(Poll, please read 1st post) What does the DM have the right to restrict?

[jasin]

I'm wondering what you, as a player of D&D3, expect to be available for character creation when you sit down at a table for a new game. What rules, etc. do you have a right to expect being in play when you're sitting down at the table with a new group and you haven't made any special agreements in advance?

As far as expectations go, my assumption is that anything in the core books is available. I also expect most WotC stuff to get approved with nothing more than "is this OK?" -- "sure, fine".

However, I picked the first option, because I don't think there's any option the exclusion of which would automatically mean I wouldn't want to play. However again, I'd expect a reasoning for the restriction, the complexity of which should range from "I just don't like it" for some fringe element like an obscure PrC, to a discussion of what sort of game and setting we're after and is it going to work mechanically for something drastic like "no spellcasters".

 

[mcrow]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all about buying into something or not.

The GM is sort of a salesman, he lays out wares and pitches the ideas to the players and they choose to buy into them or not. Just because you don't buy into his game, doesn't make him an evil/bad GM, it just means you're not looking for the same thing in a game.

IMO, the GM is rarely evil no matter how bad or strange the rule/setting they want to play with are as long as the players are told about it up front. Heck, if the game sounds like total crap and you buy into anyway, it's your own dang fault if the games sucks for you.

 

[mcrow]

mcrow -

This is a different issue, but if the DM just said 'make a character', and didn't give you any setting details, would that be OK with you?

Yeah, I'd just assume a generic fantasy world (if we are playing D&D). I'd have the GM look over the character to make sure it works for what he has in mind. Maybe tweak the character if need be.

What if he said that and said "but you can only be a human, dwarf, elf, or halfling, and only use the old D&D race/class combos, please." (In other words, put restrictions on your choice without necessarily explaining them in terms of the world. It could be different choices too, like gnomes and half-elves and humans only, and rangers/druids/sorcerers/bards only, or something like that.)

For the most part that's OK. If the setting doesn't have dwarves, it doesn't. No big deal.

My whole point is as long as the GM, tells you the special rules ahead of time it's the players fault if those rules make the game less enjoyable. They were told upfront about them so you had the option to voice your opinion or not play.

 

[Stormborn]

As Morrus said, its a social contract and should be a base line of whatever is most agreeable to all parties involved. As a DM and a player thats what I would work toward. However, I also feel that overall the DM's opinion has the most weight when it comes to restricting or allowing material and am perfectly fine with saying/being told up front: these are the rules, restrictions, and allowances. Sometimes options are the most fun, sometimes makign the most of what you have is the most fun. Restricting options does not make for a "bad DM", poor communication (whether it be explaining the setting, rules, or running the game) does.

 

[RFisher]

I simply hate the look on a player's face when--as DM--I tell him something he asked about isn't an option. No matter how graciously they accept it & genuinely agree that the DM should have final say, it still is unpleasant to glimpse that moment of disappointment.

I still voted for the top option, though.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

I knew one guy who had this rule who accumulated a frightening number of products because his players took to buying two copies and giving one to him so that they could use the stuff that was in them.

I think for me it wouldn't be worth it in the end, but there's a temptation...

One of my players in my Navy group bought me a copy of D20 Modern because he wanted to play in it. It worked.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

when you're sitting down at the table with a new group and you haven't made any special agreements in advance?

Within the context of this post I voted for all core rules. If a DM wants to cut out PHB or DMG standard options, I expect to be told when I'm being invited to the group or for the group to be told when a member is offering to run a game. I can wait till I get to the table to find out about Psionics or Completes....

I think the thread is badly titled, btw, as it doesn't reflect the question being asked in the poll and post.

if you picked the 3rd or lower option, what would you do if you came into a game where there were restrictions in play? Just leave? Argue? Try it out and see how the group was before making a final decision?

Depends on if the restricted options were things I really enjoyed or not, I suppose. The issue would be communication in this case - "you invited me to play a 3.5 D&D game, I think the words heavily homebrewed got skipped in the email. Just so you know it would be a good idea to mention the lack of PrCs, half orcs and all metamagic feats before someone dedicates an afternnon, but none of those were crucial to my idea, so maybe I can just sit in on this game to get a feel for the rest of your houserules before I make you integrate a character whoo might not be here next week...."

 

[Insight]

The DM is running his or her game, and has the "right" to change whatever they want. That's the inherent part of being the Dungeon Master, and it's been part of D&D since 1st ed.

That said, I (as the player) reserve the right to quit a game (or not play it at all if I know ahead of time) if I don't like the DM's rulings. This goes for character creation or the execution of the game itself.

So it definitely is a social contract. If you want to play in DM Bob's game, you have to abide by DM Bob's rules. On the flip side, if DM Bob wants to have players, DM Bob needs to run a game that people want to play.

I understand where the OP gets the idea that some DMs allow anything that's been put to paper in their games. I guarantee that's a quirk of EN World, where a lot of people own a ton of books. In my RL experience, few people own more than the core rules, and certainly don't allow things in books they don't own without a) a copy of the rules to read and, b) pleading.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I voted the DM can cut out a fair amount, but there's a limit. The limit being some reasonable amount of freedom for the players. If the DM wants to restrict everyone in the group to one core class, one race, only these skills and this subset of feats, I think it is completely unreasonable. If they want to say "no elves" in this world, that's fine, the PHB is not gospel. If they want to restrict certain books, that's ok too, but there just has to be some choice so players can create characters that will interest them.

 

[jeffh]

If I couldn't play a human, or there were no way to play some really basic archetype, or the structure of the rules were mutated beyond recognition in ways that I could see had balance problems or just weren't generally well-thought-out, I'd (at best) politely excuse myself. But beyond that, pretty much anything goes.