In another thread...where the off-topic-ness is really out of hand...Xanadu wrote:



I would not say inept, but for those who operate on a ban-first-ask-questions-later attitude feel free to use unimaginative, uninnovative, dyed-in-the wool-orthodox, dogmatic, uncompromising, and mulish.


Now: I'm trying VERY hard to be a good boy in that thread. So I'll respond here.

Now, don't get me wrong: Xanadu is far from the only person to whom I'm responding, here. Really, I'm responding to everyone who embraces the philosophy of "If you don't play with everything, or if you say no to a player, you're an inferior DM."

It's just that Xanadu's comment is the one that rankled enough to get me to actually start a new thread.

Xanadu: your defense above is semantics games. Your choice of words may be different, but the condescension they carry is not.

So, since you've levelled those charges, I figure I might as well step up and respond to them. Here I stand: your "unimaginative, uninnovative, dyed-in-the wool-orthodox, dogmatic, uncompromising, and mulish" DM. You'd likely have a conniption if you saw my campaign in action. Not only do I not allow everything from every book...I don't allow most things from most books.

In fact, there's quite a bit I don't allow from the core rulebooks.

You can't play an elf in my world. I don't care how much you want to, I don't care how cool your character concept is; you can't do it. I know exactly where every elf left alive in my setting is and what they're doing. Each and every one of them is very old, very evil, very powerful, and totally insane.

Likewise, most of the prestige classes that a lot of players seem to regard as a gawd-given right simply don't exist in my world. Surely, that's proof that I'm uncreative and uninnovative! Of course, the reason most of the stock PrCs don't exist is because I prefer to write my own--just as I have written my own systems for psionics and a number of other areas--but no matter. A TRULY creative and original DM would use the prepackaged material. A truly innovative DM knows that originality comes from using the same classes, races, and rules everyone else is using.

Right?

You can generalize all you want. You can say that a good DM is a permissive DM and a restrictive DM is a bad DM all you want. You can call me a tyrant and make dire predictions about how my players will revolt and I'll be left alone and friendless.

No, seriously--you can. I've had all of that tossed at me before.

The fact remains that my "uncreative, uninnovative" approach has kept a campaign going for two decades, and that for most of that time, I have had to turn away players because I had a full table and couldn't accomodate any more.

I have also turned away players for other reasons, of course--like coming to my table expecting that mere ownership of a book entitles them to use it, and I am in some way obligated to facilitate that.

As for "uncompromising and mulish?" You betcha. I know what works for me and my players. I have invested a substantial chunk of my free time over the last twenty years into building a world around that understanding.

I refuse to compromise that for anyone. In fact, anyone who would expect me to compromise that clearly has no place at my table; he'll be happier elsewhere, and I'll be happier with him elsewhere.

At the risk of sounding like an anally retentive person, perhaps this topic would be better addressed on the DM forum.

Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me, in any case.

I'm just glad it's out of that now-pointless ToB thread. But hooray for it being said someplace! I was pretty slack-jawed at how many people were tossing around the attitude that a DM who was the slightest bit circumspect about what they let into their games was "unimaginative". And sour grapes? Please.

@Caelic: I don't think you would fall into Xanadu's generalization. Your campaign setting is very homebrewed and any player joining would have to understand from the get-go that none of the standard D&D conventions can be assumed.

In fairness to Xanadu though, I know exactly the DM he's talking about and there are a lot of them. Unimaginative and orthodox DMs are usually "ban first and ask questions later" types. Some DMs I've seen just seem to get a kick out of saying "no" to players.

You know Caelic, that sounds exactly like a campaign I would like to play in.

Edit: I think it is a DMs right to ban first and ask questions later. In fact I think it is a good way to do things, given that new books are comeing out so rapidly. When my group first got their hands on psionics we banned it. The player who had the book read it cover to cover in the matter of days and had found a few potent combos (fusion combos and thrallherd-ness), the only people who knew anything remotly close to knowledge of it was myself and the DM (and it was very little knowledge). When the DM does not fully understand how the mechanic works it is a bad idea to implement it in a game (as such the player made tons of other players unhappy, his character claimed he could do anything, the other player's didn't know it was a bluff). So I believe it is best for the game to hold off on introduceing new things untill the DM is comfortable handleing it.

I was in a Rokugan game where I played a con barbarian/samurai/devoted defender/elite defender with improved combat reflexes and tons of natural armor and got myself banned temporarily untill I sat down with my DM and explained where everything was comeing from and my weaknesses were, ect. I had know idea that the DM was very frustrated when we came to a fight we should have lost (and ran away from to triger a story arc) but I kept tanking ahead with the shugenja in toe, guarding him from nearly every blow. If a DM can not have a grip on the weaknesses of a character then they can't build plans for exciting adventures. I am not saying a DM should be mean and pick apart the party... but every now and then bring in a situation where the party needs to stop and scratch there heads a little bit.

Example: (I am a rogue fan personally) I had the classic neraph charging two weapon melee rogue in a very high level game with a pair of slayer daggers among other things... The DM wanted to throw me and a swashbuckler party member for a loop so we wound up in a city of undead where all our items where taken away and we were subsequently tortured, but darned if that wasn't an exciting escape.

Wrong Forum

Probably belongs on What's a DM to do?

In defense of this thread residing in here; I see more suggestions on Char Op boards for players to ditch their dm and find a new gaming group than I see in Whats Players to Do.

I'm also a dm who allows anything and usually compromises if theres something someone wants to up their power levels, be it prestige class, feat or just a poor choice of feats needing a revision.

Then again, I -dont- run my campaings more seriously than tongue in the cheek, and my players are just fine with that. And I also use every source available to make them really hate me when it comes to BBEGs. So it all evens out for me, playing with fun in mind.

BUT!

I can totally see where Caelic comes from, from a world he has created and made sensible. I appreciate it and respect the time and effort he must have put forth.

Why must it be that in here my approach is going to be considered standard and his like it would be the pandemonium plague?

Perhaps it would be better if you'd elaborate on your rules and why as well as the ones you haven't mentioned.

As far as races go, if I decided that a race wasn't in my world, and one of my players really really wanted to play one; I'd find a way to get it to work.

For instance, I might say that this elf came from an alternate plane/universe, and was transported there by an insane wizard, and is trying to get back (plothook!).

I might say that this elf came from long ago, before the elves got corrupted, and is now in the present day for some reason(another plothook!).

We'd figure something out together. If I wasn't satisfied with these, I might give the option to one of my players to be a human, but they could mechanically be an elf, (weapon prof. ect.).

I apply the same kind of thinking toward classes. If flavor is a problem, flavor can be changed. If I was Dming a world with no dragons, and a player wanted to play a Dragonfire Adept, I might change it to be an emulation of another firebreathing beast or perhaps just make them a different strain of Warlocks (which they basically are), and take away the aspect of envying dragons.

This thread is probably directed mainly towards me, so I'll respond here. I'm also not responding to anything about the matter in the ToB thread, in an effort to get it back on-topic.

"If you don't play with everything, or if you say no to a player, you're an inferior DM."

Incorrect. If you ban things out of hand because you don't like the flavour (flavour can be changed with little effort) or because you're too lazy to learn the new rules, then I believe you're either an inferiour D&D player or have control issues. If you have a valid game-world reason (the example I gave was firearms being banned due to the lack of metalurgical skill and alchemists being more interested in arcane application than mundane to research gunpowder), then by all means, it's your world, so it's your call.

I'm just sick and tired of people banning new supplements out of hand because "Ninjas don't exist in my world, but assassins do," or "ToB is banned because meleers shouldn't have access to anything even remotely looking like magic."

HOWEVER, I do realize that not all groups are like mine. What I and we believe D&D is about may not ring true with anybody else. It's your group, y'all do what works for you.

Caelic, I don't think most people here would take issue with what you do. However, that's also not what I think of when I think "ban first, ask questions later."

You have a setting you've put a lot of time into and made up a lot of houserules for. That's fine. If you have a specific concept for the game, and an understanding of what does and doesn't fit the world, it's fine if you ban things that don't fit. That's good DMing and setting consistency.

What I would take issue with as "ban first, ask questions later" is a DM who bans new material simply... because. Not because he knows what it is an it doesn't fit his game's setting, not because he feels that it's unbalanced, but simply because he can and he has some strange vendetta against new material, or because he thinks that anything published after core is unbalanced by default. This DM also tends to completely ignore any attempts at reason by his players in favor of blindly shouting "NO!" to anything that's suggested.

