considerations. They might see a player who dares to pursue his own goals (rather than the DM-sanctioned goals that he thought of beforehand) and want such a player to learn a lesson of some sort.

D&D is not for teaching lessons, except in a highly tangential sense. It is about a group of people having fun pretending to be magical gumdrop fairies who kick some ass for a few hours a week. It it's core, any RPG is about people gathering to enjoy imagination's ability for a few hours a week. And a selfish DM, like a selfish player, mistakes that, and puts their own delight above the delight of the four other people around them.

The DM has a powerful ability to determine what the game is like for an entire, and that makes selfish DM's much more insidious and much more harmful than selfish players. Thus, the things in the 3.x ruleset that discourages selfish DMing (including telling you that a DM's #1 duty is to ensure everyone's fun...I can quote, if you need it) are things I adore about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why? Why not allow something if it's not obviously broken? A couple of reasons come to mind:

• I don't like the game to become an escalating arms race of "s/he who buys the most books wins"
• I'm not personally familiar with the book the player would like to use
• I am familiar with the book but don't like the content for the game I'm running
• The material that I cited as permissible is what I've used to create the game-world and is the closest thing to the "laws of physics" for how that world works
• The material doesn't fit with the setting

With respect to the first three reasons, I've encountered gamers who would say that I'm not working hard enough to make the game fun for the players, that I'm lazy as a GM, and so on. Perhaps they're right: I don't claim to be a good GM - average is a reach for me on my best days.

I have read posts on EnWorld wherein players would claim that you're not working hard enough to make the game fun for players based on reasons 4 & 5 as well.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

KM,

First off, let me admit that, in this response, I am going to sound like a bit of an idiot. Indeed, I am going to split a few hairs here.

Is there any bigger fish in the playing of a game than the having fun of playing the game?

...

What's the "bigger fish?" Story? Feel? Atmosphere? Challenge? If done right, these things serve the concept of fun and enjoyment, making fun an enjoyment #1 priority.

Imagine that a D&D game is a gigantic carnival ride. Everyone wants to have fun, so they all want to go on the ride. Now, there's one guy whose job it is to ensure that the ride runs smoothly. All of the pieces have to be in the right place. This guy knows that his carnival ride cannot contain everything that every carnival ride does. Even if can be always the biggest, always the fastest, always the best, it cannot have a portion of the track going both up and down at the same time. It cannot be all things to all people.

At the same time, the carnival ride needs constant work to keep it operating at peak form.

Some people scream "Go faster!" Some say "Go slower!" Some say "Go left!" Some say "Go right!" This guy, he has to make the rails ready to go somewhere, but can't make them go everywhere all at once. On top of that, he's got to stay on top of maintenance, or the ride will come to a crashing halt.

He has bigger fish to fry than the individual fun of each person on the ride. He has to consider the ride as a whole. He has to consider what will make it the best ride, within the limits of his power, for the largest number of people on the ride.

He has to consider that some of the people saying, "Go slower" really want the ride to go faster. He has to consider that letting someone stand up on the ride might ruin the experience for everyone else.

All of these little things that make up the ride, these are his province. So this guy has to deal with that fact. The pieces of the ride, and making sure that the ride is working, is more important than the momentary desires of any one person on the ride. He has (dare I say) bigger fish to fry.

Of course, if this guy is bad at his job, maybe no one wants to go on his ride. Maybe his ride isn't fun. He could be the worst carnival guy ever.

But if the ride is fun, and the guy truly enjoys what he is doing, then that ride will be many times better than anything that doesn't have a cohesive vision, in the same way that a movie made by committee can't hold a candle to a movie that holds true to an individual director's esthetics.

(In that analogy, too, we grant that if you don't care for Quentin Tarantino's esthetics, you won't like his movies.....but, if you keep going to his movies, knowing what they are like, then that is your fault, not his.)

It is fun to risk the failure of your characters. It is not fun to have you characters die. There is a compromise that can be reached here: risking failure without the painful risk of death. The idea of permenant PC death could be excluded from the entire game and not make the game any worse.

