Several related questions

[Desdichado]

I'm with HellHound. That's only bad DMing if you try and inflict it on their players in spite of what they want to play.

In general, I'm a bit lenient towards "draconian" DMing because DM's have to have fun too, and creating their vision of the campaign is generally how that happens. If the DM ain't having fun, ain't nobody having fun. But that's no excuse for DMing in a way that completely ignores what the players want. But if the players are on board with this type of play, then go for it! More power to you!

I can see the appeal, but honestly, as a player, I'm sick of the basic PHB options. Each and every one of them feels terribly overdone and boring to me. I'd almost welcome the exact opposite; a campaign that literally uses none of the PHB races or classes. Except maybe human, because we need a baseline to diverge from.

Lower magic and arbitrary levelling, though---yeah, no problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm with HellHound. That's only bad DMing if you try and inflict it on their players in spite of what they want to play.

I agree with this completely, although I am at a loss as to how a DM would inflict this on players who do not want to participate (short of claiming the game is one thing and then pulling a switcheroo)......?

 

[Veril]

You should tell the players the style of game you are proposing to run. Both players and DM's need to be happy with that game.

What you are proposing makes some classes significantly more powerful compared to others. If someone wants to play a Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric or Druid you will find you are playing a high magic game, because the players are high magic. Those four classes will completly dominate your game. Especially the Cleric if he decides to buff himself on a regular basis.

Your 10th level Fighter with his +1 shield looks pretty patheric against my 10th level Cleric, with my +2 Armour and +2 Shield and +2 weapon.(3rd, 3rd 4th) and my +3AC from Shield of Faith (1st) and my +2/+2 from Bulls Strength.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

What if the DM says, "The dwarfs of my world cannot be wizards or sorcerers because the race lacks the ability to work arcane magic"? That's essentially arbitrary despite whatever backstory the DM made up to justify it. Would you be OK with that?

Here's where I don't understand the contention. It seems to be an issue with a restriction on what's technically available in the Player's Handbook (which is dwarves who can be wizards and sorcerors). However, if the DM simply removes dwarves or halflings or other races, how is that different?

I could see someone thinking it arbitrary if they came up with a kick-a$$ dwarf sorceror and then the DM said "Wait, no, dwarves can't do magic." That example is someone just being foolish because they can't handle the consequences of someone's build.

 

[GreatLemur]

1) Is it bad DMing to out-and-out refuse certain character concepts or classes?

I'd actually go so far as to say that it's a bad player who comes to the table assuming that every published character option is available, regardless of character concept or campaign setting.

 

[Desdichado]

I agree with this completely, although I am at a loss as to how a DM would inflict this on players who do not want to participate (short of claiming the game is one thing and then pulling a switcheroo)......?

That's one way.

Most groups don't want to break up over a game that may or may not be to their liking; they'll just put up with it for a while and then gratefully move on to something else when the chance strikes.

But it's still bad DMing to run a game that they're not enjoying as much as they could, even if they're willing to do so.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Most groups don't want to break up over a game that may or may not be to their liking; they'll just put up with it for a while and then gratefully move on to something else when the chance strikes.

Or they could have someone else DM?

But it's still bad DMing to run a game that they're not enjoying as much as they could, even if they're willing to do so.

Only insofar as it is bad playing to be involved in a game that you are not enjoying, or bad playing to ask the DM to run a game that she is not enjoing as much as she could, even if she is willing to do so.

RC

 

[Korgoth]

@ OP:

What you outlined is not bad DMing. It can be a component of perfectly good DMing. I'm firmly in the school that says that the rules are there to be bent and molded to the exigencies of the particular game the DM is running. If your players agree to have you at the helm as the DM, then it is implied that you are trusted to make these decisions. If the game starts to flop, that can be addressed down the road (and could have to do with any number of factors, only some of which apply to the DM).