Like I said... Your description is fine. The second, I feel is not - while the DM can run whatever game he wants, your parents could raise you more or less however they wanted to, too. Was "NO! Why? Because I said so!" ever an adequate response from them?

The DM has the right to shape his world however he sees fit. If he doesn't want ninjas, so be it. If he doesn't want sword magic, why hold it against him?

Why should the player's desires automatically override the DM's wishes? Because players are arrogant and spoiled that's why.

A DM can ban anything off-hand and shouldn't be worried about insults or players abandoning him.

If I go to a table with ToB in hand and the DM screams out loud that it's overpowered and he doesn't want it in his game, I'll say ok. Time for a new character concept. Not 'time to teach this DM a lesson'.

There was a thread a while back where the OP said his DM didn't allow ToB or psionics or some such. Everyone suggested that the OP break the game with a cleric or druid.

The blatant disrespect that people believe a DM should be treated with is baffling.

Incorrect. If you ban things out of hand because you don't like the flavour (flavour can be changed with little effort) or because you're too lazy to learn the new rules, then I believe you're either an inferiour D&D player or have control issues. If you have a valid game-world reason (the example I gave was firearms being banned due to the lack of metalurgical skill and alchemists being more interested in arcane application than mundane to research gunpowder), then by all means, it's your world, so it's your call.

That's right. I responded to you in the ToB thread but I'll rehash some of it again. :)

What if the flavor simply is "I'm running a strict low magic, medieval setting and oriental style weapons, classes, etc, simply do not exist."

Does that make me an "inferiour" D&D player or have control issues?

Sorry but if I'm trying to run an Arthurian style campaign and some player wants to run around as shuriken throwing halfling ninja and I say no, I feel its pretty appropriate given I stated the context in which I was running it. It was stated from the onset what is accepted, what is not and if he wants to play in the campaign I'm running, the onus is on him to abide by the restrictions I set.

The reverse applies if I play in someone elses game.

I'm just sick and tired of people banning new supplements out of hand because "Ninjas don't exist in my world, but assassins do," or "ToB is banned because meleers shouldn't have access to anything even remotely looking like magic."

Agreed.


HOWEVER, I do realize that not all groups are like mine. What I and we believe D&D is about may not ring true with anybody else. It's your group, y'all do what works for you.

I don't know if you're going off at some people for banning ToB or people who ban ANY material for ANY reason so I'll try and reply appropriately.

Sometimes there are good reasons for banning material. If I were to do my campaign over again, there's a lot of things I would ban and for good reason (largely to do with world and campaign setting). Two off the top of my head which would be highly controversial to some people here:
- non-human races
- psionics

Does that make me a bad DM? I don't believe so. I've DMed FR & DL. I've included all materials as they've become available in the past and I appreciate that all material has a place. However, I have a vision of this campaign world and there was very real design requirements for creating that vision (in effect, trying to create a different D&D setting). It was to make demihuman races rare and because of the way I design encounters, psionics actually become more powerful than spells (by and large). Psionics also don't fit the magic model within the world setting. Would you accuse campaign designers of the D20 Conan setting inferior for not including demihumans?

Sometimes you need to think beyond the square and realise there are good reasons for prohibiting material.

The DM has the right to shape his world however he sees fit. If he doesn't want ninjas, so be it. If he doesn't want sword magic, why hold it against him?

Why should the player's desires automatically override the DM's wishes? Because players are arrogant and spoiled that's why.

A DM can ban anything off-hand and shouldn't be worried about insults or players abandoning him.

If I go to a table with ToB in hand and the DM screams out loud that it's overpowered and he doesn't want it in his game, I'll say ok. Time for a new character concept. Not 'time to teach this DM a lesson'.

There was a thread a while back where the OP said his DM didn't allow ToB or psionics or some such. Everyone suggested that the OP break the game with a cleric or druid.

The blatant disrespect that people believe a DM should be treated with is baffling.

*Applause*

Both extremes are bad. The problem with arguing this topic is that if you compare your argument to the extreme argument, and if the other guy compares his argument to the other extreme argument, then both sides have a point.

I'll say this. What's more important, the world concept or the player? The player is infinitely more important than the Dm's concept of the world, because it's the player that has fun, and not the world.

I tend to think that the Dm can still have fun if one of his players uses Psionics, ToB, ect. However, it's just as important that the Dm is having fun too. Really, both sides need to be accommodating.

Perhaps it would be better if you'd elaborate on your rules and why as well as the ones you haven't mentioned.


Bill, I don't do that for a couple of reasons:

1. My rules are inextricably linked to my campaign setting, and my campaign setting (at least the parts I actually have typed, as opposed to jotted in notebooks) is several hundred pages long.

2. I might actually want to publish some of this stuff someday. I might not, but I prefer to keep my options open.



As far as races go, if I decided that a race wasn't in my world, and one of my players really really wanted to play one; I'd find a way to get it to work.



There we differ; I wouldn't. In my eyes, that's a player who isn't interested in what I have to offer. If he can't find something interesting to play in the setting I offer, if he simply must play his favorite stock race/class/what-have-you in order to be happy, then he's going to be happier at another table...and I'm going to be happier with him not at my table.



For instance, I might say that this elf came from an alternate plane/universe, and was transported there by an insane wizard, and is trying to get back (plothook!).


There are plothooks, and then there's "Hey, lookit me, I'm SPECIAL!" Insisting on playing a race that doesn't exist is the latter in my book.


I might say that this elf came from long ago, before the elves got corrupted, and is now in the present day for some reason(another plothook!).



...thereby removing all of the mystery of the elves for those players who have not yet met them. Sure, I have a player whose character has dedicated years of game-time to piecing together information about the Yyrmyrian Empire, and sure, having a living representative of that Empire who can give firsthand accounts of everything that he's worked so hard to figure out will render the niche he's carved out for himself meaningless...but, hey, it's a plothook, who cares about what it does to the existing story the other players have built up?
We'd figure something out together. If I wasn't satisfied with these, I might give the option to one of my players to be a human, but they could mechanically be an elf, (weapon prof. ect.).



I apply the same kind of thinking toward classes. If flavor is a problem, flavor can be changed.


So can crunch. There's an assumption on this board that crunch is the important part of any book, and flavor is "fluff" and unimportant.

In general, in my experience, it's the other way around. Crunch is easy to write. I write better crunch than most of the people currently working for WotC.

Good flavor is much, much harder to get right.



If I was Dming a world with no dragons, and a player wanted to play a Dragonfire Adept, I might change it to be an emulation of another firebreathing beast or perhaps just make them a different strain of Warlocks (which they basically are), and take away the aspect of envying dragons.


I, on the other hand, would simply suggest that the player find a character class from the options available that would suit his concept. If his concept was "I breathe fire and kick butt!"...well, that's not much of a concept, and again, he's probably not going to be very happy with the game I offer.

I'll say this. What's more important, the world concept or the player? The player is infinitely more important than the Dm's concept of the world, because it's the player that has fun, and not the world.



I disagree. Players come and players go. I'd rather lose one player than compromise a setting that dozens of players have enjoyed over the years.

The players--collective--are more important. One individual player is not. The word for one individual player who absolutely must have the setting altered to suit his preferences is "selfish."

My responsibility is to the campaign as a whole--not to any one player.

Khan, I agree almost entirely with that.

Here's my reasoning as to why I'm different.

If a DM says that he doesn't want psionics, the Tome of Battle, or the warlock (and so on and so forth) at his table because they don't fit the feel of his campaign world (i.e. Caelic's elven example above), that is perfectly fine and I will work with that. In fact, chances are I didn't even bring a character using those rules to the table in the first place, since before joining any game, I work with the DM to see what we'd both like. There has been ONE exception to this (where I brought a pregenerated character into another game), but it was something the DM told me he wanted anyway.

If the DM, however, says that he doesn't want psionics, the Tome of Battle, or the warlock (and so on and so forth) at his table because it isn't core, because they're too strong or because they're broken (typically, they assert these without actual game experience!), then he deserves to have some math-sense beaten into him. The CO boards have been trying to break psionics since '04, and barring some of TG's degenerate time techniques, the best we've come up with involve nova strikes (meaning they're weak as hell afterward). The Tome of Battle has been out for over half a year, and the best we've got to break it mechanically comes from a few CustServ rulings which fly in the face of the book's commonsense writing style. People will laugh at you if you claim the warlock's too strong (he is strong for a few levels but hardly an overpowering class, even FOR those levels). In short, those DMs are demonstratably wrong.

