NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="epithet" data-source="post: 7762850" data-attributes="member: 6796566">It really isn't off point, or off topic, or ridiculous. What you limit, what you add via homebrew, and what the role of the DM is (or should be) in the typical game group or the ideal game group--these are all related issues, and should absolutely be discussed together. This is especially true because the question of the thread isn't "what would you ban?" The question is, "Why?"There's only one answer, and it applies to almost all DMs. The answer to why some DMs limit 'official' material is the same as the answer to why some add 'homebrew' material. Simply put, they think it makes the game better.The problem is that one simple answer opens up a dozen more. Better in what way? Better in the sense of more fun for this session, or better in terms of more sustainable over the life of a long campaign? Better in terms of being easier to run or play, or better in terms of having greater verisimilitude, making people more intuitively attached to the characters and world? The wide array of possible answers is the reason that different campaigns include different rules and different options, because they're all played by different people. Of course, that leads us to the biggest question of the better campaign: for whom is the campaign being made better?The past several pages of this thread set out two pretty clear philosophies. The first argues that the DM should make the campaign better for himself. After all, he's the one that puts the most work into it, he's the one that ultimately has to make sense of it all, and he's the one that is the final arbiter of both rules and lore at the table. DMs are in demand, players are lucky to have someone to run a game for them, so the DM is absolutely entitled to make the game the way he wants it. If one or more of the players don't like it, there's a line of people waiting for their seat at the table.The second philosophy argues that the game group is the most important social dynamic, and that the players are as essential an element to that group as the DM is. The primary objective is to have a good time and play a game together, and a DM's role is to run a game that the group will enjoy. Like anyone making something for a group of friends to enjoy, the DM will be most successful if his campaign gives the players what they want.Both of those philosophies are built upon a kernel of truth, but both can be taken to extremes that will lead to the failure of the campaign. The first can lead to alienating players who want to try things that the DM doesn't much like, while the second can result in the boring and often generic Monty Haul campaign. I think I've made it pretty clear that I find the second philosophy to be the better one in general, but there is no doubt that the DM engagement (and avoiding DM burnout) requires indulging the first philosophy a bit, too.So, to answer the question posed by the thread title: the first philosophy motivates a DM to limit material that the DM finds annoying, or stupid, or pointlessly complicated. When the DM has a concept for the campaign setting, he limits material that challenges or undermines that concept. The second philosophy motivates a DM to limit material in order to run a game or make a campaign setting that the players will better enjoy. The DM tries to make sure the game is accessible and the pacing is right for the group, the setting is thematically consistent and has a flavor and style that is engaging and interesting, and prunes away content that either gets in the way, or offers more in its absence than it could be its inclusion. A campaign setting without humans, for example, is automatically interesting on some level, just because it's so different. Removing the option for playing on a grid can help reinforce the uncertainty of a campaign in the lightless underdark, or the mists of a haunted forest. Limitations establish boundaries, and boundaries define shapes, and a campaign with a shape to it is generally better for all involved than an amorphous blob in which Drizzit rides a dinosaur unless you're going for zany, campy humor.I believe the issue of what you limit as a DM, and why, ultimately relates to the question of why you're DMing in the first place. Obviously different people will have different answers to the question, but for myself it goes back to the campfire. I went camping a lot as a kid, and one of the biggest highlights of it for me was sitting around a fire after dark, telling stories. I really liked making my friends laugh, or scaring them with ghost stories, and I still do. I like worldbuilding, and I like tinkering with rule systems, but what I really enjoy as a DM is entertaining my friends. When I limit material in my D&D campaigns, it is because I believe the campaign will be more entertaining without it.</blockquote>

Verification