DM Entitlement...

[Mister Doug]

As I said, the player always has the option of not playing if they don't like the specific terms I put in front of them. As a DM, I tend to weigh arguments made by players fairly and take their point of view into consideration. I am a kind and benevolent god at my table, and that is the way the players like it. At the end of the day though, the tough decisions are mine to make. If I'm not sure about a rule (and yes, it does happen occasionally), I am willing to defer to the interpretation of one of my most experienced players, provided that he is being reasonable and not trying to break the game.

The point behind taking this attitude is so that the boundaries separating player from DM are clearly defined and there is no confusion. Some players always want to have their way about rules interpretations and character builds. By laying it down from day 1 that I am the final arbiter of such things, there is no gray area and any rules discussions are quickly and permanently resolved.

In other words, there's a social contract that players can trust in you, but that part of that relationship is that you are final arbiter. That's less "I am God" and more "I'm the benevolent dictator" complete with some level of consultation with the community who understand that you have ultimate power.

That makes sense. Not the "I'm God and the players can go $#&@ themselves" attitude I read into your first post. Makes sense. Not the social contract at most games I run, but one that matches many I have played at happily.

 

[Fenes]

You know, I've ended campaigns before, but it has never, ever been because a player wanted to play a class or race that was out of synch with my carefully-crafted setting.

I'd say a sense of perspective would be warranted in this case...

I think the sense of perspective is that not everyone has th same standards of what is appropriate. If someone comes with a WoD Vampire and wants to play in my D&D campaign, and expects me to add the whole background of Vampires running the world etc., I'd surely not do this.
If he simply wants to play a vampire, willing to make it fit the setting, that would be another thing (although the other players would have to ok it).

 

[Wyrmshadows]

In other words, there's a social contract that players can trust in you, but that part of that relationship is that you are final arbiter. That's less "I am God" and more "I'm the benevolent dictator" complete with some level of consultation with the community who understand that you have ultimate power.

Perfectly stated....couldn't have said it better myself.


Wyrmshadows

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm certain Joss Whedon and J. Strazynski do the same on their shows with their writers and actors.

It's funny that you mention Straczynski, because here is a guy who has killed shows because he wasn't allowed by the powers that be to stay true to his original vision. Crusade and Jeremiah were both killed because of creative differences with the studio. That isn't to say that he didn't allow the actors their say. G'Kar, played by the late Andreas Katsulas, played G'Kar. Initially G'Kar was to pronounce the G as a hard G, so it was supposed to sound like Gukar. The actor introduced the character on film with a soft G sound, so it was more like jekar. When JMS asked Katsulas about it, Katsulas responded that he'd decided he was French. JMS liked it so much that all of the male narns had the je sound at the beginning of their names. That is an example where someone brings something interesting and makes it part of the larger universe, thereby adding some flavor and originality to the setting. Now if Katsulas would have come to the set dressed as a klingon and said that his character will be a klingon, he would have been told off for wasting a day of filming by making his makeup artist dress him up as a character that doesn't exist in that universe.

But where JMS was fine with allowing a certain amount of improvisation with his actors, he doesn't tolerate studio interferance. With Crusade, the studio wanted him to amp up the sex and violence and turn it into some sort of stupid WWF in space. When he couldn't work out the show he wanted, he wrote and filmed a couple bad scripts that he knew would piss off the studio and killed the show. I can't say I blame him, frankly. In season 2 of Babylon 5, the studio wanted him to create a hotshot pilot character because they thought it would appeal to a certain demographic. He did so, but then he killed the character at the end of the season. After B5 was over, he killed Jeremiah after two seasons because he couldn't deal with the studio's demands. On the other hand, he hasn't had the same problem with Spiderman and the other comics he's been writing because they aren't his characters, and his stories are still secondary to the universe that he's been hired to write in.

How this relates to a DM is that if a DM has created a unique world and he already has a massive campaign that he created and is going to run, then he has the right to tell the players what does and does not exist in that world. It's his world, it's his story. Telling me, the DM, that I have to allow a tiefling character even though the world I created doesn't even have demons would be like Katsulas in the above example coming to the B5 set in a klingon outfit. It doesn't work and I don't have to allow it. On the other hand, if I'm running a Forgotten Realms game, where everything is intentionally present by the setting's designers, then the only reason I would veto a character race or class was if that race or class is overpowered and broken. In such a case, I would likely offer to redesign it for the player so that it wasn't broken. This would then bring into question whether the player wanted this character because playing that race is a cool roleplaying concept or if they were just being a power gaming munchkin.

Finally, knowing that there is a great deal of power creep in the splat books, I was always very reluctant to allow material from them into the game. I would always look at it first before approving it, and I would always retain the right to reject anything that I thought was too good. In fact I warn players from the beginning not to invest money into splat books if their expectation is that I will allow it into the game. I'm more of a stick to core, with certain exceptions, type of DM. If the players know that up front, before they even show up for the game, there isn't a problem.

 

[Logos7]

The moral of my story is that As a Dm I both use the rules more often, more of them and more liberally than the pc's. If i introduce a houserule, because i put in more effort than 9/10 of my players it sticks. If the players don't like it, they can leave, start their own game etc.