If the DM of the second type then goes on to allow anything in the core books, he's in for a rude awakening. He's a "ban first, ask questions never" kind of guy almost by default (admit it, most DMs who ban those things after a cursory glance NEVER want to read the books and will not listen to reason -- operative word MOST). What will work, however, is showing him what power lies under his nose. Rape the game with a divine spellcaster, core-only, subpar rolls, just to prove a point. Then retire and apologize, and ask him for another look at things that just plain aren't anywhere near as bad as that druid you just played.

It's a disrespectful trick done to people who don't deserve respect -- willing ignorance, in my book, is right up there with HATE CRIMES as the worst psychological plague on humanity I can think of. This is the equivalent of a wake-up in a fighting-game, or a witty reubuttal in a debate -- it shows the opponent (here, a stubborn and willingly-ignorant DM) that his position is actually pretty shaky.

If he still says no afterward, fine. I'll accept it -- provided he's got an intelligent reason for it. Like that first DM.


Speaking of that earlier DM (the kind who disallows it on basis of flavor), there's two options.
1) Offer to reflavor. I've done this more than once on psionics, for instance. Essentially, you transform the feel of the mechanics you want to use to fit his game world. It could be something that already exists in obscurity (monk default flavor) or something that was racially distinct (duskblade default flavor) or, better yet, something world-specific. This is the "compromise". Its downside? The DM has one more [mechanical element] to keep track of.
2) Accept that this material is banned in his world, and move on to another choice. This is the most respectful you can do, although in my experience what it tends to lead to is power-tripping DMs and players playing who the DM wants them to play instead of who THEY want to play. (I admit my local DMs are apparently REEEEEEEEAAALLLLY bad, though, so please note that "in my experience" is most decidedly NOT a universal claim.)

Depending on the circumstances of the game in question, I choose between those accordingly. At all times with the first type of DM, I respect my DM and his world -- this step IS critical for a fun game. If both sides respect each other (note: 'DM respect player' is implied throughout this idealized case; it's really a different issue altogether. If you don't respect your players, go and run Planescape and wallow in their despair), then the game can become something truly spectacular.


I do hope that this answers why I was among the "play druid 20" crowd in that thread people mention -- his DM was banning things because he thought they were too powerful... and his list of "too powerful" things included the warlock and, IIRC, the MYSTIC THEURGE or the MONK (I can't find the thread to confirm). Clearly a type 2 DM above.




EDIT: if this is moved to the DM boards, as it should be, I will not be replying to it any further.

Sorry but if I'm trying to run an Arthurian style campaign and some player wants to run around as shuriken throwing halfling ninja and I say no, I feel its pretty appropriate given I stated the context in which I was running it. It was stated from the onset what is accepted, what is not and if he wants to play in the campaign I'm running, the onus is on him to abide by the restrictions I set.

Which is acceptable, because you're giving valid world-related reasons for banning certain things. I'm not saying DMs shouldn't ban anything ever, I'm saying we shouldn't immediately reach for the banhammer every time something new comes out. If before the game you tell them "I'm running a low-magic Gothic Arthurian fantasy setting," then everybody ought to know what that means. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with a DM running an otherwise open game, a player shelling out $40 on a new book, and the minute he walks in with the book the DM says "oh, sorry, that's off-limits because I don't want to deal with it." ToB and psionics get that a lot because they're different systems, but I've seen it happen to the Completes books as well, simply because it's "not Core." I, personally, find the idea that something is inferiour because of the name of the book it's printed in rediculous, but your mileage may vary.

Does that make me a bad DM? I don't believe so. I've DMed FR & DL. I've included all materials as they've become available in the past and I appreciate that all material has a place. However, I have a vision of this campaign world and there was very real design requirements for creating that vision (in effect, trying to create a different D&D setting). It was to make demihuman races rare and because of the way I design encounters, psionics actually become more powerful than spells (by and large). Psionics also don't fit the magic model within the world setting. Would you accuse campaign designers of the D20 Conan setting inferior for not including demihumans?

Sometimes you need to think beyond the square and realise there are good reasons for prohibiting material.

Yet again, world-related reasons are good reasons, while "It's not Core," or "I haven't played it or seen it played but I know it's overpowered," are not. Again, think what you like.

Why should the player's desires automatically override the DM's wishes? Because players are arrogant and spoiled that's why.

Turn that on its head: why should a DM's wishes automatically override the players'? DMs aren't supposed to be God, after all.

A DM can ban anything off-hand and shouldn't be worried about insults or players abandoning him.

I'll agree with the first part of that, a DM can ban anything he wishes. However, to say that the players shouldn't have any say at all, even "voting with their feet" about what is included in the game relegates players to a secondary role. In my (admittedly limited, thank God) experience with DMs of this type, they're usually happier writing a novel than running a D&D campaign.

The blatant disrespect that people believe a DM should be treated with is baffling.

Indeed. However, are the players worthy of any less respect from the DM? Are the players just there for the DM to arbitrarily enforce his whims on? If that's done with a storyline, it's called "railroading" and nearly universally condemned as bad DMing, but if it's done with things like races, classes, or supplements, for no good reason it's okay?

Bill Bisco, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Amen, good sir, amen.

<EDIT> Tempest, you have summed up my argument far more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could. Thank you. </EDIT>

OMG I'm so with Caelic.

As Borat would say, "High Five!"

Tyr, I think we're on the same page, just coming from two different angles. I agree - if a DM comes in with the heavy handed banstick, he will find himself short of players after too long.

Tempest, I'm still shocked that you think its acceptable to shaft a DM just because he banned something you want. If you think his reasons are crap (and possibly by extension, think he's a crap DM) why bother playing? To think its acceptable to shaft a DM just because you feel you got shafted goes far beyond juvenille and into vindictive.

As for psionics, here's the reason I would ban it. I prefer my games with less combat and not more (more time for roleplaying and incharacter dialogue). Therefore there's often (but not always) one encounter/day not the 4 average that the DMG discusses (which is what psionic abilities are balanced around). This means that psionic based characters can dump multiple power points into a few powers and completely trivialise an encounter that would be quite harder for other characters to achieve. The fact the magic model in my setting doesn't work well with psionics is a coincidence. It wasn't until I tried to incorporate psionics into my campaign I truly came to regret the decision.

Y'know...Something I've noticed in these recurrent debates.

When a DM gives his reasons for restricting material and is boo and hiss-ed, it is often because his reasons amount to "I don't want!": he goes on about how he doesn't want to do the work, how he doesn't want to change his viewpoint on balance, how he doesn't want to reward players for effort on their part to reflavor things to fit in his campaign, and how he doesn't want players to rock the boat. In short, purely negative exclusion.

When a DM gives his reasons for restricting material and is applaudeded, it is often because his reasons amount to "I want this!": how he has put the work into making a very detailed campaign setting, how he has watched the mechanics carefully from published and homebrew alike to keep a sharp balance, how he has made the whole system fit tightly so as to reward players who get into it with great mechanical and roleplaying opportunities, and he loves his production so much he can't stand the thought of outside stuff coming in and mucking it all up. In short, positive exclusion.

I'm leaving with my usual "what matters is you game with people in a situation where you all have fun" line that suffices for this debate and 90% of the debates on the D&D boards, but thought I'd just offer a little food for thought.

Incorrect. If you ban things out of hand because you don't like the flavour (flavour can be changed with little effort) or because you're too lazy to learn the new rules, then I believe you're either an inferiour D&D player or have control issues.



Objective evidence, I think, demonstrates that that is not true. I routinely ban things because I don't like the flavor or the mechanics. If I'm going to rewrite the flavor, I might as well write my own mechanics, too--because I know that they'll generally be more consistent and of higher quality than the stuff being pumped out on a monthly basis nowadays. By your standards, that makes me an "inferior D&D player." I am, however, an "inferior D&D player" who has:

A. Kept a campaign running for two decades.
B. Won numerous D&D tournaments at the largest conventions
C. Written and published numerous game supplements.

It might not be possible to set up a truly objective standard of a "superior D&D player," but I'd like to know where I'm lacking, if I'm inferior.

