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

[Nifft]

"This is a DM-ocracy!"

- - -

This whole issue of "rights" seems a tad hyperbolic. Perhaps "expectations" would be easier to manage?

Cheers, -- N

 

[jefgorbach]

generally speaking, I would expect any game to use the basic core books, adding as the GM and Players agree to.

personally, my hoembrew follows the 1e prolog stating the game world is but a tiny mote in the greater mutliverse contain ALL possible worlds, which in turn is surrounded by the other planes. In other words, if you want something and can justify how it arrived at the game-world then we can try to accomodate it - provided there are rules for it or you are willing todo the conversion work (d20 makes this FAR easier given the variety). however realize that once others see your new toy/spell and live, they will likely duplicate the idea (if not the device) given a chance.

 

[robberbaron]

I think a GM can do what he likes with the game. It's his game.
Even Gaxy Gygar said users of his rulebooks could do what they liked with them (at least, I'm pretty sure that was what he meant) and if it's good enough for him...

That said, there has to be a balance between a GM's rules and the needs of the players. I'm not talking about what some posters are saying, expecting a GM to handwave anything from WotC (hell, no. That is just crazytalk IMO) but giving his players enough meat to make a meal. Strip the game too far and you've just got bones to chew on and that won't be fun for anyone.

Requiring the GM to explain the reasons behind his decisions is undermining the GM. If he's not being arbitrary or personal then what's the problem?

IMO people who didn't vote for No. 1 just want games to suit them. They should try petitioning Blizzard to allow their pet WoW race/class combo and see how far they get.

 

[dmccoy1693]

IMO, every game is a homebrew game and RPG companies put out products that assist the DM in creating his/her homebrew game. So if a DM wants to run a game without evocation spells, Dwarves, Rangers, and mechanical traps and replace them with shadow magic, Tieflings, Hexblades, and monkeys throwing poop, that's fine by me. It's my decision if I want to play in that game or not.

 

[ThirdWizard]

IMO people who didn't vote for No. 1 just want games to suit them.

Of course people want games to suit them. Is that really a radical concept? The DM wants a game to suit his style, the players want a game to suit their style, and they compromise so that everyone has fun. Is this really not how the majority of people game?

I've never seen the whole DM runs a game exactly how he wants and anyone who doesn't like it can go home. I've never, in my life, seen such a rigid DM. I've always seen a group of friends who want to have fun playing a game at the table. A DM who doesn't compromise to suit other people's playstyle as well as his own is not a very good DM in my book.

 

[Wombat]

The rules for D20 are very broad and without a particular cultural basis. There are now potentially many thousands of monsters, something like 2-3 dozen "core" classes, and an uncountable number of PrCs and Feats. Realistically, if all of these were to be included in a game, the game would look truly bizarre to my eye.

The GM creates a world with nations, peoples, beliefs, cities, and situations. He has the right to say Culture A does not have access to the following Feats and even Classes. He is certainly able to limit the PrCs available. He should absolutely limit the races (and monster types) that abound.

You are a player; you have certain rights. So does the GM. If the GM sets up a world you do not wish to play in, you have the right not to play in that game, even to set up your own. You also have the right to negotiate with the GM for an alteration on a stance, though you do not have the right to demand that he change it.

When I create a world, I tell my players about alterations to the core rules, races/classes that will/will not be allowed, new weapons available, etc. Only once did I have a serious balk from a player. Ultimately the GM has a lot of responsibilities in setting up the game. As such, the GM has a lot of veto power as to which rules will or will not be used. The players have the power of negotiation or, ultimately, quitting the game. Or (much more rarely in my experience) creating their own game.

 

[Hussar]

I'll admit, I picked 4. Mostly because when I'm playing D&D, I do so with groups that play with at least core. I have no particular interest in playing in games where I have to relearn half the game just to sit down with a given DM. So, in order for me to sit at the table, I expect that core to be in use.

If it's so far removed from core that it might as well be another game, I'm not terribly interested in playing.

 

[Mallus]

If it's so far removed from core that it might as well be another game, I'm not terribly interested in playing.

See, I'm the complete opposite. The 'core' of the game is pretending to be a crazy adventurer and going on crazy adventures with some friends. Whatever rules are used to facilitate that are secondary. If I need to learn something new, great, that's just an added pleasure. New information entertains me more than whatever sense of 'mastery' I might get from using a familiar set of rules. I'm much less interested in succeeding than I am in experiencing something new.

What I love about D&D, and RPG's in general, is that they're never the same game twice...

Therefore, I voted for the first option. Remove anything you like, so long as we all can make something interesting out of what's left.

 

[RFisher]

Well, I generally know that the DM is doing his best to make an interesting campaign. He may succeed, or he may fail, but I know he's trying. My interest in seeing what he's come up with & trying to help him realize it tends to outweigh any concerns I would have about what he allows or denies. Indeed, I'm willing to give his choices the benefit of the doubt because--whether he succeeds or not--I know he has some ideas that he cared enough about to volunteer to DM.

The incidences of this not being the case are few & far enough between.

On the mention of forgesque games: I'm actually pretty attracted as a GM to games that take more "narrative control" away from the GM & give it to the players, as I think that touches on one of my weaknesses as a GM.

The DM should be able to change or include whatever they want as long as it mostly spelled out up front and doesn't break the implicit campaign starting point.

What if he tells you up front that he reserves the right to change things later?

Sometimes you want try an experiment, & you need to admit when it failed & fix it.

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.

Hmm. Thinking about this... Most of the times that a player provides an idea that contributes to the tone of the game, it doesn't come out of a rule book. (& especially not the rules portion of a rule book.) Most of the times that a player provides an idea that clashes with the tone of the game, it's more crunchy than fluffy. Not always, but I think that's been the trend in my experience.

But I also know what it's like to have a "fad" as a player & never get to realize it. In my current group--at least--I think we do a halfway decent job of listening for such things & try to DM something that fit something a player has been wanting to try.

We use the same House Rules no matter who DMs and we rotate DMs every session.

As much as I'd like to try that, I think it would drive me absolutely batty before long.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

True Dat!

I routinely don't sign up for pbp games here at ENWorld because I don't like the rules the DM is using. That's his right, and mine.

Agreed. I cut DMs near-infinite slack, but it doesn't mean I have to play their games.

-Samir