3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Raven Crowking]

Ok, I gotta say RC, you've taken KM's comments completely differently than I did.

Obviously. And, equally obviously, I'm splitting hairs. However, I think that there's a world of difference in those hairs.

KM giveth and KM taketh away. On one hand, sure the DM ought to be having fun. On the other hand, the DM "exists for the fun of the players". If the DM has spent two weeks designing a starting area intended to provide excellent risks and rewards to a party of 2nd level PCs, but the players wants to play 22nd level characters, the DM should compromise:

"Well, it doesn't need to be second level....does everybody think starting at level 22 is a bad idea?"

Of course, it is the DM who gets stuck with another X weeks of design work, so everyone is happy, right?

KM presents "fun" as the be-all and end-all of gaming, but also as a moving target whose definition is whatever is convenient at the moment.

How can you equate "Does the DM have more important things to do than grant everyone's wishes? No." with anything other than "the DM is entirely subservient to the player's wishes"? By throwing in the word "entirely"? That works if, and only if, you can tell me when KM is saying that the DM is not subservient to the player's wishes. From what I am reading, this is only when the game becomes so un-fun for the DM that he quits.

It should be fairly obvious that if the DM is not enjoying the game, neither will anyone else.

This will be the third time I have asked this, and I imagine that it will remain just as unanswered:

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?

You say:

In the example of the bad DM, if you care to read it closely, the DM states that the players can take any ECL+1 race on the list and then proceeds to hand out a list that has NO ECL+1 RACES!

No, the "bad" DM allows the players to pick any ECL +1 race list on the handout. There are only humans on the handout. This does not mean that all of the humans on the handout are PHB vanilla humans. I have over a dozen human types IMC.

Even if not, the DM's rules only specifically INCLUDE any ECL +1 race in the handout as choices. If there are no ECL +1 races in the handoug, this is not a change in the rules. It is perhaps just a pointed way of saying that there are no ECL +1 races allowed. Perhaps the DM's experience with these players specifically suggests that he not allow ECL +1 races if anyone is to have fun, and perhaps also his experience with these players suggests that he needs to make this a pointed fact or three of them will make troll characters, one will make some sort of fey character, etc., without even looking at the handout.

In your examples, you've gone far beyond what the DM presumably would allow. And, your choices are not even remotely supported by the RAW. The entire point of this thread is that the RAW is not supporting DM's. Yet, IN EVERY EXAMPLE you just gave, the DM is being supported by the RAW. Playing Q would be virtually impossible because of ECL. Playing a Klingon would be impossible due to setting constraints. As would the Warforged idea.

Which RAW are we discussing here? The core books? Expansions?

Playing Q would give a high ECL, sure. Okay, I never gain levels. I'm happy with that. How exactly is disallowing Q different than disallowing that dragon PC? How much ECL is too much?

I could envision a situation where a klingon could be aboard Kirk's Enterprise. In fact, I have seen an episode where a Klingon party was aboard Kirk's Enterprise facing a hate-inducing mind parasite. It could work. Now you're just being a lazy DM and nerfing my fun character idea.

Playing a kender is in the RAW (DragonLance campaign setting). Playing a spellcaster in D&D using the rules in suppliment X is in the RAW (suppliment X is Unearthed Arcana). Playing a new class from suppliment Y is in the RAW (suppliment Y is Sandstorm). Playing a warforged is in the RAW (Eberron campaign setting), and you are once again being a lazy DM for not finding a way to work my KEWL character concept into your Medieval Japanese campaign setting...Perhaps it does not have to be Medieval Japan? Notice that only the kender race doesn't come from a WotC product. I don't have to invent new rules for any of it. It's all RAW, if not core RAW.

Playing a series of characters, all of whom are designed to not fit into the campaign world as it is presented can certainly be done using even the core RAW. The only ways a DM can prevent it, in fact, is either by having the most generic, plain-vanilla campaign world possible, or by saying "No."