Let us simply say that we agree to disagree here.

Sure, there are lots of ways the PCs can fail short of death. But, if risking A is fun, and B is the biggest case of A, then B should provide the most fun.

Failing is not fun. Not just death, but failing at those risks that are non-lethal, too. No one likes to fail. Perhaps we should eliminate all risk from the game, and have only the illusion of risk.

Where is the fun in crushing someone's desire to be a big strong monster?

I considered answering this in a way that would get me banned from EnWorld. Truly I did. I was merely going to suggest some other, less savoury, character types that perhaps the player might want to play.

All kinds of big, strong monsters out there in the world.

What the players want is to play a game, to be challenged, and to enjoy the campaign world. The DM should give them that first and foremost. Sometimes, to give them that, it means saying 'no.' It always means that they will experience some risk of failure, because that's what's fun for everyone.

But, the DM shouldn't say "No" to playing a big strong monster?

But the risks shouldn't be very risky?

<shudder>

No desire for that type of game, on either side of the screen.

A DM should only consider campaign world and his own desires if that is what would enhance fun for everyone at the table. Obviously, a coherent campaign world is fun, as is a DM who enjoys what he's doing. However, the DM's desires do not and should not take prescidence over the player's.

Why not?

If Player A wants to play a dragon, why does Player A's desires override the DM's? Is Player A playing a dragon going to enhance the fun for everyone at the table?

The reality of the situation is this:

PLAYERS COMPETE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS.

Every player wants to increase his own fun. If they are not dinks, then they are not trying to do it at the expense of others, including at the expense of the DM. Including at the expense of the work put into the setting.

IF THEY ARE DINKS IT IS THE DM'S JOB TO TELL THEM "NO"!

Player A's fun does not take precedence over Player B, Player C, Player D, etc., nor does it take precedence over that of the DM.

This is (part of) where the DM and that carnival guy are the same person. The carnival guy can't let a drunk customer onto the ride. Even if drunky doesn't vomit all over the rest of the riders, there is a significant chance that he will ruin the ride for everyone. Drunky's personal fun in this case simply cannot matter to the carnival guy.

When Player E comes along with a character that doesn't fit in the campaign world, the DM has to consider him in the same light as the carnival guy does the drunk. Sure, there's a chance that no one will get vomitted on, but how many times do you have to wash off someone's half-digested pretzels before you are allowed to simply say "No"?


(And yes, I know that you said the DM can say "No". Yet, here I go, splitting hairs again. When can the DM say "No"? When he feels it's appropriate? After taking a democratic vote? When the players tell him it's okay? Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?)


RC

 

[The Shaman]

Where is the fun in crushing someone's desire to be a big strong monster?

Scene from a gaming table...

GM: "Okay, go ahead and create your characters. All characters are 2nd level so you can pick any LA+1 race on your handout..."
Player 1: "I want to play a demilich."
GM: ( ) "Uh, that's not LA+1. All the characters should begin with roughly the same level of ability..."
Player 1: "I want to play a demilich."
GM: (*sound of fingers drumming on table*) Uh, no, I'm sorry, you can't play a demilich..."
Player 1: "WHY MUST YOU CRUSH MY DESIRE TO PLAY A BIG STRONG MONSTER?!?"
Player 2: "I want to play a tarrasque."
GM: (sound of head hitting table followed by sounds of paper tearing for several minutes*)

What hasn't recieved much attention is that the DM is just as likely to suffer from these problems. And while a bad player can ruin a night for a group, a bad DM can ruin the entire game for every potential person they play with. A selfish DM is a rules-lawyer who can make up their own rules, they're a power-gamer who can invent new tricks, they're a spotlight hog whose story and world are at the center of the game, they're a munchkin more concerned with their neat-o imagination than the other people that they share a game with.

This presents such an extreme, almost Manichean viewpoint that it's effectively useless as a point of discussion, but I'll give it a try.

