wingsandsword said:
As opposed to the out-of-game resentment that the arbitrary, unexplained rulings foster.
This is strictly a problem with the player. If the player insists that everything has to be explained, the player is a problem. Really, why would I explain things time and time again when we are supposed to be playing the game?
Honestly, if a DM said out of nowhere, "No Druids in my game" and refused to explain any further, I would think he's a jerk, not for "restricting options", but for having a "I'm the DM and I get to say these sort of things" attitude. I would assume that any DM I would play for would have enough respect for me as a player to at least say "there is a plot reason why druids aren't available, you can find out the details in-game."
Which, as I said, is a player problem (in this instance, your problem as well).
Remember: Partnership, not opposition. Teamwork, not competition.
So partnership and teamwork are acceptable reasons to question every decision a GM makes? And if the GM's answers aren't acceptable (in your opinion, that is), then he's not being a partner or engaging in teamwork?
Damn, you make a game full of opposition and competition sound like fun.
GM's should assume that their players are mature enough to keep basic OOG info out of game. If they aren't mature enough, then perhaps keeping the game to a simple dungeon crawl until they can handle detailed plots is in order.
Actually, I would rather hope that the players are mature enough to believe that there is a valid reason for the decision. The only reason for them
not to believe it's valid is if they don't trust the GM, and I don't need such people at my table as they are most often disruptive.
As for keeping the game to a simple dungeon crawl, we return to the question: Why should the GM waste his time prepping for a game he doesn't like? I, for one, would rather leave the player without a game at all; it's what he deserves.
If some PC's want to play Druids, then perhaps they wouldn't enjoy a campaign that makes Druids villains, and they would be better off spending their nights rolling dice with another DM. The DM can write up all the detailed backstory and intricate plot he wants, but if it never shows up in game, or never makes it beyond some token mentions or the framework for a dungeon crawl/battle then it really doesn't matter.
Oh, yes... The infamous "if you don't GM this way you won't have a group" statement.
I can assure you, while I have rejected more players than I've accepted, good players are out there, I do find them eventually, and if our tastes click together then he's in the game.
Also, if you're removing core options, you can make players feel better by introducing new campaign-specific options.
And you'd get a lot further in these discussion if you stopped assuming that such isn't the case.
If your setting doesn't have Paladins (like 2e & athas.org Dark Sun)...
Ehr... When didn't 2E have paladins?
...perhaps you can create a new class for martial champions of a faith, like an Elemental Champion class (like people suggested Dragon should have done). If you don't want someone to play a Druid because there is something going on with the druidic order, what about a Cleric of a nature or elemental themed deity (or a deity that has an order that is somewhat rustic or elemental). What would a spiritual person who wanted to revere nature do in this world? Are you just disallowing that character concept? Most of the PHB classes are fairly archetypical of fantasy concepts, so disallowing them does remove some things that players generally want to play. Most of the PHB races are also fairly universal races that are present in most common fantasy settings, so for most settings players generally imagine themselves playing one of these races.
Actually, I've read a lot of fiction, and I can state for a fact that Halflings are practically non-existant, Elves only show up on occassion, and Dwarves are usually mythical and rarely seen. Unless, of course, most of your reading is D&D based literature (the value of which is often dubious at best).
Like I said, if a player is so unreasonable that he's insisting that a specific race or a specific class
must be available, the door is down the hall on the left. He won't be missed and my game
will be better for his absence.
As for the Druid thing... Alright, it was an example, based on your post, and thus I don't have all the answers for it (it's not an actual situation and not worth the time to counter every point, although, in my campaign, he'd be best off playing a Shaman that venerates Nature Spirits and does their bidding). However, it does come down to a player accepting campaign conditions or not accepting them, and, as stated a dozen times, those not accepting them are dismissed from the game.
I mean, here's a question: What if, instead of a Druid, the player wanted to play a CE Black Guard? Should I let such a character into a primarily Good-aligned group? Should I have to supply reason after reason until I
finally give one that the player will accept? Would it be fair if said player went to other gamers whining about what a sucky GM I am for not allowing the character?
Given the reasoning in this thread, I should "kowtow" to the player's demands, and that's not just wrong, it's petty and stupid.
Campaign specific classes/spells/feats help to define a world, and if inserted in place of Core materials (especially into similar roles) help to let players play the general concept they want to play. A player who may be upset that they can't play a Halfling may perk up when they hear about Kender (as an example), or someone who wants to play a Monk because they want to be a combattant who uses exotic techniques and no armor may like the idea of playing a gladiator, or if he had a more spiritual monk in mind, a hermit or a mystic may appeal to them. If it didn't exist before, but it fits with the spirit of the world, working with the player to create such a class helps the player feel more involved (since he's developing the game along with the DM) and makes for a better game overall.
But this is side-stepping the issue, being that you are back-peddling from "Class A should be present" to "It's okay if Class B replaces it". What's present is present. It may be Core. It might be Core minus a few things. It might be Core plus a few things. It might be Core plus a few things and minus a few others. It might be completely changed, ala Arcana Unearthed. Regardless, in the end, the player accepts it or takes a hike.
It's much more important IMHO to value players as essential for the DM's enjoyment.