Despite your claims to the contrary, the RAW does not, anywhere, prevent a rain of +2 swords. Nor does the RAW, anywhere, prevent a player from playing the Tarrasque. The RAW do not particularly support either idea, but neither do they deny them as possibilities. Savage Species doesn't limit monster classes only to those monsters that it selects. The DMG has some suggestions for selecting an appropriate ECL if you're not sure you want to go the monster class route. As for raining swords, well, the character wealth guidelines are just that....guidelines. The RAW doesn't state that DM's can't give the PCs more.

Heck, maybe it would even be fun.

It amazes me to think that KM could write this:

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.

when describing risk/reward ratios for players, but fails to see the obvious corollary that what the DM does is a lot more like trying to churn out a successful novel than character generation is.

I can't say it any better than I did before, so once more with feeling:

In KM's philosophy, there is no way for the DM to win. He "serves the player's needs" and is forbidden from putting "his own pleasures in the game first, ahead of the player's, rather than equal to them." In other words, the DM serves the players by doing 90% or more of the work involved in the game, does not get to experience the game as a player, and if more than half the players say one day "It would be fun if magic items started raining from the sky...and we mean real, long-term fun" the DM is supposed to shrug and start dropping +2 swords.

This isn't an interesting point.

This is a desire to have the DM's work somehow subservient to the player's efforts at rolling up characters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Let me be a bit more clear here.

In order to run an interesting game, I feel that it is necessary to do some design work. I want to know the place where the PCs are starting, who the gods are, what the major players want and why they want it. I like a sense of history, and uncovering ancient secrets, so I design a cosmology and a rough outline of the world history. Some idea of what sorts of peoples inhabited this area before the PCs. I try to consider the sort of things that PCs are usually interested in, and create some ideas for mid-level adventures that they can aspire to. I consider if any rules changes are needed to do this (for example, no automatic literacy).

Next I make one or more files and make these files available to the players. You can view some of this content at the begining of this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=110029) for a specific example of what I mean. I try to be fairly upfront about what I am offering.

When copies of the PC character sheets begin to come in, I look at the various PC backgrounds and try to decide how they fit into the world. In some few cases, there is overt need for modification, and I'll talk to the player. In many cases, what the PC believes to be the truth overlays another, much larger, truth. I also look for things that I can hook into the campaign world, to make the PCs part of the ongoing story.

EXAMPLE: Prior to begining my current campaign, I created the island of Tal Slathan, including the ruins of Oakhill (sacked by orcs). One of the initial PCs was a half-orc. I offered that he was a second-generation half-orc wherein the half-orcish blood ran true. The PC accepted that idea. I then determined (unknown to the PC) that his father was conceived in the sack of Oakhill, and seeded clues to this fact where I hoped the player would eventually find them.

The initial adventure for any group is a sort of warm-up. I try to make it reasonably risky and reasonably rewarding. I try to seed it with hints of other plots, and hooks that lead into other adventures. I try to give the PCs contacts as an asset and let them learn more about the campaign world through role-playing encounters and clues seeded into any place I can fit them -- treasures, NPCs, landforms, things they see.

After the warm-up I let them go. Every time they choose something to pursue, I try to include hooks into at least three more things that they could potentially pursue. Large storylines continue whether they pursue them or not, but can be drastically altered by PC involvement. PCs can even begin (or end) major world story arcs by their actions.

Eventually, they realize that there is more to do than they could ever hope to do, and begin to think in terms of "What should we do next?" rather than "What does the DM want us to do next?"

All within the context of a world that is as believable and internally consistant as I can make it.

That's why I do so much work.

That's why I enjoy the game.

That's what makes me sit back and smile.


RC

 

[Hussar]

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?

I didn't bother answering it because its such a loaded and rhetorical question that it isn't worth it. Any answer I give is pretty much rendered meaningless by the level of strawman in the question. Ask a less leading question and I'll answer it.

As to which RAW, I would answer simply - the RAW FOR THAT SETTING. I would think that that's obvious. If I'm playing an Eberron game, then Eberron material is likely to be included. Anything else is purely at the DM's discretion. Actually, anything is at the DM's discretion, but, at least Eberron material is more likely to be included.

Maybe I've been lucky. I've never seen players try anything remotely like this. In fact, every game I see these days specifies material at the outset. This would mean to me that the RAW for each particular campaign is set by the DM. Certainly a player can ask, but, then again, there's nothing wrong with saying no. Particularly if the RAW for that setting supports that answer.