Is this horrible of me, Not really, I don't use the Dm banhammer a whole lot because most thigns don't bother me, but I can if i want to, just like the players can not play if they don't want to. assymetirical rights for assymetrical effort seems okay with me.

Logos

 

[Voadam]

So I've seen a lot of posts (especially with some of the changes in the new edition) that have people saying things like:

"In my game there will be no (insert random thing to ban from campaign.)"

This seems pretty odd to me. D&D is a game played by more then just one person... Shouldn't EVERYONE playing have a say in how the game should work?

No, I'd say everyone can speak up about how they want the game to work, but the DM is the one with the final say.

I understand that sometimes, yes, as a DM it falls on your shoulders to spot problematic rules, or things being used "inapropriately" but to outright say "X cannot be used in my game because I don't like it..." just seems way to bossy...

A matter of taste, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. DMs make and run the world the players play in. They get to say what goes in or out and "I don't like it" is a valid reason to exclude things.

[/QUOTE]I don't like evil characters. I have a hard time coming up with adventures for evil characters, and feel they tend to cause more game problems then non-evil characters, so I make my feelings known to my players. Some of them, however, enjoy playing evil characters. I won't say no if they really really want to be evil. They're playing the game to, so it should be fun for them as well. They're not just there to facilitate my amusement.

Maybe it's because most of the games I run tend to be with friends I've known since junior high or longer?[/QUOTE]

I don't think its because you are friends from way back. I think it is how you are comfortable interacting with your friends. You are willing to tolerate things you don't like, make it harder for yourself to come up with adventures as a DM for the group, and deal with more game problems if they really really want you to.

I game with friends I've known since preschool. We have no problem with any of us saying "These core bits are banned/changed in this game" or imposing character choice limitations such as "must be compatible with the party paladin" or "must be compatible with evil PCs" when one of us chooses to DM.

 

[Voadam]

How this relates to a DM is that if a DM has created a unique world and he already has a massive campaign that he created and is going to run, then he has the right to tell the players what does and does not exist in that world. It's his world, it's his story. Telling me, the DM, that I have to allow a tiefling character even though the world I created doesn't even have demons would be like Katsulas in the above example coming to the B5 set in a klingon outfit. It doesn't work and I don't have to allow it. On the other hand, if I'm running a Forgotten Realms game, where everything is intentionally present by the setting's designers, then the only reason I would veto a character race or class was if that race or class is overpowered and broken. In such a case, I would likely offer to redesign it for the player so that it wasn't broken. This would then bring into question whether the player wanted this character because playing that race is a cool roleplaying concept or if they were just being a power gaming munchkin.

Any time you DM it is your world. You can tweak published campaign settings to your taste and that is just as valid as creating a massive homebrew.

You can do a points of light one shot game and ban specified core game elements for taste and that is perfectly valid.

 

[Mallus]

How this relates to a DM is that if a DM has created a unique world and he already has a massive campaign that he created and is going to run, then he has the right to tell the players what does and does not exist in that world.

The question should be 'as DM, how is the game improved by the things I restrict?', not 'as DM do I have the right to restrict?'.

(Flexibility is a good thing in a DM, and most settings are far from unique. In fact, cliche-ridden mess is usually a better descriptor. Most cliche-ridden messes aren't spoiled by the addition of further cliches.)

It's his world, it's his story.

Right. Until the campaign starts. Then it's their works and their story.

(Unless the game in question is nothing more than the DM masturbating with the aid of polyhedral dice...)

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Trying to define the proper relationship between DMs and players is as doomed to failure as trying to define the "one true way" for any relationship to work. What works for one group may not work for another. At this point, I am only willing to commit to the observation that good communication improves the health of any relationship.

On a personal note, I am still new to DMing, and I have a strong desire to entertain my players (stronger than my desire to play out any particular campaign idea or vision). Already one of my players, the one who has known me the longest, has urged me to be more decisive. In bending over backwards to incorporate all of my players' ideas, I think I have failed so far to give the campaign much focus or direction.

I'm beginning to think these senses of focus and direction are key. I now think of the role of DM as the role of leader (IRL, not the class role): someone who ideally accepts feedback from his or her followers, but whose role in the group is precisely to make the final decisions.

Anyway, to return to my original point, I suspect some DMs will announce to their friends, "Hey, I have a cool idea for a [RPG] game in [setting]. There are no [race/class] in this game, but here's my vision: [...]. Who wants in?" Others will say, "Okay, I'll run the next game. What kind of game did you guys want to play?" And there's nothing wrong with either DM, or anyone in between, as long as everyone's having fun.

Finally, it's okay to have limitations. Expecting any DM to be compatible with any player sounds like some kind of geek social fallacy to me. If a DM wouldn't enjoy running a game with dragonborn and a player is eager to explore this new race, I would rather they have fun seeing other people than prolong the relationship and make one another miserable. Of course, in practice, I would expect the root causes for most DM-player breakups to be deeper matters of game style.

 

[Cadfan]

If no one wants to have those mauls in game, then they'd be gone faster from my game than I can type the sentence to our house rules doc. Why would I insist on keeping something in game if no one wants it, but someone hates it? I'd have a mental problem if I'd acted like that.

The example wasn't "no one wants it," it was "one player hates it." Do you all kowtow to that player? If not, why not?