With respect to character races, is a GM who restricts characters to playing races in the PHB a selfish GM? What about any LA+0 race from the MM? Any LA+0 race from any WotC monster book? What about LA+2? Is there any continuum on this subject, or is it as black-and-white as, "Any GM who limits player choices on character race selection is a selfish GM?"

I'm really trying to understand exactly what the issue is here. Help me out.

It is fun to risk the failure of your characters. It is not fun to have you characters die. There is a compromise that can be reached here: risking failure without the painful risk of death. The idea of permenant PC death could be excluded from the entire game and not make the game any worse.

First, a character death can be fun. A heroic sacrifice can be fun. A death that hinges on a climactic encounter can be fun. Taking the risk of death out of the game makes dangerous encounters dull and uninteresting.

Second, I enjoy RPGs that emulate a genre of cinema or literature that I enjoy: swords-and-sorcery, modern action-adventure, space opera. The risk of permanent death is present in each of these genres, and a game that did not offer that risk would be repetitious and bland - "Oh, it doesn't matter if we lose the fight with the dragon, we'll just be resurrected later."

Third and last, I feel cheated if my choices as a player had no consequences, with death the ultimate consequence. That last thing I want when I play is to be cheated by the GM. I think only a selfish GM would take that card out of my hand.

 

[Testament]

BU, RC, I've gotta ask this, I think I just hit on something:

What's your campaign structure? Do you have a continuing storyline, or do you do what I do, which is say to the players "here's the world, do what thou wilt"?

Maybe its just me, but I think that one is more supporting of the democratic structure than the other.

Oh, and Henry, spot on.

 

[I'm A Banana]

All of these little things that make up the ride, these are his province. So this guy has to deal with that fact. The pieces of the ride, and making sure that the ride is working, is more important than the momentary desires of any one person on the ride. He has (dare I say) bigger fish to fry.

The whole ride is more important than instant gratification, but I'm not talking about instant gratification -- I'm talking about the DM serving the player's needs. And that does mean some gratification. Maybe not instant, maybe in the proper context, but gratification nonetheless. And a codified ruleset is an aid to that gratification, because it tells you in which instance and in which context that it can be used. To use the ride analogy, a good ruleset tells a DM where to turn right and where to turn left and where to go faster and where to go slower to make sure that all the people who want to go left, right, slower, and faster all get what they need. It also tells the players that while they might not be able to expect going left right when they want to, that they can expect it to go left at some point, and they can expect it to be everything they want out of a left turn.

I said that the DM exists for the fun of the players, not as a magical genie. Having a magical genie is only fun once or twice (and it is recommended for a DM to be a magical genie every once in a while), and it gets old fast. Players don't have fun with instant gratification. Players don't want to have their wishes granted right when they demand them. The want to be challenged. So the DM's tactics of delay and challenge and risk of failure can help make the game more fun. However, a DM that only grants wishes in perverted and conflicted ways isn't challenging the players -- he's punishing them for having desires.

Does the DM have more important things to do than grant everyone's wishes? No. Players *wish* for conflict, for risk of failure, for trials and tribulations. Challenging PC's grants the player's wishes.

Does the DM have to give a PC a Staff of the Archmagi at first level just because they really wanted one? No. Granting that wish would remove conflict, risk of failure, and challenge. A good player will realize this and not really bother with it. However, the ruleset tells us when a Staff of the Archmagi would *not* remove conflict, risk of failure, and challenge. And at that point, you should have a good reason to deny it, because you denial isn't helping you build the ride anymore.

Failing is not fun. Not just death, but failing at those risks that are non-lethal, too. No one likes to fail. Perhaps we should eliminate all risk from the game, and have only the illusion of risk.

Risk is fun. Players want risk. Giving them risk is giving them exactly what they want. However, there is a point at which the risk becomes too great for the player. Where the effort involved in making a character and becoming invested in the story may be too much time and effort that could go to waste. Roller Coasters are fun preciesly because of that illusion of risk. If 50% of roller coasters ended with smacking headfirst into a brick wall, they'd be a lot less fun, because the risk is too great.

