D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[S'mon]

Back and forth, and the DM stuck to his guns. Completely nerfed my entire concept, after weeks of play.

So, when people on online forums talk about how the DM is always right, and the campaign is 100% under the control of the DM and whatnot, it does tend to fly up my left nostril. Because, by the arguments put forward by [MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION] and others, I should have just nodded and smiled and not been the slightest put out by having a DM flush my character down the toilet. I made a character whose entire schtick was creating new spells. Not spend level after level trying to make a single third level spell for the entire campaign. Talk about frustrating.

I guess my basic point is, no, the campaign is not always 100% under the ownership of the DM. DM's make mistakes. DM's don't think of everything. None of us do. And putting your campaign world ahead of what the player's want is almost always (presuming good faith on the part of the player) a very bad idea. When your players are enthusiastic about an idea, run with it. If it runs roughshod over your campaign world? So what? Make up new stuff. That's what world building is all about.

My advice to DM's is to never presume that your ideas are better than those of your players.

Surely a GM changing the rules mid-game (bad) is different from a GM not letting a player
change rules, or even change fluff? If the rules had given you a 3% chance but you had
told the GM your concept required a 30% chance, he'd have been well within his rights to
say no and stick to RAW.

 

[Hussar]

Surely a GM changing the rules mid-game (bad) is different from a GM not letting a player
change rules, or even change fluff? If the rules had given you a 3% chance but you had
told the GM your concept required a 30% chance, he'd have been well within his rights to
say no and stick to RAW.

Oh, fair enough. Had the base chance been 3% and that was in the rules and known to everyone at the table and I wanted to change the rules, then sure, the DM is more than able to say no. The trick with this sort of conversation is that D&D has a LOT of rules. My point is that sometimes it's not the player being a dick when these issues come up. Alignment is a poster child for this. Ask three people to interpret alignment and you get four different answers. Add in classes with alignment restrictions like a paladin, and this can easily turn into a major logjam despite everyone going into the situation thinking they are on the same page.

I mean, I once played a paladin in a 2e game where I flat out told the DM that my concept was far more Batman than Superman. He okay'ed the concept and then we butted heads constantly over alignment. Made the character unplayable eventually. So, even when everyone thinks they are on the same page it's quite plausible that they really aren't.

 

[MG.0]

So, when people on online forums talk about how the DM is always right, and the campaign is 100% under the control of the DM and whatnot, it does tend to fly up my left nostril.

It is under the control of the DM. That doesn't mean your DM isn't inconsistent, or entirely batshit insane though. If a good DM had approved the concept once, he should've stuck with what he approved. Sounds like your DM sucked. I would've gotten up and left right then and made a well-heard point about why I was leaving. That's the player's power.

DM's do make the occasional mistake and politely being corrected by a player is to be expected. It is also expected that after said correction, if the DM has a reason for not doing what the player expects, that is the final word.


The DM has absolute control over the world. (Evil laugh - Muwhahahaha).
The players have the power to choose to exist in that world or not.

 

[SkidAce]

So, even when everyone thinks they are on the same page it's quite plausible that they really aren't.

Quoted for Cosmic Truth.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've got a few various points, some personal quirks and annoyances, others more relevant.

My first though when reading the OP was thinking back to the WotC forums and there being quite a few DM's whose opinion was "I hate dragonborn so no dragonborn will ever appear at my game table ever" and that attitude strikes me as completely unfair. If you've got a good story or thematic reason and it is for this one campaign, then it can be more reasonable, but the complete auto-ban rubs me the wrong way.

However, a thematic campaign is actually very interesting. As a writer I know that limitations and restrictions can make people more creative to a certain degree and a human or elf or dwarf only game has a very different flavour that could be ruined by the inclusion of an off-base race.

As many people have said it is all a matter of communication.

I actually have a player side of the table story about something close. A good friend of mine was running his first ever campaign, sci-fi genre, and as the more experienced GM I helped him with mechanical tinkering for his various races and a few non-specific spitballing sessions to help keep his ideas flowing. However, when it came time to choose characters he was very taken aback that I wanted to play a human rather than one of these custom built races. From his perspective at first it seemed like I was snubbing my nose at these creatures we had spent all that time crafting. That wasn't the case though and I did get a chance to explain it to him. In fantasy I find it more interesting to play a race other than human, to try and inhuman perspective if I can. However, for Sci-Fi I don't want that feeling. I want to play as a human, I want to stand against the vast emptiness and shoulder to shoulder with these strange and powerful beings and conquer it all. There was even a picture with a quote I found, still have it, that encapsulated the idea for me "I was born without claws, without fangs, without scales. So I forged them in fire and crafted them of steel". That is the sci-fi human to me. As soon as we were on the same page he understood, but that moment of disconnect between what I as a player was trying to say with my character and what he as the DM was expecting might have turned out differently in a different set of circumstances.

Now for a pet peeve. I understand a lot of you guys have long standing or even multiple groups. Some of you play in big cities where you have no problem finding tables to game at.

That is not a universal truth, and it aggravates me whenever I see people suggesting that disagreements between DM and player can be as simple as the player leaving. If the game you are at is the only DnD game you know of within a 100 mile radius choosing to simply stop playing the game because you think the DM is a tool is not a choice you are likely to make. My personal gaming circle is very broken and scattered, I seem to always be playing with as many players as I can find available (which currently is three) and this idea that you can easily find another game if you want just does not hold true from where I am sitting. Though, I am working on expanding my circle it is not an easy thing to do.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I've got a few various points, some personal quirks and annoyances, others more relevant.