As for being "too lazy to learn the new rules," well...show of hands? Anyone here think my knowledge of the rules is lacking?

I know the rules. I work with the rules all the time here, and I think I do a pretty good job of it. I just think that, frequently, the rules aren't all that good, and I can come up with better ones for my own campaign. The Thought Bottle is "the rules." Polymorph, in all its snafued glory, is "the rules." Iron Heart Surge is "the rules."


Control issues? Meh. You call it control issues; I call it having confidence in my own judgement and what experience has taught me.



If you have a valid game-world reason (the example I gave was firearms being banned due to the lack of metalurgical skill and alchemists being more interested in arcane application than mundane to research gunpowder), then by all means, it's your world, so it's your call.


My valid game-world reasons, as I have said, take up a couple thousand pages, much of which my players haven't even seen. Suffice to say that I don't particularly feel like explaining them in detail each and every time a new player comes along and says "I wanna play a Drow ninja with two katanas!"



I'm just sick and tired of people banning new supplements out of hand because "Ninjas don't exist in my world, but assassins do," or "ToB is banned because meleers shouldn't have access to anything even remotely looking like magic."



I'm sick and tired of people thinking that I'm obligated to alter my gameworld on a monthly basis because WotC has pooped out yet another poorly-playtested supplement, so I suppose that makes us even.



HOWEVER, I do realize that not all groups are like mine. What I and we believe D&D is about may not ring true with anybody else. It's your group, y'all do what works for you.

Pretty much. I don't tell others how to play; I sure as heck don't let them tell me how to play.

I'm going to stop playing and take over DMing in a few months. My first course of action will be to ban the Mystic Theurge because it is too powerful. I'll probably hit the Favored Soul second and then the Warmage.

And if you try to play a Favored Soul / Warmage / Mystic Theurge, I'll cry.




</silly mood>

The players--collective--are more important. One individual player is not. The word for one individual player who absolutely must have the setting altered to suit his preferences is "selfish."

This is opinion. Some players/DMs believe that a D&D campaign should allow (or even require) that players contribute actively to the setting. This belief is as valid as your perception of a campaign setting as set-in-stone, and it doesn't automatically make them selfish.

I'm saying this as one who holds this belief.

The idea of DM as world-creator, and players as denizens of that world never seemed all that appealing to me. I'm much more comfortable with a scenario where everyone at a table contributes to the world we're collectively imagining. Please note that this is probably because I very, very rarely play D&D with people that I don't associate with otherwise. There's a group cohesion there that's probably not present in your campaign (well, judging from your constant comments placing setting above player, and your references to your waiting list).

True things
More true things

I salute you.

EDIT:

Objective evidence, I think, demonstrates that that is not true. I routinely ban things because I don't like the flavor or the mechanics. If I'm going to rewrite the flavor, I might as well write my own mechanics, too--because I know that they'll generally be more consistent and of higher quality than the stuff being pumped out on a monthly basis nowadays. By your standards, that makes me an "inferior D&D player." I am, however, an "inferior D&D player" who has:

A. Kept a campaign running for two decades.
B. Won numerous D&D tournaments at the largest conventions
C. Written and published numerous game supplements.


That you have done correct things in the past does not mean that you are right about everything, ever. That you have kept a campaign running for decades is nice. Really, I'm happy for you. But you seem to reach for your "personal achievement" argument in every response you give. I'm honestly just starting to hear "You young whippersnappers! Why in my day, we had to go to our D&D games uphill, in the snow etc.". In this case, I actually agree with you. If you're re-flavoring, you may as well re-crunch too, but the condescending attitude you seem to have towards people who aren't you doesn't make that an easy thing to admit.

There we differ; I wouldn't. In my eyes, that's a player who isn't interested in what I have to offer. If he can't find something interesting to play in the setting I offer, if he simply must play his favorite stock race/class/what-have-you in order to be happy, then he's going to be happier at another table...and I'm going to be happier with him not at my table. I never said that this player demanded that he play this one class/race, but that he would like to. As a Dm I would try to accommodate him if possible, and as a player I would try to work it into his world somehow, but would ultimately play something else if he wouldn't allow it.


...thereby removing all of the mystery of the elves for those players who have not yet met them. Sure, I have a player whose character has dedicated years of game-time to piecing together information about the Yyrmyrian Empire, and sure, having a living representative of that Empire who can give firsthand accounts of everything that he's worked so hard to figure out will render the niche he's carved out for himself meaningless...but, hey, it's a plothook, who cares about what it does to the existing story the other players have built up?
We'd figure something out together. If I wasn't satisfied with these, I might give the option to one of my players to be a human, but they could mechanically be an elf, (weapon prof. ect.). If you think that remembering his past would be a problem, then make it so that the time-displaced elf doesn't remember anything about his past whatsoever! You seem to be looking at this workaround as destroying the specialness of your world. I tend to look at these as opportunities to enrich the story and not impact the specialness whatsoever. I could see a fun series of adventures as this elf discovers his past and who he was along with the party.

If the elf character was successful, you could try making other elves appear, and the party has to figure out why this ancient race is appearing in modern times. Or not. There's a million different directions you could take this in if you wanted to. As I said before, I see it as an opportunity for good story.

I, on the other hand, would simply suggest that the player find a character class from the options available that would suit his concept. If his concept was "I breathe fire and kick butt!"...well, that's not much of a concept, and again, he's probably not going to be very happy with the game I offer.
If a player liked using breath weapons all the time, he could gain a bunch of levels in Wizard, and cast the spells which give you breath weapons. Or you could be a Dragonfire Adept and use breath weapons from the beginning and more efficiently and better.

I personally could easily see a Dragonfire Adept as a Sorceror who favors breathweapon-like spells, and puts his main focus into that rather than the other spells.

I disagree. Players come and players go. I'd rather lose one player than compromise a setting that dozens of players have enjoyed over the years.

The players--collective--are more important. One individual player is not. The word for one individual player who absolutely must have the setting altered to suit his preferences is "selfish."

My responsibility is to the campaign as a whole--not to any one player. Once again, I never said that this player absolutely had to play this thing. It would be better for the argument if we moved away from extreme examples. If a player has that attitude, then yes of course I would agree with you.

However, the example I am intending to refer to is, a Dm who doesn't like Psionics, but understands that they're not comparatively more powerful than what else is available, and lets the player be a Psion. Once again if flavor is a problem, treat the play as a Sorceror or whatever.

I'm certainly not as experienced as some DMs like Caelic but I think that (from both a player and DM point of view) having a "vision" and staying true to it is imperative.

If you stay true to that vision, you will always wind up being happier.

Happier as a player you didn't pick up XYZ PrC released this month just because and happier as a DM because you stuck to your guns and realise that the game has gotten more interesting as the players come to appreciate the theme and tone and unique setting you've created.

In my experience, losing vision or trying to find a vision to fit XYZ build makes the game less fun for everyone.

I really have to say, this thread is pretty much pointless. If I could reply to it without bumping it, I would.

Caelic, starting a thread about it, and continuing to comment on it, clearly is changing NO ONE'S viewpoints ANYWHERE. You can defend your rights as a DM all you damn well please, but continuing to do so in the way you have in this thread merely gets more people wanting to tell you you're somehow wrong.

Just let this die, before you get yourself too terribly angry over...wait for it...a GAME.

I disagree. Players come and players go. I'd rather lose one player than compromise a setting that dozens of players have enjoyed over the years.

The players--collective--are more important. One individual player is not. The word for one individual player who absolutely must have the setting altered to suit his preferences is "selfish."

My responsibility is to the campaign as a whole--not to any one player.

QFT.

BTW, I'm up to 8 players (usually rotates around the 6 mark, hence the high number). With potentially one more on the way. I don't know what I'm going to do... lol...

I routinely ban things because I don't like the flavor or the mechanics. If I'm going to rewrite the flavor, I might as well write my own mechanics, too--because I know that they'll generally be more consistent and of higher quality than the stuff being pumped out on a monthly basis nowadays.

Then you're not arbitrarily pulling out the banhammer, but rather slowly but surely creating your own game that D&D-ish, but not D&D. Kudos to you, I wish I was creative enough and had time enough to build my own D20 game. However, since what you're playing (and arguing from the standpoint of) isn't D&D anymore, you think maybe my point doesn't apply to you?

