When Players don't respect the DM's rules - Help!

[The Shaman]

I've never bought that argument. I consider all that DM "work" fun.

The fact that it's enjoyable doesn't make it any less demanding.

Campaign prep is great fun for me - that's why I invest as so much time and effort in it.

 

[LostSoul]

The fact that it's enjoyable doesn't make it any less demanding.

Campaign prep is great fun for me - that's why I invest as so much time and effort in it.

Hmm, maybe it's because I want - need - to have investment from the players, if I'm going to enjoy the game. If I was the only one who cared about the game, it would be harder to accept stuff that doesn't "fit" from a casual gamer.

I guess it would be like playing soccer competitively with some guy who's just there to kick the ball around.

I'm just thinking out loud here.

I have a feeling that having the DM call all the shots reduces the amount of player investment in the game. When you're limited in the amount of content you can create, always having to get the okay from someone else, it seems like that would throw up a barrier. (But then again, you always need the okay from the other people playing. Hmm.)

I went through a situation like this recently. I made a guy, talking it through with the DM, and I was getting all jazzed up about it. But when it became clear where I was going with my PC, the DM realized it wouldn't fit the game. I switched it, no problem; but I didn't have the same initiative. I felt like I would have to ask the DM what would work, and that just put a big block on my creativity.

Anyway, gotta run.

 

[The Shaman]

I have a feeling that having the DM call all the shots reduces the amount of player investment in the game. When you're limited in the amount of content you can create, always having to get the okay from someone else, it seems like that would throw up a barrier.

When I want unlimited creative control, I sit behind the screen.

When I want to explore someone else's creation, I sit in a player's chair.

When I'm running a character instead of running the game, it's because I want to enjoy the fruits of someone else's imagination. I enjoy the challenge of creating a character that is at home in the setting - I neither want nor expect the setting to morph to conform to my character.

Many years ago an art history professor presented us with six different paintings depicting the martyrdom of St. Sebastian. The subject matter was the same for all six works, but each artist offered a unique portrayal of St. Sebastian and the circumstances of his martyrdom, while holding true to the core narrative. All of these artists took a familiar story and made it uniquely their own.

It's with that in mind that I have a hard time accepting the idea that a player cannot create an interesting, engaging, unique character within a set of boundaries that define the setting and the rules system. For me, this is a big part of the fun of giving up control of the reins and sitting in a player's seat instead.

I reject the notion that a player is less invested in a game if the player doesn't have a level of input comparable to that of the game master. In my experience as both a player and a game master, it comes down to this: offer the players a world with intriguing people to meet and exotic places to explore, and give them the chance to do something exciting and meaningful, and you will gain their buy-in.

 

[prosfilaes]

When I want unlimited creative control, I sit behind the screen.

When I want to explore someone else's creation, I sit in a player's chair.

When I'm running a character instead of running the game, it's because I want to enjoy the fruits of someone else's imagination. I enjoy the challenge of creating a character that is at home in the setting - I neither want nor expect the setting to morph to conform to my character.

That's not applicable to this case, though. The WLD doesn't have a detailed setting for the character to be home to, and the reasons behind the core only ruleset had nothing to do with setting. I fail to see that core-only could really be a setting based requirement; the rest of the complete books and races-of books were made for the same setting.

 

[Felix]

I fail to see that core-only could really be a setting based requirement

I think perhaps Shaman was refering to restrictions on players in general instead of this specific instance. In Elephant's case, the restriction is based upon the fact that he is a new DM who doesn't feel comfortable with stuff other than core.

Those reasons are wholly different, but I think both of them are valid for purposes of restricting player options.

 

[Shadowslayer]

When I want unlimited creative control, I sit behind the screen.

When I want to explore someone else's creation, I sit in a player's chair.

And if you want to see a rocking good game where the players and the DMs both get a say, the chairs at my place are pretty comfy too.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think perhaps Shaman was refering to restrictions on players in general instead of this specific instance. In Elephant's case, the restriction is based upon the fact that he is a new DM who doesn't feel comfortable with stuff other than core.

Those reasons are wholly different, but I think both of them are valid for purposes of restricting player options.

But I think there's a significant difference between the two from my perspective. The person who wants to play a Jedi in the Serenity campaign or a halfling in a Dragonlance campaign is just being silly and annoying. I understand completely the DM who wants to limit the options in his campaign--I've deal with a player for a future campaign right now who will not give up the idea of pact magic--but I empathise with the player struggling with arbitrary restrictions; especially with core-only where there's many other options that exist in the world, and where these restrictions are limiting the players to the same races and classes they've been playing for the last decade.

 

[silver_wizard]

From this point of view, DM-imposed limitations seem annoying, but which is more desirable: a DM who is honest and says "look, guys, I don't think I'm comfortable with all this optional material, let's narrow it down" and later, as he gains more experience, begins to allow more options (in the forms of prestige classes), OR a DM who is eager to please the players or overestimates his abilities and later regrets it?

Of course, that's only the opinion of a person who doesn't mind (still) using 2nd edition AD&D occasionally, so the variety of options out there never seemed so important to me.

 

[LostSoul]

When I want unlimited creative control, I sit behind the screen.

When I want to explore someone else's creation, I sit in a player's chair.

I like less creative control that this when I'm DMing, and more when I'm a player. Just a different style.

I reject the notion that a player is less invested in a game if the player doesn't have a level of input comparable to that of the game master. In my experience as both a player and a game master, it comes down to this: offer the players a world with intriguing people to meet and exotic places to explore, and give them the chance to do something exciting and meaningful, and you will gain their buy-in.

It's probably just me, then; my goals for play might be different from 90% (number picked at random) of gamers.

Thanks for the discussion; it was interesting to see the different viewpoint.

 

[Felix]

but I empathise with the player struggling with arbitrary restrictions

If the restrictions are arbitrary, then I agree.

But is it arbitrary when the DM is inexperienced? Can you empathise with him who has to deal with not just a whole new skillset in DMing, but also players who want him to look over more and more material?

Sure, it's limiting, but refusing to limit yourself when a DM asks you to because he's inexperienced is rather inconsiderate to the DM.