I think there's a couple of definitions of RAW going on here and that's where the problem lies. To me, RAW is defined by setting. That a particlar book has been written does not make it apply to a particular campaign.

And I think that most die hard advocates of the RAW seem to be saying that only published rules are viable when there is no difference between a feat in the complete warrior and a feat created by a DM. They are both optional rules added to the system after the fact.

I would agree with that except for one very important fact. A feat that is in the Complete Warrior has the added advantage of peer review. A homebrew feat does not, unless the DM in question chooses to put it up for review. This doesn mean that published bits are automatically better, just that published bits get the benefit of a LOT more examination than non-published bits.

Also, you imply that any PC should be able to have the specific items they desire. So, if you want a flaming, thundering mithril bec du corbin of speed and one does not exist in the world, then the player should have the opportunity to have that specific weapon because just any magical bec du corbin will not do.

Sorry, but while the player may be able to get what he wants, the rest of the players better agree to all of the questing time that will be needed to fund one's players item desire.

And right there, that's the point I was looking for. If the DM has complete control over what the party has, then it's a confrontation between the party and the DM. However, if the DM says that Player X can go get Item A made, then it is up to Player X to convince the party. The DM can sit back and giggle. He comes out looking like the good guy because he is allowing the players to do anything they wish. If the rest of the party nixes Player X's idea, that's their problem, not mine. Again, it's up to the DM to be neutral. I'm entirely neutral in the matter. If they choose to go get item A made, cool, otherwise, cool. It's a win win situation for me.

On the other hand, if I flat out rule that the PC cannot possibly get Item X made, then I'm directly opposing the players. That's something I try to avoid as much as possible. Why should the players have to "make do" with whatever the DM condescends to gift them? It's their character concepts, not mine. If they have the cash to do it, go for it. If they can convince the rest of the party its a good idea, more power to them. Why should I, as the DM, possibly stand in the way of that?

 

[FireLance]

When can the DM say "No"? Any time he likes, as long as as he recognizes that the players are judging him.

I'm fine with a DM saying, "No elves in my campaign."

However, a DM who says he allows elves and, after my elven ranger rushes to the front lines to battle a couple of ghouls and gets hit, tells me to save against paralysis because he didn't like the fact that elves are immune to ghoul paralysis is bordering on not OK. After all, even though it is RAW, this information is in the MM and he has the right to adapt the monsters in his campaign.

A DM who tells my elven ranger to make his save against the sleep spell cast by the wizard BBEG crosses the line for me. It's right there in the PH and he should have called it out as a house rule when I made my character. I might tolerate such lapses if he manages to convince me that he meant to tell me but forgot, but anything that hints of "I-just-changed-this-rule-because-I-don't-like-it" will be enough to make me walk.

 

[Mallus]

On the other hand, if I flat out rule that the PC cannot possibly get Item X made, then I'm directly opposing the players. That's something I try to avoid as much as possible. Why should the players have to "make do" with whatever the DM condescends to gift them? It's their character concepts, not mine. If they have the cash to do it, go for it. If they can convince the rest of the party its a good idea, more power to them. Why should I, as the DM, possibly stand in the way of that?

You seem to be saying that a campaign in which a character can buy Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake is inherently better than one where the sword is gotten the traditonal way. Why is that?

And how on earth does a greater level of DM control over magic items equal condescension? Why so adversarial? Where's the trust?

And its 'their' characters in 'our' shared world. Co-operation is essential.

Sometimes you just have to say 'no' to a laser-wielding pirate in a world based on Arthurian Romance...

 

[D'karr]

And right there, that's the point I was looking for. If the DM has complete control over what the party has, then it's a confrontation between the party and the DM. However, if the DM says that Player X can go get Item A made, then it is up to Player X to convince the party. The DM can sit back and giggle. He comes out looking like the good guy because he is allowing the players to do anything they wish. If the rest of the party nixes Player X's idea, that's their problem, not mine. Again, it's up to the DM to be neutral. I'm entirely neutral in the matter. If they choose to go get item A made, cool, otherwise, cool. It's a win win situation for me.

