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

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm thinking of going back to 3e and running a core books only campaign with options (mostly: number of baseline spells, races, core classes, and multiclassing) reduced to bring them more in line with earlier editions.

This is both short enough and important enough to tell every single person you talk to about running a game. Do so, and your question will be irrelevant.

 

[Arnwyn]

I hope you picked #3 if that's how you feel, Arnwyn.

Sorry, no. I picked #2 based on how the question was worded.

Using the word "right" is a loaded expression - as a player, I don't have the "right" to (other than a good time, in which the onus is on me). Nor do I "expect" the DM to provide me with anything other than what he says.

I suppose better worded poll questions are in order (though no surprise coming from an ENWorld poll...).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Sorry, no. I picked #2 based on how the question was worded.

Using the word "right" is a loaded expression - as a player, I don't have the "right" to (other than a good time, in which the onus is on me). Nor do I "expect" the DM to provide me with anything other than what he says.

I suppose better worded poll questions are in order (though no surprise coming from an ENWorld poll...).

Yeah, reading the first post puts the question in a very different light. (not a hood sign for a poll as practically no one reads the first post no matter how much you ask. )

edit - I have many rights when I play D&D, mostly all the ones I have while not playing D&D.

 

[EricNoah]

If the DM cut out a huge swath of material (like, "no feats at all in my game" or "no magic") I would probably not play, as that would be too much like learning a whole new game. When I play D&D I want to play D&D. Case-by-case restrictions are totally fine by me, though, as are reasonable house rules (should be documented, though).

 

[Calithena]

Hi Eric -

Out of curiosity, what if the GM left the feats, skills, mechanics, etc. intact, but said something like "No bards, monks, or barbarians, no gnomes, and no multiclassing except for elves?" And then explained it in terms of the character of his world, or whatever?

 

[Henry]

I have no problem with the DM's right to restrict anything he wants; if he's even re-written the classes completely and come up with his own, I'm OK with it if the players I'm gaming with will be having fun with it. Now if he writes it to make it specifically un-fun (for instance, it's a game of all commoners and we're playing the equivalent of Die, Vecna, Die!) then that's a limit, but it's not a limit of changes so much as it's a limit on the fun.

I have even been playing a game where the DM took it down to only the four base classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard) but with extensive house rules to feats, skills, the magic system, etc.). I myself have even considered a game with NO core classes, and all the classes geared around "per-encounter" powers or alt classes that support it. As long as the DM promises fun to be a player in it, I'm up for it.

 

[EricNoah]

Fine by me, I've done similar. I have found, as DM, that as soon as I say "no X, Y and Z" sure enough, someone in the group will want to be "X, Y and Z."

The toolbox (PHB/DMG, for example) contains a lot of material. Nothing says it has to all be used or available for use.

 

[werk]

I voted, but I think this is a very loaded question...The DM has the right to play whatever game he wants however he pleases, and I have the right to not play if I don't like it.

I would have worked it out in advance what was available to make sure it was a game I was interested in, to avoid wasting everyone's time. And I prefer all WotC material or at least core...not a big fan of outside stuff. But that's all my personal preferences, the DM has the right to do whatever as long as it is communicated to the players.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

One important thing to remember:

It surely is the DM's game. But it's also the Players' game. There would be no game without players, just as there would be no game without the DM.

Personally, I think the DM has the right to restrict stuff all he wants, but he better have a decent explanation for his decision, or he'll run out of players. And since the more you restrict, the more you'll have to explain, I think it best not to restrict too much, and really think about the restrictions I put in place.

The best way is still to talk with the players. If the DM has a pet peeve against something the whole party loves, there is going to be trouble unless this is resolved up front. And even if only one player wants something and is denied that, there will be bad feelings unless the restriction is explained and make sense.

"No (insert race/class here) in my campaign because I hate them" is a recipe for tension.

 

[Arnwyn]

Yeah, reading the first post puts the question in a very different light. (not a hood sign for a poll as practically no one reads the first post no matter how much you ask. )

Actually, I did read the first post (the thread title specifically asked me to, so I did!), and responded based on that post. I still got the same message, though...

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

I don't have the right to, nor expect, anything other than what the DM says. I like certain things, but I have no expectations, and certainly no "rights".