Kahuna Burger
First Post
I'm not seeing the connection between my question and your statement, did you mean to quote someone else?mcrow said:
(Poll, please read 1st post) What does the DM have the right to restrict?
- Thread starter Calithena
- Start date
Arnwyn
First Post
Uh, okay. I long since covered the above already with my previous posts (especially with my: "other than a good time, in which the onus is on me" comment).Kahuna Burger said: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.
No idea what you're talking about with the "'anti rights' backlash". But thanks for responding to my post(s) anyways.
Sure, but I'm not one for stating the obvious. I kept my comments focused on the OP - it was already specific about D&D.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.
Celebrim
Legend
I answered, "The DM can cut out a fair amount, but there's a limit (explain below).", but only because of what I consider poor wording in the most broad option.
The DM has a right to restrict anything he wants. It is, afterall, his game. However, if the DM excercises this right to arbitrarily, it might not be fine with me. He does not have a right to demand my participation. My participation in his game is consensual, and predicated on the idea that everyone will have fun. But, concievably, we can have fun with almost any set of options.
More realistically, the DM can broadly restrict whatever he wants, and it will probably be fine with me because it is his game so long as their is at least some miminal logic and forethought behind the decisions.
I would say that in general, I would expect (though not demand) a D&D game to offer at least the options in the PH, or if not, then a comparable range of options.
The DM has a right to restrict anything he wants. It is, afterall, his game. However, if the DM excercises this right to arbitrarily, it might not be fine with me. He does not have a right to demand my participation. My participation in his game is consensual, and predicated on the idea that everyone will have fun. But, concievably, we can have fun with almost any set of options.
More realistically, the DM can broadly restrict whatever he wants, and it will probably be fine with me because it is his game so long as their is at least some miminal logic and forethought behind the decisions.
I would say that in general, I would expect (though not demand) a D&D game to offer at least the options in the PH, or if not, then a comparable range of options.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
The first and last answers are correct. The rest aren't relevant.
They're best read in order last then first, tho.
They're best read in order last then first, tho.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
*shrug* the poll listed options including not allowing phb core options. There's only so many of those that can be removed or changed before we are playing D20 but not D&D. within the context of the OP it was not, imo obvious.Arnwyn said:
I picked the second one; I think the DM can allow what he wants, but anything major ought to be known upfront, and there ought to be at least a halfway decent rationale for disallowing something.
Having said that, as a player, I love trying out new stuff, so I prefer that the DM not restrict this much.
Having said that, as a player, I love trying out new stuff, so I prefer that the DM not restrict this much.
Last edited:
Ranes
Adventurer
DM's game. DM's call. When I'm a player, I respect that, even when I would like to play something that's restricted. My latest game is a case in point. I'd wanted to play a binder for some time. When I asked the DM, just ahead of the campaign start, if I could, he told me it was core only. I chose to play anyway. My fun has been unimpeded.
When I'm the DM, there are some things I do not like and will not run. I make prospective players aware of these idiosyncracies ahead of the game. Players are free to choose a different game. I subscribe to the 'if I don't own it you can't play it' school with the caveat that, even if I do own it, it's not necessarily going to be allowed in my game.
My only expectation, as a player, is that I will be told all house rules and restrictions, before play, if I remember to ask.
When I'm the DM, there are some things I do not like and will not run. I make prospective players aware of these idiosyncracies ahead of the game. Players are free to choose a different game. I subscribe to the 'if I don't own it you can't play it' school with the caveat that, even if I do own it, it's not necessarily going to be allowed in my game.
My only expectation, as a player, is that I will be told all house rules and restrictions, before play, if I remember to ask.
Arkhandus
First Post
I'm cool with whatever house ruling the DM wants to use. As long as I'm made aware of the general changes before going to the effort of making my character and entering the campaign.
As long as stupid changes aren't going to be mentioned only at the spur of the moment when it screws over my character's action. I hated trying to play under one DM who randomly, without any notice, inserted various 1E and 2E D&D rules during his 3E game. It seemed like a high roll was only good when he wanted it to be, and a low roll was only good when he wanted it to be. And basically seemed to just go with whatever rule change would get the most laughs for him, generally by killing my PC or messing up someone else's when a trap or encounter occured.
I don't want to join a campaign thinking I'm playing 3E D&D when in fact the DM intends it to be some blend of Grim N Gritty, Call of Cthulu, and some vague semblance of 3E. But if I'm aware beforehand it's supposed to be a CoC-kinda game, then I can at least make a decision to play or not before I go to a lot of effort.
As long as stupid changes aren't going to be mentioned only at the spur of the moment when it screws over my character's action. I hated trying to play under one DM who randomly, without any notice, inserted various 1E and 2E D&D rules during his 3E game. It seemed like a high roll was only good when he wanted it to be, and a low roll was only good when he wanted it to be. And basically seemed to just go with whatever rule change would get the most laughs for him, generally by killing my PC or messing up someone else's when a trap or encounter occured.
I don't want to join a campaign thinking I'm playing 3E D&D when in fact the DM intends it to be some blend of Grim N Gritty, Call of Cthulu, and some vague semblance of 3E. But if I'm aware beforehand it's supposed to be a CoC-kinda game, then I can at least make a decision to play or not before I go to a lot of effort.
EyeontheMountain
First Post
I voted for the top option (go ahead and check back up to see what that was)
Back? OK
I think the DM has the right to restrict whatever they want, but they should leave it as open as possible. I really hate seeing a good game ad somewhere and then read down to find out they are only using the core three books. It is a major letdown as there is so much good 3.5 stuff out there. But of course they have the right to restrict what they want to.
Overall, I consider my self a guest in my DM's games.
Back? OK
I think the DM has the right to restrict whatever they want, but they should leave it as open as possible. I really hate seeing a good game ad somewhere and then read down to find out they are only using the core three books. It is a major letdown as there is so much good 3.5 stuff out there. But of course they have the right to restrict what they want to.
Overall, I consider my self a guest in my DM's games.
I chose the "The DM can cut out a fair amount, but there's a limit" option. I actually mostly believe in the first option (the DM can cut anything). The DM has ultimate power as to what to allow and not allow into the game. That's the definition of Rule 0.
However, there is one very important thing he or she cannot control--whether or not I show up to play in the game. If the DM cuts out so much that I would not find the game to be fun, I would not bother playing. So, there is a limit. Not a limit to the DM's power, but rather a limit to what I would find fun.
Later,
Atavar
EDIT: The title of the thread differs (in a significant way) from the wording of the poll question. You may want to reword the thread title to lessen the chance of erroneous poll answers.
Later,
A.
However, there is one very important thing he or she cannot control--whether or not I show up to play in the game. If the DM cuts out so much that I would not find the game to be fun, I would not bother playing. So, there is a limit. Not a limit to the DM's power, but rather a limit to what I would find fun.
Later,
Atavar
EDIT: The title of the thread differs (in a significant way) from the wording of the poll question. You may want to reword the thread title to lessen the chance of erroneous poll answers.
Later,
A.
Similar Threads
- Poll