I believe that is the wrong approach. Why should there be a "confrontational" situation between the party and the DM?

The DM is the eyes, ears, and all senses of the party as long as the party adventures in the DM's world. In essence the DM IS the world and the party gets to experience the world through the DM's presentation. If the DM says they encounter a "Displacer Beast" then they encounter a "Displacer Beast." If a character asks, "Can I buy a Thundering, Hammering, Returning, Glove of invisibility?" It is up to the DM to present the possibility. Either yes or no. The No could be an implied "Not in this town or not in this continent or not in this world." But that is for the PC to determine through his interaction with the game world.

What if nobody in the Game World has the capability to produce such an item? After all the DM is in control of all the NPCs. Why does this have to be confrontational?

On the other hand, if I flat out rule that the PC cannot possibly get Item X made, then I'm directly opposing the players. That's something I try to avoid as much as possible. Why should the players have to "make do" with whatever the DM condescends to gift them? It's their character concepts, not mine. If they have the cash to do it, go for it. If they can convince the rest of the party its a good idea, more power to them. Why should I, as the DM, possibly stand in the way of that?

Once again you are viewing this from a "confrontational" perspective. The emphasized comment speaks to that view. The DM doesn't condescend to give. The DM presents the available options. Or is it your opinion that the DM should change the internal consistency of the game world, he is presenting, to satisfy every player whim? After all the only person that understands the "internal consistency" of this creation is the DM. In a campaign modeled after "Jason and the Argonauts" should the DM change his presentation because a player wants to get a weapon that might be modeled with the RAW but does not fit the "internal consistency" of the world he is presenting? And if the PCs quest for such a weapon, who determines whether they will ever find it? What if the "golden fleece" was just a myth and the Argonauts never find it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

I didn't bother answering it because its such a loaded and rhetorical question that it isn't worth it. Any answer I give is pretty much rendered meaningless by the level of strawman in the question. Ask a less leading question and I'll answer it.

The question is not a straw man. It is, in fact, the crux of this thread. When determining when it is appropriate to say "No", whose discretion does the DM rely upon? If the DM relies upon his own discretion, then he is the ultimate arbitrator of that game. If the DM does not, then he is not.

KM says that the DM is allowed to say "No" in general because to do otherwise would make his position obviously untenable. However, KM also disallows the DM from saying "No" in any specific incident to which that general rule is applied.

What KM gives with one hand, he takes away with the other.

Recognizing that this is, in fact, the case is not setting up a "straw man". It is, rather, suggesting that KM's position is, itself, self-contradictory.

If I am wrong, all KM has to do is agree that it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to limit races and/or classes based upon the internal logic of the setting. Without some caveat that the players have to agree (in either an implied or acual sense). I would be more than happy to come across KM espousing such an opinion without qualifier.

See, like a scientific theorum, my argument is refutable in a practical sense.

In any event, you do answer the questions above.

As to which RAW, I would answer simply - the RAW FOR THAT SETTING. I would think that that's obvious. If I'm playing an Eberron game, then Eberron material is likely to be included. Anything else is purely at the DM's discretion. Actually, anything is at the DM's discretion, but, at least Eberron material is more likely to be included.

Maybe I've been lucky. I've never seen players try anything remotely like this. In fact, every game I see these days specifies material at the outset. This would mean to me that the RAW for each particular campaign is set by the DM. Certainly a player can ask, but, then again, there's nothing wrong with saying no. Particularly if the RAW for that setting supports that answer.

You and I agree perfectly on this point. Where you and I disagree is whether or not this is what KM is saying. I think, very specifically, that KM is saying that the DM cannot say no. Or, perhaps more accurately, that a bad DM can say no, but a good DM will not say no, whether he can or not.

Using your example of a bec de corbin:

My campaign is low-magic, low-cash. As a result, there are no magic shops. There are individuals who can craft items, but they are not common. To me, this is the difference between "magician as artisan" and "magician as factory worker". Simply put, it will be more of an effort for you to find someone to make your magic weapon, and relative to what you have, it will cost more. You have to be more invested in the idea of a magical bec de corbin to make it happen.