If, every time that a writer failed to churn out a successful novel, it got ripped in half, that might be too much risk for a lot of people, too. If my hours of character generation, if my investment, depends upon pure luck to be fun, then it may be too much risk.

But, the DM shouldn't say "No" to playing a big strong monster?

But the risks shouldn't be very risky?

The DM should only say "no" when playing a big strong monster would hurt the ride. There are rules that exist that tell you at what point being a big strong monster won't break the ride. And as long as the DM can have fun on the ride, too, then there is no good reason to NOT use those rules. If the DM wouldn't have fun, obviously that's a point of conflict. Normally, compromise can be reached (fer instance, Savage Species' concept of racial levels, or finding a way to make the character strong and scary and legendary without resorting to ECL). If it can't, it can't, and the player and DM can either agree to disagree and suck it up, or go their seperate ways. But an effort should be made to compromise on both sides, not just the DM's, and not just the player's.

The risks should only be worth it. In a game with a high body count, spending an evening generating a character isn't worth it for a lot of people. In a game where your character can theoretically last an unlimited amount of time, generating a character will always be worth it. Most seek a balance somewhere in between, D&D errs on the side of safety but permits the other side as well. The ride shuoldn't frustrate you at every turn -- turning left like you want only to juke right, or turning left like you want and slamming you into a brick wall. Spending time on the ride is an investment, and that investment has to be worth it. With a selfish DM, it often is not.

PLAYERS COMPETE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS.

?

How is this? Players, IMXP, compete against the challenges set before them to reach the goals they want to achieve for their characters, and they do so together, not at odds with each other. Players help other players. The player of the wizard helps explore the cleric's crisis of faith, and the player of the cleric helps the wizard raid the dragon's hoard for his magical whatsis.

(And yes, I know that you said the DM can say "No". Yet, here I go, splitting hairs again. When can the DM say "No"? When he feels it's appropriate? After taking a democratic vote? When the players tell him it's okay? Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?)

The DM can san NO whenever saying YES would ruin the ride. In other words, whenever he's justified. Players are entirely entitled to a justification for the DM's actions, just like a DM is entitled to a justification for the player's actions. Why do you want to play the big monster? Why don't you have elves in the world? These are fair questions that any DM should be prepared to answer, because there is a set of rules about how to let that drunk guy on the ride and have him have fun too. Got a problem with drunks? Fair enough, he can look for a ride that won't discriminate against him. Know your ride has too many ups and downs for a drunk? Sure, let him know that if he doesn't mind sobering up, he can come back.

GM: "Okay, go ahead and create your characters. All characters are 2nd level so you can pick any LA+1 race on your handout..."
Player 1: "I want to play a demilich."
GM: ( ) "Uh, that's not LA+1. All the characters should begin with roughly the same level of ability..."
Player 1: "I want to play a demilich."
GM: (*sound of fingers drumming on table*) Uh, no, I'm sorry, you can't play a demilich..."
Player 1: "WHY MUST YOU CRUSH MY DESIRE TO PLAY A BIG STRONG MONSTER?!?"
Player 2: "I want to play a tarrasque."
GM: (sound of head hitting table followed by sounds of paper tearing for several minutes*)

This is an example of how a selfish player won't accept that he could hurt the fun of others.

Here's an exmaple of how a selfish DM won't accept that he could hurt the fun of others:

GM: "Okay, go ahead and create you characters. All characters are 2nd level, so you can pick any LA +1 race on the handout."
Player 1: "Hey, there's only humans on the handout?"
GM (fingers drumming): "King Arthur didn't need elves, why do I?"
Player 1: "But I was thinking of playing a fey-like character with ties to lake maidens and stuff..."
Player 2: "And I wanted to be a wizard, but this handout says they're forbidden?"
GM: "Magic in D&D is too powerful, so I took it out. Deal."