More concisely, it's not the flavour of, it's the mechanics themselves you seem to have a problem with, and are fixing on your own. That's great. However, it's not what I'm arguing.

I have a problem with a DM running an otherwise open game, a player shelling out $40 on a new book, and the minute he walks in with the book the DM says "oh, sorry, that's off-limits because I don't want to deal with it."



How about "That's off-limits because I don't own it, don't wish to purchase it, don't wish to lug another book to the game, and frankly don't have the free time to devote to learning a new supplementary rules system?"




I, personally, find the idea that something is inferiour because of the name of the book it's printed in rediculous, but your mileage may vary.



As ridiculous as the notion that simply because something is printed in a book, it should be part of any given game.





Turn that on its head: why should a DM's wishes automatically override the players'? DMs aren't supposed to be God, after all.



Because, not to put too fine a point on it, the DM's the one putting in the most work, usually for the least return. In most games, the players show up one day a week, and play, and are entertained; they then put their characters away until the next session.

The DM...if he's any good...puts in hours outside of the actual play sessions making sure the players will be entertained.

He doesn't get the thrill of going up a level, or finding a cool new item, or having his character accomplish a major personal goal. If he does his job well, he gets the satisfaction of presenting a well-crafted story. Perhaps he gets a "Nice game" from one or more of the players.

If he's off his game, or makes a ruling a player doesn't like...well, some players will deal with that in a mature and respectful fashion. Others will go on the CO boards posting "Make my DM cry!"



I'll agree with the first part of that, a DM can ban anything he wishes. However, to say that the players shouldn't have any say at all, even "voting with their feet" about what is included in the game relegates players to a secondary role.


Who said players can't vote with their feet? Of course they can do that. That's the player's veto.



In my (admittedly limited, thank God) experience with DMs of this type, they're usually happier writing a novel than running a D&D campaign.



I'm happy doing both, and I have the same standards for both. You can bet that if I'm writing a novel set in twelfth-century Wales and someone looks at my manuscript and says, "You should really have some ninjas," I'm going to take the advice with a large grain of salt.



Indeed. However, are the players worthy of any less respect from the DM? Are the players just there for the DM to arbitrarily enforce his whims on? If that's done with a storyline, it's called "railroading" and nearly universally condemned as bad DMing, but if it's done with things like races, classes, or supplements, for no good reason it's okay?



Sometimes, there is a good reason; it's just one the player who has had his shiny new toy taken away sometimes doesn't want to hear it.

And, no; to be honest, I don't have much respect for players who are so dependent on certain races, classes, and supplements that they can't make a character compelling without them.

They may be perfectly nice people; I may have tremendous respect for them as human beings; but I don't want them in my game.

Players coming into my group go through a probationary period, as it were. They're given a copy of a character I call "Bob." Bob is a human fighter. He wields a sword and uses a shield. His stats are average. The players are free to modify his background, his gender, his alignment--anything but his stats.

If the player isn't good enough to find a way to make a human character interesting, then I've found that it's darned near certain they're not good enough to find a way to make a more exotic character interesting.

The players play in the game, the DM runs it. The DM has every right to say no. They're the one's setting the story up, they're the ones putting most of the work in, especially with a long running and well thought-out campaign. If a player wanted to have a Holy Avenger, +5 full plate and ring of 3 wishes for his paladin at 1st level would you just hand it to them?

Heck no.

A player can't dictate how the game gets run. It does not work. You get 1st level characters with rings of infinite wishes their uncle left them overthrowing gods, a party of Pun-puns, or just completely ruined settings as that eberron warforged artificer hopes in and trashes your plot points for no reason that a player thought it would be cool.

Because WotC puts out a ninja class I have to allow a player to play it? Why? Maybe that role is already filled by the rogues of my game. Should I have to redesign my entire campaign because a player can't redesign a character concept to work with the rules of my game and the cultures and mythos that I've provided?

This is opinion. Some players/DMs believe that a D&D campaign should allow (or even require) that players contribute actively to the setting. This belief is as valid as your perception of a campaign setting as set-in-stone, and it doesn't automatically make them selfish.

I'm saying this as one who holds this belief.


If, however, you walk into a campaign with established ways of doing things and expect them to conform to your belief...then, yes, you're selfish.

I wouldn't walk into a new campaign and demand that they ban elves because I don't allow them in my regular game. To do so would be boorish and disruptive.

Nor, you'll notice, am I the one saying that those who play differently are inferior, uncreative, or other derogatory labels. Those labels (at least on this board) seem to be reserved almost exclusively for those who don't share your philosophy.



The idea of DM as world-creator, and players as denizens of that world never seemed all that appealing to me. I'm much more comfortable with a scenario where everyone at a table contributes to the world we're collectively imagining. Please note that this is probably because I very, very rarely play D&D with people that I don't associate with otherwise. There's a group cohesion there that's probably not present in your campaign (well, judging from your constant comments placing setting above player, and your references to your waiting list).



I suspect my group cohesion is at least as strong as yours. I've been gaming with some of these folks for two-thirds of my life. That's why I'm picky about new players.




That you have done correct things in the past does not mean that you are right about everything, ever.


Never said that it did. I never said that my way of playing was the "right" way of playing, either.

I said it was right for me and my group.


That you have kept a campaign running for decades is nice. Really, I'm happy for you. But you seem to reach for your "personal achievement" argument in every response you give.


Only when someone makes a suggestion that those who aren't permissive, or that those who choose a restrictive rules set, are inferior players simply because of that decision.





If you're re-flavoring, you may as well re-crunch too, but the condescending attitude you seem to have towards people who aren't you doesn't make that an easy thing to admit.



Whoa. Let's see, here. This thread was prompted by multiple people saying, in essence, "Those who don't allow X in their games are bad DMs." Some of those posters implied or outright stated that a DM who doesn't want to incorporate a new rules supplement is "lazy"--before going on to say that such a DM is inferior. At no point have I said "Those who do allow X in their games are bad DMs." I have repeatedly emphasized that I do what works for me and my group, that I understand that there are a lot of players out there whose preferences differ, and that that's totally fine.

And I'm the one who's condescending towards those who aren't like me? Because I get tired of hearing how DMs who aren't permissive are bad/are lazy/should be abandoned by their players/should have their campaigns wrecked?

Yes, my campaign is just one example. Yes, it's not representative of all DMs. But I'd be willing to bet that most of those DMs also have campaigns that are not "representative" and don't fit the stereotypes presented here...and that the boogeyman "Raaar, no you can't play anything because I don't want you to have fun!" DM so often evoked here is damned near nonexistent.

The players play in the game, the DM runs it. The DM has every right to say no. They're the one's setting the story up, they're the ones putting most of the work in, especially with a long running and well thought-out campaign. If a player wanted to have a Holy Avenger, +5 full plate and ring of 3 wishes for his paladin at 1st level would you just hand it to them?

Heck no.

A player can't dictate how the game gets run. It does not work. You get 1st level characters with rings of infinite wishes their uncle left them overthrowing gods, a party of Pun-puns, or just completely ruined settings as that eberron warforged artificer hopes in and trashes your plot points for no reason that a player thought it would be cool.

Because WotC puts out a ninja class I have to allow a player to play it? Why? Maybe that role is already filled by the rogues of my game. Should I have to redesign my entire campaign because a player can't redesign a character concept to work with the rules of my game and the cultures and mythos that I've provided?

Previn, you're using extreme examples. They do no one any good.

I really have to say, this thread is pretty much pointless. If I could reply to it without bumping it, I would.

Oh, I agree that it's pointless. It is, however, satisfying.



Caelic, starting a thread about it, and continuing to comment on it, clearly is changing NO ONE'S viewpoints ANYWHERE.

That's probably true--but the "Allow everything!" crowd has a significant unfair advantage on this board. Their viewpoint is presented routinely--and loudly.

It's only fair that, every now and then, someone present the opposing viewpoint as well.



You can defend your rights as a DM all you damn well please, but continuing to do so in the way you have in this thread merely gets more people wanting to tell you you're somehow wrong.


Well, heck, I've been having people tell me that for decades now. Where would I be if I let that stop me?


Just let this die, before you get yourself too terribly angry over...wait for it...a GAME.

Nah. Not angry. Just claiming equal time, in my usual insufferably arrogant way. :)

Playing with everything can make character creation a taxing/long process. Some players instead of coming to the first session with a made character will just spend hours researching Prestige Classes they want to aim for.