I would urge to you to make your applications of special rules and restrictions consistent. That's not to say that you can't disallow certain things to the PCs but allow them for the NPCs. That is acceptable. But apply your rulings consistently as much as possible. One example I can think of from my own gaming: a 3.5 DM thought I was wasting his monsters too fast with my (non-empowered, bog standard) "Scorching Ray" spell. So he ruled that I couldn't target individual monsters with more than one ray (you get more as you gain level); I was forced to split them. I later had to move away. When I spoke to him about how the game was going later on, he related how my replacement was impressing everyone with his optimized sorcerer who was doing over 100 damage with his tricked-out scorching ray spell. Obviously that didn't have any effect on the game itself (it did irritate me somewhat) since I was already gone, but if that inconsistency had appeared in-game it would have been a problem (assuming I understood what he was saying correctly). So if you say "No PC Elementalists" that's fine, but if you say "Bob can have an Elementalist but Rupert cannot", then those rulings start seeming arbitrary.

The DM is like a judge (and has been called "the Judge" in some products... like from Judge's Guild). It's generally accepted that a particular judge can always impose a stiff sentence, say, on a particular offense that he thinks represents a manifest social ill in his community. But if said judge gives everybody the maximum except one particular guy, people are going to start wondering what's up with that.

Of course, it's also acceptable to say "I thought it over, and changed my mind". That is also normal. But when you change your mind, that should simply usher in a new application of judicious consistency.

 

[Desdichado]

Or they could have someone else DM?

Ideally, yes. Practically... sometimes not.

Only insofar as it is bad playing to be involved in a game that you are not enjoying, or bad playing to ask the DM to run a game that she is not enjoing as much as she could, even if she is willing to do so.

I think you're again, looking at ideal conditions and applying them. Lots of groups don't have the luxury of shopping around for DMs who's playstyle matches theres, and even if they could, they may not for other reasons (already old friends who enjoy getting together for the social aspect, for example, or something like that.)

I mean, it'd be great if everyone in my group was on the exact same page as me in terms of playstyle, taste, scheduling, etc. but they're not. Rather than try to assemble my ideal group, I say, "these guys are great guys, and I enjoy playing with them enough that I'll put up with games that I'd rather not play at times, or playstyle differences, or what-have-you because those aren't as important to me as the friendship."

I think it's important for any DM to recognize that most likely his group is not made up of people who are identical to him in terms of what they want out of the game, and that if he wants to be a better DM, he can look to what his group likes and wants out of the gaming experience and try to give it to them, within the parameters of running a game that he also enjoys.

Your advice, on the other hand, sounds pretty absolute, i.e., "I'm the DM and it's my way or the high way, and if you don't like it, I can find other players who do" or something like that. I don't think that approach is very practical. And even if it was, it's kinda a jack-ass move, assuming that you game with people that you call friends.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your advice, on the other hand, sounds pretty absolute, i.e., "I'm the DM and it's my way or the high way, and if you don't like it, I can find other players who do" or something like that. I don't think that approach is very practical. And even if it was, it's kinda a jack-ass move, assuming that you game with people that you call friends.

My advice is the mirror of your own.

Are you suggesting that it is not bad playing to ask the DM to run a game that she is not enjoying as much as she could, even if she is willing to do so?

Then how can it be bad DMing to run a game that the players are not ejoying as much as they could, even if they are willing to do so?

How can one be "kinda a jack-ass move, assuming that you game with people that you call friends" and the other not be?

Moreover, I think it's not only important for any DM to recognize that most likely his group is not made up of people who are identical to him in terms of what they want out of the game, but that the players are also not identical to each other in terms of what they want out of the game. Every game is a compromise, to some degree, among all of the participants.

And, as a result of that compromise, to some degree, every DM is running a game that each individual player is not enjoying as much as she could if the game was tailored to her specifically, although she is willing to do so.

The DM has a greater responsibility to prep the game than any other player, and no one is going to do that if they are not enjoying it. At least, not for long. If the DM doesn't enjoy the game, no one does. This is in addition to play at the table, and it is critical that the DM enjoys it as much as possible.

In addition, the DM is a player, and has as much right to expect to enjoy the game as any other player while at the table.

Why one would expect the DM to say "these guys are great guys, and I enjoy playing with them enough that I'll put up with games that I'd rather not play at times, or playstyle differences, or what-have-you because those aren't as important to me as the friendship" but not expect the players to say "these guys are great guys, and I enjoy playing with them enough that I'll put up with games that I'd rather not play at times, or playstyle differences, or what-have-you because those aren't as important to me as the friendship" boggles the mind.

YMMV, and obviously does.

RC