My first though when reading the OP was thinking back to the WotC forums and there being quite a few DM's whose opinion was "I hate dragonborn so no dragonborn will ever appear at my game table ever" and that attitude strikes me as completely unfair.

Is it completely unfair for someone to say, "I hate smoking, and no one is allowed to smoke in my house?" If you smoke, it's probably a bit annoying to you, but I'd hardly call the attitude unfair.

Now for a pet peeve. I understand a lot of you guys have long standing or even multiple groups. Some of you play in big cities where you have no problem finding tables to game at.

That is not a universal truth, and it aggravates me whenever I see people suggesting that disagreements between DM and player can be as simple as the player leaving. If the game you are at is the only DnD game you know of within a 100 mile radius choosing to simply stop playing the game because you think the DM is a tool is not a choice you are likely to make. My personal gaming circle is very broken and scattered, I seem to always be playing with as many players as I can find available (which currently is three) and this idea that you can easily find another game if you want just does not hold true from where I am sitting. Though, I am working on expanding my circle it is not an easy thing to do.

That's a valid issue. It's actually valid enough that we should be clear which scenario applies when discussing things.

As an aside, one thing I would suggest is to see if you can find an online game to play in. When I decided to get back into DMing, I wanted to run the 5e playtest, but the group I was playing in wasn't very interested. I went online and found people who were. That expanded my group of potential players. A couple dropped out, some really enjoyed it, etc. And when the official 5e rules came out the most reliable players from my other group all wanted to play. Now I have more players than I can accommodate in any particular game.

 

[Hussar]

Is it completely unfair for someone to say, "I hate smoking, and no one is allowed to smoke in my house?" If you smoke, it's probably a bit annoying to you, but I'd hardly call the attitude unfair.

/snip.

See, this is sometimes an attitude that sets up all sorts of warning bells in my head. If the DM is so adamant about a concept, not because the concept doesn't fit with the genre or is mechanically broken, but, simply saying no because he doesn't iike it, IME, that rarely ends with character generation. It certainly might and fair enough. But, when DM's are that inflexible that taking a certain class or race causes them to react that strongly, I'm going to be keeping a very close eye on whether this campaign is for me or not.

Because in my experience, a DM who feels that his personal preferences are so important that he outright vetoes choices based solely on those preferences, will likely allow those preferences to color play as well.

See, the smoking example is a bit more like a player who wants to play something that is mechanically or thematically unfit for the campaign - just like smoking, it's actually causing harm. Fair enough, veto away. But, OTOH, if you're playing a stock, bog standard D&D campaign and someone says, "Hey, I want to play a Dragonborn" and the DM vetoes it straight out, simply because the DM doesn't like Dragonborn, then I'm likely not long for that table.

At least, that's been my experience.

 

[Jacob Marley]

My first though when reading the OP was thinking back to the WotC forums and there being quite a few DM's whose opinion was "I hate dragonborn so no dragonborn will ever appear at my game table ever" and that attitude strikes me as completely unfair. If you've got a good story or thematic reason and it is for this one campaign, then it can be more reasonable, but the complete auto-ban rubs me the wrong way.

"I hate Dragonborn!" is honest - that is something I respect.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think many DMs have spent a long time crafting their fictional world, and so they have already decided the parameters of that fictional world. I think they see any change to those parameters as their fictional world breaking down.

And I can understand that resistance...but I don't think it's right. I think that each side needs to work with the other to come to an accord. For the player, they have to decide if their character concept is simply not a good fit for the campaign, or if they can tweak it a bit to make it work.

For the DM...they need to relinquish just a tiny bit of control. No, the world won't crumble. And if you're truly a DM wirth your salt, you'll rise to the challenge of making the character concept work within your campaign.

 

[Greg K]

I've got a few various points, some personal quirks and annoyances, others more relevant.

My first though when reading the OP was thinking back to the WotC forums and there being quite a few DM's whose opinion was "I hate dragonborn so no dragonborn will ever appear at my game table ever" and that attitude strikes me as completely unfair. If you've got a good story or thematic reason and it is for this one campaign, then it can be more reasonable, but the complete auto-ban rubs me the wrong way.

Well if it rubs you the wrong way and you find it unfair, that is your own issue. I know that Dragonborn, Drow, PC Tieflings, and a host of other D&D races are not going to find their way into any campaign that I run. Depending upon the campaign, I may have Lizardmen (not necessarily swamp inhabiting), be willing tochange the physical appearance of another type of Elf to look like Drow, or allow Warforged (3e version as opposed to 4th) in a steampunk based campaign, but there are certain races that are not going to appear in any game that I run- I will not make room for them.

Now for a pet peeve. I understand a lot of you guys have long standing or even multiple groups. Some of you play in big cities where you have no problem finding tables to game at.

That is not a universal truth, and it aggravates me whenever I see people suggesting that disagreements between DM and player can be as simple as the player leaving. If the game you are at is the only DnD game you know of within a 100 mile radius choosing to simply stop playing the game because you think the DM is a tool is not a choice you are likely to make. My personal gaming circle is very broken and scattered, I seem to always be playing with as many players as I can find available (which currently is three) and this idea that you can easily find another game if you want just does not hold true from where I am sitting. Though, I am working on expanding my circle it is not an easy thing to do.

There is an expression that "No gaming is better than bad gaming". To me, that means adults take responsibility for how they spend their time. If a player is not having fun at a table, they should do something else whether it means going online to find a game or exploring a new hobby. Reluctance to walkaway from a table when one is not having fun gets no sympathy from me (walking away and having difficulty finding a group will get sympathy).