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

[mcrow]

I always assume that the core books are fair game unless the GM states otherwise. In the end the GM makes the rules. If I don't like them I won't play. Simple as that.

 

[Fifth Element]

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...

Damn, I should get back into DMing. Restrict it to things I own, then make it clear I only own the three core books. Cha-ching!

 

[adwyn]

As long as I am told upfront about restrictions then great, it hopefully shows the DM is putting thought into his game and game world (not that others don't).

When I am strung along with a character for several levels and then told when I level, "Sorry, you still get 2 skill points and a d4 hit die, but you don't get the 4th level spells as I don't allow spells over 3rd" I start to take umbrage.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As long as I am told upfront about restrictions then great, it hopefully shows the DM is putting thought into his game and game world (not that others don't).

When I am strung along with a character for several levels and then told when I level, "Sorry, you still get 2 skill points and a d4 hit die, but you don't get the 4th level spells as I don't allow spells over 3rd" I start to take umbrage.

An excellent point, although hopefully this is rarer than DMs spelling it out upfront.

 

[Morrus]

As long as I am told upfront about restrictions then great, it hopefully shows the DM is putting thought into his game and game world (not that others don't).

When I am strung along with a character for several levels and then told when I level, "Sorry, you still get 2 skill points and a d4 hit die, but you don't get the 4th level spells as I don't allow spells over 3rd" I start to take umbrage.

I don't think that's anything to do with the game, though, and more to do with the basics of social interaction and respect for other people.

 

[mcrow]

An excellent point, although hopefully this is rarer than DMs spelling it out upfront.

I just thought i was standard procedure for the GM to say what the setting is going to be, what rules or books are in or out and that sort of thing. I'd be highly suspect of any GM who didn't do that, unless we have been gaming for quite a while.

 

[crazy_cat]

Whatever stuff the DM wants to cut out is fine by me.

DMs game. DMs rules. If I don't like them I don't have to play.

 

[Calithena]

Morrus - that's a fair point, but I could substitute the word 'expectations' if you prefer.

On the internet a lot of time you get the impression that D&D players now expect to be able to make up anything they want for any game regardless of the individual DM, world, etc. That's a lot of work for a DM to cope with, if I have to take on a Troll PC with a couple of prestige classes from strange books or whatever.

I guess the question is really about what makes a DM a 'bad guy' if he leaves it out.

I answered #2 because I think that if I sat down to 'play D&D' with a new group of people and discovered that I couldn't make a human fighter, or had to make a dwarf bard with jester as one of my perform skills because the whole party was a troupe of dwarven buffoons, I'd feel like the DM was pushing too hard. I might play anyway, but I might not too.

On the other hand, if someone said no elven paladins, or only elves can multiclass and only as fighter-wizards, or no gnomes, or something like that, I'd probably say oh, OK, that's how you do it around here, fine.

I'm trying to figure out what the baseline expectations are that people carry around with them for getting into new games. I think the answers are complicated because there isn't as much 'casual D&D' out there as there once was (people tend to play with regular groups more now then when I was coming up in the seventies) but I'm curious about what today's expectations are.

 

[Calithena]

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?

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.)

 

[billd91]

I answered that the DM can cut a lot of stuff, but has limits. If anything is going to be cut, I expect a reasonable rationale beyond just "I like it that way." I expect cuts to be because subject material doesn't fit the campaign as envisoned by the DM, to enforce certain sub-genre conventions, because topic A frequently leads to abuse and cheese, things like that. Given a decent rationale, and open-mindedness about players creativity in trying to figure out a way to make a cut item fit into the campaign seemlessly if possible, then I'll give the DM a lot of leeway about what they can do in a game where I'm the player.