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

[Kahuna Burger]

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 focused on the part right after the ...s about there being no special arrangements communicated beforehand. If the core rules are not in play, I expect that to be mentioned in the invitation to play, not at the start of the game.

 

[Slife]

Anything that's mentioned before I join the group, or anything obscenely broken.

 

[Nifft]

1/ You have the right to remain violent.

2/ Anything you slay can and will be used against you.

3/ You have the right to roll for initiative. If you are unable to detect your opposition, an initiative check will be made for you after the surprise round.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Twowolves]

"Rights"? There's no such things as rights. It's about a group of people getting together to play an agreed game for all their mutual enjoyment. Whatever works socially and lets everyone have fun.

I agree 100%. People throw the word "Rights" around a bit too freely, especially where it doesn't apply. Trying to apply it to a social interactive hobby game experience is just ludicrous. You have the Right to remain silent, you have the Right to peacefully assemble, you have the Right to bear arms. You do not have the Right to dictate terms to the DM (and all the other players).

 

[Morrus]

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.

I find that too. Usually it's because I'm shooting for a certain "tone"; and players wanting to play characters which clearly do not mesh with that tone are a clear signal that the tone may well be my cuurent "fad", it's not theirs.

My current campaign, though, is core only. No splat books. Every single week I'm asked for a specific spell, feat or class from a splat book.

My issue with all the splat books is this: I don't have a problem with them conceptually. But I am a perosn with a finite amount of time, and I don't have the time to master every option available. If players are springing stuff on me I'm not fully cognizant of, my job of providing them with a challenging, fun, yet not deadly encounter is made very difficult. Sure, they think they want it, but when it makes for several dozen "Aha!" pulling-a-rabbit-out-of-a-hat-and-winning-the-encounter-with-ease-several-weeks-in-a-row, they'll soon get bored.

One arrangement we have is a ban on death-magic. It's not a ban per se; it's a loose mutual agreement that I, as the DM, will not use death magic if the players don't. Because we all agree that "roll a dice or die" situations do not make for a fun game.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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".

BTW, have I missed some sort of "anti rights" backlash? Of course you have rights. You have the right to know what the rules are before you sit down to play, you have the right to play your own character failing an understood mechanical effect that temporarily removes your control, you have the right to leave the table when you choose. Additionally you and the DM have Responsibilities and Expectations.

In the case of this post right here, there may be a mismatch in expectation of timing.... If the DM doesn't say something, I have certain expectations right up until they do, and if they don't say that something early on, annoyance will result. You claim to have no expectations, but if the DM invites you to play a D&D game, I strongly suspect that you have expectations that you will in fact be playing D&D.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The GM can cut whatever he wants.

What he *chooses* to cut tells me a great deal about his game and himself.

Since I have to be roped into a D&D 3e game to begin with when there are so many preferrable related systems, it had better tell me he's going to run a game very much conforming to the sorts of things I want, or else I'll politely excuse myself from the game.

For me to actually join a D&D 3e game, it's restrictions would either have to be odd to the point of being essentially no longer D&D (no non-human PCs, psionics allowed or not but spellcasting definitely not, no magic items whatsoever, etc.) or boil down to "if it's printed with a d20 or OGL on the cover, I'll probably allow it."

 

[Flynn]

I'm part of the vocal majority, I think: The DM creates the world and determines what's available, and I then have the right to say whether or not I'll be in the game.

If things change on me unexpectedly, that's the DM's right, but I still have the right to say whether or not I'll stay in the game.

For the most part, I think good DMs are consistent, and so there shouldn't be any major surprises.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[mcrow]

BTW, have I missed some sort of "anti rights" backlash?

Well, there have been those who play only indie/forge type games that feel like the GM should have little power over the player and they desing games that basically take the GM's power away. In their little community, it's aquite common belief.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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?

Given that caveat - that no agreements have been made beforehand and that the game WILL be commencing forthwith without such consultation. Then, yeah, PH is the default EXPECTATION, with the DMG material being DM decision. Note that word - expectation. It's not a right. Beyond those considerations, yeah, it's the DM's show all the way, subject only to the players willingness to jump through potentially inordinate numbers of hoops.