This presents such an extreme, almost Manichean viewpoint that it's effectively useless as a point of discussion, but I'll give it a try.

With respect to character races, is a GM who restricts characters to playing races in the PHB a selfish GM? What about any LA+0 race from the MM? Any LA+0 race from any WotC monster book? What about LA+2? Is there any continuum on this subject, or is it as black-and-white as, "Any GM who limits player choices on character race selection is a selfish GM?"

I'm really trying to understand exactly what the issue is here. Help me out.

A selfish DM is the one who puts his own pleasures in the game first, ahead of the player's, rather than equal to them. Like a rules-lawyer is a selfish player who gets pleasure correcting others and won't stop, a selfish DM can be that DM who gives a player a familiar only so that they can kill it, torture it, and maim it later. Or that DM who has epic-powered NPC's swoop in and rescue the party. Or that DM who drops hints about going into the Forbidden Forest, when you get there, proceeds to TPK the group because "THE FOREST IS FORBIDDEN!" It's the DM that needlessly limits player choice. The DM who doesn't consider the ramifications of his changes. The one who fudges for monsters and important events, but fudges against players. The one who removes spells simply because they challenge him. The one who hands out loads of treasure to his girlfriend. The one who insists that he knows the game better than the designers, and who makes arbitrary changes to "use the d12 more often." The one who railroads relentlessly. The one who won't let you act until his villain is finished with his speech. The one who demands two written pages of character history only to give you the prospect of your long-lost sister coming back only to kill her out of some delightful malice.

A selfish DM isn't interested in making a ride for other people, just in making a ride for himself.

First, a character death can be fun. A heroic sacrifice can be fun. A death that hinges on a climactic encounter can be fun. Taking the risk of death out of the game makes dangerous encounters dull and uninteresting.

Second, I enjoy RPGs that emulate a genre of cinema or literature that I enjoy: swords-and-sorcery, modern action-adventure, space opera. The risk of permanent death is present in each of these genres, and a game that did not offer that risk would be repetitious and bland - "Oh, it doesn't matter if we lose the fight with the dragon, we'll just be resurrected later."

Third and last, I feel cheated if my choices as a player had no consequences, with death the ultimate consequence. That last thing I want when I play is to be cheated by the GM. I think only a selfish GM would take that card out of my hand.

Right on all points. But a selfish DM who had the same kind of outlook you have taken to a self-centered extreme may be more concerned with "making it feel like a space opera" (for instance) than "making it fun." So death would be an ever-present threat, and PC's would be killed quite often, and then when the players didn't put as much effort into their third or fourth characters, the DM would get mad and the post a thread about how D&D 3e is ruining creativity on ENWorld, because none of his players put any effort into their characters.

For a selfish DM, their own fun of game feel trumps a player's fun of getting invested in their character. With a good DM, a balance can be found ("character death is rare in PC's because of action points, but the threat is constant" for instance. Or "there isn't a lot of combat anyway, because our group enjoys the storytelling side more" for another instance). But the rules do force a DM to at least explain themselves and consider their changes. "Because I'm the DM!" is not really a good enough answer. "Because I have fun killing characters" is a good answer, albeit not a group whose style I'd like. "Because I want to evoke a space opera style" is a good answer, and one that I might consider joining as a player.

For that guy who wants to play a demilich? "Sorry, they're too powerful. But maybe you'd like being a necromancer...if we get high enough level, you may have the opportunity to become a demilich." Or maybe even "Well, it doesn't need to be second level....does everybody think starting at level 22 is a bad idea?" This changes the ride, but keeps fun for everyone intact. Helping the players to have fun is the DM's job. This job includes finding out what they REALLY want, which usually isn't just power, because players don't have fun when they're all powerful unless they're selfish players.

Most people who want to be a demilich or a terrasque or a dragon want to do it for specific reasons -- the breath weapon, the idea of being a floating skull character, intimidating villagers...a DM will build a ride to that does all these things, as much as he can have fun DMing.