When I was just starting to playtest a game I recently wrote I was sitting there bored for 2 hours while 3 people made characters (out of 5). Now before anyone says that it can take hours to make a character I will be more specific.

These are level 1 characters. I basically said you can have Studded Leather armor and a Light wooden shield (if you want either). You can have one martial melee weapon (I recommend a Long or Short Sword because of the setting is roman inspired) and one martial ranged weapon (longbow) + 20 arrows. And then there is the basic stuff (torches, etc).

Oh yeah, there are only TWO classes in the game!

Abilities were determined by blind (call the stat before rolling) 4d6keep 3 six times with the option to switch two of them (so if a person wanted a high Charisma but got a high Strength they could swap Str and Cha). I suppose I should not have allowed that swap option. Why did I do a blind stat roll? Because the magic system of the game I was playtesting is Stat Driven, each stat had an associated skill (think Star Wars force skills) that did a certain thing (and gave synergy bonuses to skills or other things).

For example:
-Earth (Str) raised your Strength for the purposes of damage and grappling. In addition it helped you avoid fatigue for marching (it adds hours on before you have to make checks).
-Metal (Con) harden your metal weapons, sharpen then, or weaken a foe's weapon (for sundering). Ignore ability damage (still there, but you ignore it).

To make a "magic skill" a class skill you have to take a feat for it that requires a 15 in the associated ability score.

So by making the ability scores blindly given, I was hoping that a PC's focus would be dictated by their highest stats.

Oh boy.. Allowing that swap option was bad. Like I said... Too many options means too much time spent going over those options.

How about "That's off-limits because I don't own it, don't wish to purchase it, don't wish to lug another book to the game, and frankly don't have the free time to devote to learning a new supplementary rules system?"

"I own it, I'll let you borrow it, I'll bring it to every game, and I'll inform you in advance of every new thing I can/will do with it., as well as researching it on the boards and letting you know what people think about it." Do you not trust your players?

As ridiculous as the notion that simply because something is printed in a book, it should be part of any given game.

That's not the argument (at least, not as I make it). Thus, straw man.

Because, not to put too fine a point on it, the DM's the one putting in the most work, usually for the least return. In most games, the players show up one day a week, and play, and are entertained; they then put their characters away until the next session.

The DM...if he's any good...puts in hours outside of the actual play sessions making sure the players will be entertained.

So, since he does more work than the players, he should get ALL the say? Wow, must be nice to be on top in your world, but life as a serf sure seems to suck.

Who said players can't vote with their feet? Of course they can do that. That's the player's veto.

That was in response to the comment that a DM shouldn't have to worry about players arguing or abandoning a DM because of his style. Of course a player's veto is always an option, that was my point.

I'm happy doing both, and I have the same standards for both. You can bet that if I'm writing a novel set in twelfth-century Wales and someone looks at my manuscript and says, "You should really have some ninjas," I'm going to take the advice with a large grain of salt.

And here we have it. You run a game the way you write a novel: as God. The difference is, with a novel, there's nobody deciding anything about what goes on in your world but you. However, in D&D, you have actual other people deciding what to do, and to run roughshod over their rights as players is not right at all.

Sometimes, there is a good reason; it's just one the player who has had his shiny new toy taken away sometimes doesn't want to hear it.

If you're going to give the good reason, then you're in the clear; this has the side benefit of placing the rest of the gaming group solidly on your side since you have a good reason not to allow something and the player is being immature. However, if you have said good reason and didn't give it, you're trouncing the player's right to know about the game he's playing in, and nobody appreciates feeling like they're being strung along.

Players coming into my group go through a probationary period, as it were. They're given a copy of a character I call "Bob." Bob is a human fighter. He wields a sword and uses a shield. His stats are average. The players are free to modify his background, his gender, his alignment--anything but his stats.

If the player isn't good enough to find a way to make a human character interesting, then I've found that it's darned near certain they're not good enough to find a way to make a more exotic character interesting.

More God complex. I'm glad you have such superiour players that you don't have to "waste your time" on people that are learning to roleplay. Meanwhile, you just turned someone off of the game because all he's seen is a group of *******s tell him he's not good enough to be in their club.

<EDIT> I can't let this slide, sorry.

Whoa. Let's see, here. This thread was prompted by multiple people saying, in essence, "Those who don't allow X in their games are bad DMs." Some of those posters implied or outright stated that a DM who doesn't want to incorporate a new rules supplement is "lazy"--before going on to say that such a DM is inferior.

As I'm the one who said something was inferiour or lazy, I'm going to respond to this.

At no point did I say (or mean to say, if I did, I'm sorry, it's been a long month) that just because you banned X you're a bad DM. Rather, I said that if you ban ANYTHING out of hand without looking at it or even listening to reasoning as to why it should be allowed, then you're a bad DM, and an inferiour player. I explicitly stated that if you have a valid game-world reason to ban it, and you let your players know, then you're fine. I implied (and now explicitly state) that if there's an explicit mechanical imbalance ("brokenness") about something, and you let people know that's why you're banning it, you're fine. What isn't fine is saying "I've never looked at it or played it, but it's broken, so it's not allowed," or "I don't want to have to learn this alternate mechanic, so it's not allowed."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my argument is being mutilated into things I barely recognize and what I said is being horribly misquoted and/or taken out of context in an attept to score a cheap point. In case you're not aware, that is a classic textbook case of the "strawman" logical fallacy, and either intellectual sloth or intellectual dishonesty, depending on whether you're not reading what I've said multiple times or intentionally distorting my arguement.

I was enjoying the debate, but now I'm going to bed before I say something I regret. I have to be up in six hours anyway.
</EDIT>

Previn, you're using extreme examples. They do no one any good.

Just as the people who trot out the evil DM who randomly and arbitrarily bans things because he hates his players and wants them to suffer are using an extreme example, Bill. Except that that example gets trotted out with regularity around here, and typically doesn't draw many protests.

Why? I'd suggest that it's because "Players should have more power!" is by definition going to be the more popular philosophy on a board dedicated to making characters as powerful as possible.

If the DM, however, says that he doesn't want psionics, the Tome of Battle, or the warlock (and so on and so forth) at his table because it isn't core, because they're too strong or because they're broken (typically, they assert these without actual game experience!), then he deserves to have some math-sense beaten into him. The CO boards have been trying to break psionics since '04, and barring some of TG's degenerate time techniques, the best we've come up with involve nova strikes (meaning they're weak as hell afterward). The Tome of Battle has been out for over half a year, and the best we've got to break it mechanically comes from a few CustServ rulings which fly in the face of the book's commonsense writing style. People will laugh at you if you claim the warlock's too strong (he is strong for a few levels but hardly an overpowering class, even FOR those levels). In short, those DMs are demonstratably wrong.

Don't make the assumption that everyone's games are at the same power level. There could be a campaign where the group has been rolling along smoothly with their underpowered but fun characters, and then up shows the Warlock and throws everything out of the balance it's settled into as he blasts the snot out of everything.

What if a game has only been core, and the pace has dictated that magic is a rare and unused thing? Then in comes the warlock and suddenly that game just gets smashed conceptually as encounters have to be adjusted to have counters to magic for no logical reason?

Caelic, please delete your PMs. Inbox is full.

Previn, you're using extreme examples. They do no one any good.

I'm using extreme examples to make a blatant point, not as a basis of common practices.

Would you give a 1st level character 8400 gold due to some RP reason expecting them to purchase a +2 weapon and then be shocked when the Candle of Invocation, and thus infinite wishes rears it's head?

Better yet, if a player wanted to buy a Candle of Invocation at 5th level, what do you do? Give it to them, or 'create' some 'role playing' excuse as to why the can't have it? I.e. ban it in the disguise of not banning it.

Again, why should a player get whatever they want, while the DM is forced to capitulate? Isn't that just the exact same argument from the other side?

Don't make the assumption that everyone's games are at the same power level. There could be a campaign where the group has been rolling along smoothly with their underpowered but fun characters, and then up shows the Warlock and throws everything out of the balance it's settled into as he blasts the snot out of everything.

What if a game has only been core, and the pace has dictated that magic is a rare and unused thing? Then in comes the warlock and suddenly that game just gets smashed conceptually as encounters have to be adjusted to have counters to magic for no logical reason?