EDIT: Also, assuming that the general feats allowed are given at the beginning of the game, you can easily determine whether or not expecting to craft a magical bec de corbin is reasonable. If you are given campaign background material, you can also take a reasonable stab at how difficult it will be to find someone else to do the same if you are not able to. If you know that being able to obtain a magical bec de corbin is extremely unlikely, you are not required to make a character centered around that concept. I am sure that you agree that applying the "RAW for a specific setting" concept applies to more than just racial/class choices.​

On the other hand, you cannot be a half-ogre. Period. There are no half-ogres in the setting.

I am extremely upfront about the core choices offered, about the average level of wealth and magic expected, and about changes in XP that I have made. I am not so upfront about, say, rules pertaining to the Cult of Mellythese (an evil spider goddess), such as prestige class or classes. In game, the PCs can research such things, though, and find out about them.

No one can be forced to play with people they do not wish to. You cannot force the DM to run a game. You cannot force anyone to run a game in a way you prefer. You may be able to compromise, but your two absolutely always-available choices are "Play in the game I'm running as I am running it" and "Don't play in the game I'm running as I am running it." This is not only true, it is self-evident.

Sure, if the DM is a dink and runs "Dink way or the highway" games, he's going to spend a lot of time at an empty table. I've said this (or things like it) numerous times myself. The qualifier (if the DM is a dink), though, is all-important.

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.

This is really simple, and it is consistent.

No one has to play in my game if they do not wish to. No one has the right to tell me how to run my game. No one has a right to play in my game if I don't want them to.


RC

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I call bull here. While bad DMs do exist, the idea that for every good DM, six horrible DMs exist is farsical. I think that the idea that has been promoted over the last few years that promotes the RAW as final arbiter has led to an urban legend regarding DMs who make judgement calls or create house rules.

Honestly, I've played under a lot of DMs. I can say there are a lot of bad DMs around. That you've had some good experiences with DMs is good for you. However, I've played under..let me think....at least 20 different DMs in home games. I've played easily under another 20 or 30 in Living Greyhawk games. I'd say there are a lot of bad DMs. Some of them are made better by the fact that they are following the RAW and it ups the quality of their DMing. I can tell this because it's been mentioned by DMs at various tables in LG that "if this wasn't LG, he wouldn't be using (insert rule here) because it was stupid". I, on the other hand, think removing the rule is stupid and would confuse the game too much.

As a player, you want the rules to be final arbiter. It grants the player power and control over the game. The problem is that this attitude leads to an adversarial relationship between player and DM and causes arguments over the rules. Let's face it, the rules are fairly vague and sometimes a decision has to be made. A player and a DM can interpret things differently and then cause massive problems, unless the player accepts the DM as arbiter.

My players know that the rules are the primary goto for arbitration in the game. After that, if there is any dispute on HOW the rules are to be read, the DM decides. He is the referee after all.

It hasn't created an adversarial relationship at all. Quite the contrary. Previously, when I ran 2nd edition D&D, I would be continually questioned on every ruling as the players would question the logic of every decision, they'd argue realism at every turn. Now, we all understand how to rules work so there is no discussion about it unless a point comes up that isn't covered by the rules or we have 2 different interpretations of a rule. If it isn't covered by the rules, I make something up and we move on. If there is two different interpretations then I decide which one I want in my game and everyone agrees that it could be either way, so they accept that one way is as good as the other.

We now feel we are all playing the same game instead of playing the game as defined by the DM. It isn't Majoru Oakheart's version of D&D. It is D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think we need to recognize, too, that some DMs (and players) are neither good nor bad. Perhaps the majority of both.

Simply as an example, if we rate DMs/players on a scale from 1 to 10, we can say that those who are a 1-3 are bad, and are quite possible intentionally bad. They are the selfish DMs and players we hear about.

Those who are a 4-6 are neither bad nor good. They are average, and will probably improve over time if given a chance.

Those who are 7-8 are good.

Those who are 9-10 are excellent, and congratulations to those of us lucky to play with them.

DMs in the 7-10 range probably never experience major DM/player problems (except where a player falls into the 1-3 range). DMs in the 1-3 range are not worth sitting at the table with.

