D&D General DM Authority

[Campbell]

Right. But demanding a particular game include those preferences is. Calling it bad DMing if a game doesn't match your preferences is also just as bad IMO.

Definitely. We all have the right to set our own boundaries and should not be upset with other people for doing the same.

I'm actually super happy that Pathfinder Second Edition has implemented a rarity system because it make it much easier to have these discussions. I am a big fan of groups having the ability to customize games to their own tastes. I'm also a big proponent of GM judgement.

I just want everyone to advocate for what they are looking for so we have less poor matches in gaming.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the DM claims to want to run a game of 5E and then does not not allow the PC races that are in the PH...

That speaks to a big misconception about what 5E is.

I don't think it's "Entitlement" to expect to be able to play something in the book that you bought as an eager board game enthusiast?

It isn't. If you want to do that then find a DM that's running a campaign that allows those options.

It's a board game. I have never seen someone throw away the boot in Monopoly for "reasons". Yet this is what I see in most discord servers in the LFG section.

1. RPG's aren't board games.
2. Generally restrictions aren't for arbitrary reasons.

 

[Blandco]

But your conclusions seem really dubious to me

I am but a blind man attempting to describe the elephant in front of me!

Perhaps I am hoping my small proddings will eventually get the elephant to move a bit.

It certainly is easier to pretend the elephant does not exist.

But I will continue prodding and see where things go.

 

[zarionofarabel]

If the DM claims to want to run a game of 5E and then does not not allow the PC races that are in the PH...

I don't think it's "Entitlement" to expect to be able to play something in the book that you bought as an eager board game enthusiast?

It's a board game. I have never seen someone throw away the boot in Monopoly for "reasons". Yet this is what I see in most discord servers in the LFG section.

RPGs aren't boardgames, if they were, they would be called boardgames not RPGs.

What if the GM wants to run a game where all the PCs are humans as all other races (as far as the PCs know) went extinct eons ago?

 

[Blandco]

1. RPG's aren't board games.

But to a brand new player they are.

 

[Charlaquin]

And don't even get me started on the whole - "Start the game at level 3" for ALL games including games that include new players that was all the rage about 5 years ago. (Oh God 6 years ago now.)

Literally the only place I saw online that had a majority of DM understanding why lower level sessions were needed were on the D&D Beyond forums. Every other place I checked online just blindly wanted to start games at level 3 because "It was too easy for PCs to die at level 1" "lower levels are boring" "PCs don't have enough to do at levels 1 and 2" "You can't run an eldritch Knight at level 1".

These are all good reasons to start games at level 3.

When I asked how a person who was new to D&D would understand what an eldritch knight was I got no response.

I have two answers for you.
1. Someone who fights with weapons and armor and casts spells.
2. What is a person who’s so brand new to D&D that they struggle to grasp the concept of an Eldritch Knight doing joining a random pickup group online?

Yes, 1st level is the best place for brand new players to start out. There are also good reasons to start at other levels, if you are not running a game for new players. Different audiences demand different approaches. What new players need and what experienced players need will not always precisely line up.

This was clearly caused by pretty much all streamed games starting at level 3 at that time.

More conjecture, I take it? Or did someone actually tell you they were doing it because that’s how their favorite streamers did it?

In many ways the discussions around level 0 games have helped out a lot but in some cases are getting close to an over correcting response.

Level 0 can be interesting. Ironically, I don’t think it’s the best option for new players either though.

So in final I say that the DM is always right. Unless they are planning their games based on what someone else is doing online. Then they are generally always wrong.

I’m not convinced this is a widespread issue.

 

[Blandco]

What if the GM wants to run a game where all the PCs are humans as all other races (as far as the PCs know) went extinct eons ago?

Then that DM should probably advertise a game as being for experienced players and not new ones. In my opinion.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then that DM should probably advertise a game as being for experienced players and not new ones. In my opinion.

There's a difference between saying I don't mind allowing both new and experienced players and I'm running this game explicitly for new players or explicitly for experienced players.

And besides - what the heck does an all human campaign have to do with being new or experienced. I mean I could make a good argument that being human only for everyone is alot better for a new player due to it being easier.

 

[generic]

Then that DM should probably advertise a game as being for experienced players and not new ones. In my opinion.

What system mastery is required to play a game with only humans?

 

[Blandco]

Level 0 can be interesting. Ironically, I don’t think it’s the best option for new players either though.

I agree. Call me old fashioned but a quick level 1 session is fine.

I’m not convinced this is a widespread issue.

I can only reach out blindly and see what I see. I am being honest with what I encountered out there.