The first paragraph is close to this problem. If they allow the core book unaltered, then nothing a warlock (or a psion, or a martial adept) can do will overpower the game. And in this case, you assume that the guy wanting to play the warlock isn't also capable of playing a weak yet fun character. Warlocks do NOT 'blast the snot' out of everything. They just blast every round. Like an archer. In this situation, you follow it up with a non-optimized warlock that's at the same power level as the other PCs. If your DM still bans it because "it's too powerful", that's when druidzilla comes to town.

The second paragraph dictates an issue of the FIRST type I discussed -- world issues. There, magic literally is rare and unused. A warlock in that setting would be inappropriate and a player wanting to play one would be inconsiderate.

I don't recommend being spiteful or vengeful. I recommend beating some ******* sense into players and DMs alike if they're bad at math and think they aren't. I DO NOT recommend trying this on DMs who have other, more valid concerns as to why a certain thing shouldn't show up in a game.

Just as the people who trot out the evil DM who randomly and arbitrarily bans things because he hates his players and wants them to suffer are using an extreme example, Bill. You are correct, I think that both are just as bad.
Except that that example gets trotted out with regularity around here, and typically doesn't draw many protests. I can't comment on that because I haven't or don't remember seeing seeing such statements.

Why? I'd suggest that it's because "Players should have more power!" is by definition going to be the more popular philosophy on a board dedicated to making characters as powerful as possible. We all have biases, that's natural; we're human. The "What's a Dm to do Board" likely has the opposite bias.

I think they're both wrong. Power shouldn't even be the question. It should be, "What's going to be the most fun for everyone?"

There will be monkeys. And they will throw projectiles. FLAMING projectiles!

Beware of the monkeys, for they will stop at nothing to hit with their flaming projectiles!

Oh my gawd, its in my eeeeye!

... I just wanted to be the doomsayer for once, to point out how argumenting over internet is like a barrel fun of hysterical monkeys. You can live with them, but you'll be crapping out bananas out of your ears for years!

Oh, who am I kidding.

Carry on.

*Puts on his robe and the wizard's hat...*

I gotta reply to this:

Do you not trust your players?

I roleplay with my best friends.

I've had players lie about xp totals for 6 months just because they didn't like being lower in effective levels than another player.

I've had players fudge dice roles, build ridiculously overpowered prestige classes, "miss" rules or just misinterpret them where it suits, etc. I've seen some of the ugliest traits in my best friends come out at the gaming table.

To make it worse, I've done some of this myself.

And the answer to that is no.

Experience has shown me that. Sad but true. At the end of the day, we're all human. And any DM that blindly trusts players isn't worth his salt IMHO.


So, since he does more work than the players, he should get ALL the say? Wow, must be nice to be on top in your world, but life as a serf sure seems to suck.

No but he is the one creating it. For every hour of game play you have as a player, I bet the DM invests anywhere from 2-4. His time investment is much higher and he has other people to cater to apart from you.

Simply put, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). Hate to quote Spock but its a good quote.

"I own it, I'll let you borrow it, I'll bring it to every game, and I'll inform you in advance of every new thing I can/will do with it., as well as researching it on the boards and letting you know what people think about it." Do you not trust your players?


I trust my players. In fact, the standing rule in the group is that if you're using it, you bring a copy of it to the game.

I was pointing out that a DM might have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to bring in a new supplement. The fact that you brushed them off suggests that you don't agree that they're valid.






So, since he does more work than the players, he should get ALL the say?



Nope. The players have absolute control over their characters. I never tell a player "Your character wouldn't do that." There may be consequences to actions, but the players have the final say in what their characters do (barring magical compulsions, of course.)

That control is just as absolute as my control over the setting. Just as I have final say as to what does and does not exist in my gameworld, they have final say as to what their character does and does not do, think, believe.



That was in response to the comment that a DM shouldn't have to worry about players arguing or abandoning a DM because of his style.


Well, no; he shouldn't. If a player is going to abandon a DM because of his style, it probably means one of two things:

A. The DM's just not very good, and needs to improve.
B. The player and the DM have preferences that aren't compatible, and will probably be happier going their separate ways.




And here we have it. You run a game the way you write a novel: as God. The difference is, with a novel, there's nobody deciding anything about what goes on in your world but you. However, in D&D, you have actual other people deciding what to do, and to run roughshod over their rights as players is not right at all.



It's not nice to cry "Straw Man" and then introduce one of your own. I can confidently say that I never "run roughshod over their rights as players."

I suspect rather strongly, though, that what you consider their "rights as players" and what I consider their "rights as players" differ. Nor do I recall ever seeing a Bill of Rights for Players of D&D.

As far as I'm concerned, a player has the absolute right to autonomy in controlling his or her own character. The player has the right to voice concerns or question judgement calls. The player has the right to debate those calls at length...after the game, not during. The player has the right to be in a group which shares his play preferences. The player has the right to suggest a new game system or the addition of new rules.

The player does not have the right to demand that I run a new game system or add new rules.



However, if you have said good reason and didn't give it, you're trouncing the player's right to know about the game he's playing in, and nobody appreciates feeling like they're being strung along.


Concrete example: the elf thing. New players starting in my game are simply told "Elves aren't a PC race. They're extinct." Now, I could sit down and explain to them at length the history of the gameworld, the fact that elves are (unbeknownst to their characters) not extinct, but are the major antagonists lurking in the background.

I could explain that--but it would take away the opportunity to discover that for themselves.



More God complex. I'm glad you have such superiour players that you don't have to "waste your time" on people that are learning to roleplay. Meanwhile, you just turned someone off of the game because all he's seen is a group of *******s tell him he's not good enough to be in their club.


This may be a valid point. Yes, I'm lucky enough to be spoiled both for quantity and quality of players. Yes, I have very definite play preferences, and prefer to game with those who share my preferences.

And, yes, I'm just selfish enough that I (usually) don't want to spend my Saturdays teaching someone the basics of the game.

You're off-base, however, in the whole "superior" players issue, just as you were in declaring those who didn't share your values "inferior" earlier. I don't consider myself "superior." It's a laughable term when it comes to gaming. "I'm better at pretending to be an orc than you are?"

It's not about superior and inferior; it's about different play styles.

Do you seriously think you'd be happy in my campaign? No? I don't think you would, either. So why on earth should you spend your limited free time sitting in on a campaign you're not going to like, and why should I spend mine running for someone who doesn't want what I have to offer?

Wouldn't it be better if you had a game down the hall, and we both played the way we enjoy and didn't worry about who was "superior" and who was "inferior?"

I'm using extreme examples to make a blatant point, not as a basis of common practices.

Would you give a 1st level character 8400 gold due to some RP reason expecting them to purchase a +2 weapon and then be shocked when the Candle of Invocation, and thus infinite wishes rears it's head?

Better yet, if a player wanted to buy a Candle of Invocation at 5th level, what do you do? Give it to them, or 'create' some 'role playing' excuse as to why the can't have it? I.e. ban it in the disguise of not banning it.

Again, why should a player get whatever they want, while the DM is forced to capitulate? Isn't that just the exact same argument from the other side?

Yes Previn. No sane Dm is going to allow a player to get a Candle of Invocation to set up the Pun-Pun chain. Yes, the Dm is perfectly within his rights to deny his players from becoming Pun-Pun.

What you're saying is so extreme that no one in their right mind is going to disagree with you. It doesn't help anything by saying it.

The same logic applies to a Dm that forces all his players to be the same class , same race, chooses all their skill points for them, and talks them through the story and what happens. Decisions that he doesn't like them doing, he arbitrarily says that they can't do that. He *lets* his players make decisions in combat, and that's about it.

The above person is a bad Dm, and would be better suited to write a Novel or choose your own adventure story. It's another extreme example, and doesn't help anything.

When did not allowing material from some books turn into forcing all PC's to be exact duplicates of each other? I thought I was paying attention to this thread, did I miss something?

You cast doubt upon your position when you say "no sane DM would allow a candle of invocation" and "all DM's should allow the ToB".

Yes Previn. No sane Dm is going to allow a player to get a Candle of Invocation to set up the Pun-Pun chain. Yes, the Dm is perfectly within his rights to deny his players from becoming Pun-Pun.

What's more important, the world concept or the player? The player is infinitely more important than the Dm's concept of the world, because it's the player that has fun, and not the world.

Did I mention pun-pun in that post? Nope. Just infinite wishes. Give me my candle, I'm more important as player who has fun than some DM's concept of the world. My fun is more important even when it can destroy a game, other player's fun and the DM's fun.