There are a lot of 4-6 DMs out there. Like students of composition, they need to learn the rules in order to know when it is appropriate to break them. They also need to learn how to break them to create specific effects that they are trying to create.

If you've never run into a 7-10, you might be a bit leery about allowing the DM the authority to do the job. However, a 4-6 needs that authority in order to grow into the job. Players where the DM is a 4-6 know (or will soon learn) that the 4-6 is experimenting, and that some of his stuff is going to go over about as well as teenage high school poetry....

DMs in the 1-3 range should not deviate from the rules. However, only in the event that such a DM actually wants to improve will the rules be of any help, anyway.

Following the RAW and core assumptions can move any DM 1-2 points toward the 5 position. This is great if the DM is, say, a 3. He's just leapt from to in one fell swoop. If the DM was a 7 and she's suddenly a 5, though, her players will be somewhat less happy.

Just MHO.

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM giveth and KM taketh away. On one hand, sure the DM ought to be having fun. On the other hand, the DM "exists for the fun of the players". If the DM has spent two weeks designing a starting area intended to provide excellent risks and rewards to a party of 2nd level PCs, but the players wants to play 22nd level characters, the DM should compromise:

You're removing one key element from my argument every time you represent it, and BU is doing the same thing: the DM should be having fun, too. Obviously, rewriting a month's worth of planning ain't much fun, and a DM has a responsibility for her own fun, too. Some DM's can have as much fun at 22nd level as they can at 2nd. Some DM's don't exhaustively detail their worlds, prefering to destcribe them as players explore them. Some DM's only work a week or two in advance. Some DM's have conversations with their players weeks before the game actually starts, or before they write down one word of what the world is going to be like. In these scenarios, the DM could run a 22nd level game as easily as a 2nd level game and have a lot of fun doing it.

A less flexible DM, of course, wouldn't be able to change like that and have fun himself. Which is fine -- D&D is about having fun.

If I am wrong, all KM has to do is agree that it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to limit races and/or classes based upon the internal logic of the setting. Without some caveat that the players have to agree (in either an implied or acual sense). I would be more than happy to come across KM espousing such an opinion without qualifier.

Have I ever said otherwise? The DM in the (admittedly rather poor) example is selfish because he is not open to conversation about what the setting can be. It doesn't matter to him what his players want, even if what his players want fit the setting (no Merlin in an Arthurian world? No fey?), even when the rules give guidelines on how to do it. He's selfish: What I want is more important than what you want. I have only been saying that a DM should not be selfish, and that they wield more power than any individual player. The rules make it harder for a DM to be selfish now -- they give DM's one thousand good ways in which they can say "yes," so a DM who says "no" has to now be justified.

Continuing with that example, what if the DM didn't care that no one in his group had ever really had much to do with King Arthur? What if he sprung the idea of an Arthurian style D&D session on them when they showed up at the table for the first session? Developing a D&D campaign should be a dialogue, not a monologue. Both sides have their wants and D&D is fun when both sides get what they want.

KM says that the DM is allowed to say "No" in general because to do otherwise would make his position obviously untenable. However, KM also disallows the DM from saying "No" in any specific incident to which that general rule is applied.

To repeat what I said on page 10: A DM can fairly say no whenever they are justified, in the eyes of the players.

World flavor is a fine justification, but only if the players want a world with that flavor, too. Random whim is a fine justification, but only if the players don't mind that whim. A view that the rules are poor and need improving is a fine justification, but only if the players are comfortable with that change. It's not just the players who need to find a new game if they aren't fine with those alterations -- the DM may need to find new players. And not every player is going to be comfortable with those changes. That's not a problem with "players these days." That's a problem with DMs expecting players to just smile and nod and agree because they are the DM. It shouldn't work like that, and it doesn't. Players can choose what they have fun doing.

The DM can say "No" whenever the players let him. Because this is a group effort, not just one man's creation. And remember, players want to be challenged, and they want to overcome roadblocks.

And players who know what they want aren't an unfortunate situation of the game today. They are an excellent development, because it will lead to them having as much fun playing D&D as they can.