I would like to add my two cp before bed.

I would like to say that I am a "ban first, ask questions later" DM. But maybe not quite in the way the phrase is used.

You see, until i have READ the book and understand the crunch/flavor and thought on it, im not allowing it in my campaign.

Now, i keep somewhat current on things. I like to look at new PrCs, items etc. If a character says "Hey, i want to play a Spellwarp Sniper." Im going to say "buh?" and then tell him to get me a copy of the class before i say yes. But until i look it over, its going to be effectivly banned.

Now, individual PrCs are not hard. But then again, a cursory reading of the Planer Shepard by someone not all that familiar with the Ebberon Setting might go under the radar.

But, Psi, ToB, ToM or MoI... those are whole friggin systems.

D&D is a hobby. A person just might have better things to do than read a whole tome to accomidate one player.

You going to buy him all the books and let him keep them to learn? Or do you just expect him to own all the books and know all the rules that you might happen to want to play with?

A DM doesnt have to use and allow every WOTC sourcebook that comes out. Yes, you can 'vote with your feet'. But for what? The GM wont let you play a X? Wont let you make a Y? Nerfed Z? If you have the luxury to drop a DM for somehting as minor as that, then DMs come off the shelves of your gaming store. Most of us arent that lucky.

You want a system put in your game? Run a game yourself and put it in! You'll find DM's are more likely to let in something they have seen before.

As a player, would i like to play that spiffy new Grey Guard? Perhaps. Does the DM not like it? Hey, there are a brazillion other concepts. As a player, i have a hopper full of stuff i'd like to get a chance to play, but some of them will have to wait till other DM's.

If a DM just wants to run core for whatever reason, be it for his own simplisity or a misguided idea that core is balenced, then ultimatly that's his right. Yeah, again you can vote with your feet, the player's ultimate power. But are you saying you cant have fun in core? Just cant live without the Psion? That without your Anthropomorphic Baleen Whale Mineral Warrior Frezied Berzerker/Ultimate Mage, you just wont play?

Lets say a DM is bad at math. He says no psi, only core, no ToB, whatever. Fine, attempt to show him(nicely, these guys work hard for you!). But if he still say no, then thats the way!YOu want to leave just for that, perhaps its for the best... for the DM. Because you know, even if you do convince him that its not overpowered, i would wager to say half of them at least would still say no.

I dont allow ToB in my game. Why you ask? Its not that i believe its overpowered. Its because i dont own the freaking book! I dont really know the system(although, to be honest, im not a big fan of what i do know). THis is why my builds dont use ToB. When it comes to Magic or Psionic... i usually run one or the other, not both. While i dont think one is overpowered compared to the other... in fact, i use the psionic system AS my magic system. I just recently got to sit down with ToM(as evidenced by some recent builds...). I would allow binders. But before reading and understanding them, no way! I still wouldnt allow Truenamers... but mostly because i think it was a cool concept done badly.

Really, i dont have the time or inclination as player OR DM to read every piddling 35$ book that WOTC puts out. I wouldnt expect the DM to let me play anything no more than i would as a DM expect the players to all learn a new system because i wanted to play an Incarnum only game. DO i think a ToB/MoI only game would be a scream? Great! SHould i expect my player to learn all that by next friday? No! If they dont wnat to play, sure i could say fine then im not running anything. But that would be a little weird, event if he does have that right.

And id say that the DM has more on his side there, because it is the game he wants to run.

In the end, the player is coming to the DM's world. How many DM's do you see just begging for players, vs players just begging for someone to run? DMs do a lot of work for a player to waltz on in and play, much less **** on his game with CODzilla because a player is pissy and wants to 'teach him a lesson'... which is apperently let me play whatever i want to.

People like that will vote themselves out of playing before long

I'm pretty sure the time for objective debate has passed, but I am one of those people who just can't resist putting my two cents in.

It is absolutely true that a DM has the right to exclude material. The DM also has the right to ban ninjas, or every class beside the fighter, or include their 12th level DMPC in a 2nd level game, or have the game begin underwater so that everyone dies. I am not saying that DM's like Caelic do any of the afore mentioned. I am just putting forth the simple fact that the DM can do anything they want.

The question of what a DM can do is not very interesting. The DM can do anything. The question of what a good DM would do is very interesting, and much harder to answer. Everyone is going to get very emotional about this and argue heatedly about how good DM's should allow players to be hulking hurlers or how spoiled players are when they whine just because the DM killed their character without a roll to enhance the story. Ultimately, I think, D&D is a game and as such should be as fun as possible for all persons involved. What different groups see as being fun will be radically different. Personally, I would not play in a game in which the DM assigned me a character and told me that it was my probationary period. Others will feel differently. Fortunately, we do not all have to play in the same group.

Heh, pointless to argue, but why not eh?

I routinely ban things because I don't like the flavor or the mechanics. If I'm going to rewrite the flavor, I might as well write my own mechanics, too--because I know that they'll generally be more consistent and of higher quality than the stuff being pumped out on a monthly basis nowadays.

To be fair, Caelic does have a pretty good grasp of the rules, but this is just egotistical. I'm hard pressed to believe that much if any material could remain completely consistent when subjected to the optimization board.

You point out a drow ninja wielding two katana's would be inappropriate your campaign, and that is understandable considering the setting. Note your objection may be based on the setting fluff. You can't have Galahad fighting off men in black after all, nor can you have the drow running around in a world without elves. That kills the fluff but as is according to this objection, I don't see an objection to the crunch. BAB 3/4 skill 8+int etc or a human subrace with drow abilities (and weaknesses). other than of course.... you could do it better, but then again, what you could theoretically build may not be what the players are interested in. If players are interested in the crunch, why not give it to them so long as it doesn't interrupt anyone else's enjoyment of the game.

However there are cases in which the crunch might not be appropriate, such as a setting that magic is so low that invisibilty could not countered reasonably or some other type of game imbalance what ever it may be. When crunch disrupts game play or game balance, then i see ground for a dm to object as well, but those cases are exceedingly rare. There's the occassional pun pun or H.I.V.E., but all in all, mechanics are not usually a good means to ban anything but a combination of mechanics.

Even in the case of mix-matched fluff, in my experience dming is that it's effects are hardly worth all the fuss so long as a player is older than 12. It grows less apparent with each passing session, even if it's a bit inconsistant

There are plothooks, and then there's "Hey, lookit me, I'm SPECIAL!"

Whats wrong with a player playing a character of notable background? It's really not that shocking. It just goes back to that twelve year old player thing. For most players who aren't trying to manipulate it mechanically, it quickly becomes secondary to the actual story arc. Besides, for every frodo protagonist, there is a prince of Rohan; for every Luke Skywalker there's a Beowulf. So long as that fluff doesn't grant tremendous mechanic value that might be outside the story arc why complain. (I am the prince of whales, now give your taxes)

I have a group that suffers from access-to-too-many-splatbooks-itis. Character creation is a drag, and role-playing grinds to a halt because they don't look a lot of the stuff up; it's my own fault, really, for allowing them to use any of my books (and I have purchased and own over thirty supplements which I lend out at the drop of a hat). We've gone through four different campaigns in as many months and they just seem to get bored with what they've made... so I drew the purse-strings tight for this game. Core-only. The one guy who I'd been trying to get to try Vow of Poverty out asked me and I turned him down 'cause it's not Core. I had another guy whose been interested in using Psionics but not willing to read up the rules finally pick up the book and Lo! He wants to use Psionics--but it's not Core. And I had, only a few hours before, introduced my padawan-DM (that I'd like to see replace me) to the Hellbred race from Fiendish Codex 2, which I then had to inform him was not allowed, given its non-Core nature.

I feel that the farther our group gets from supplements, the more they will enjoy the game. They simply had too many options and were overwhelmed.

Your group may not be like this, but ours is.

Because WotC puts out a ninja class I have to allow a player to play it? Why? Maybe that role is already filled by the rogues of my game. Should I have to redesign my entire campaign because a player can't redesign a character concept to work with the rules of my game and the cultures and mythos that I've provided?This, I have to say, is my biggest problem with ham-fisted use of the ban-hammer.

You say that a role is filled by rogues in your world. What difference does it make if a few of them are ninjas? This gets said just about every time someone utters the words "Stormwind Fallacy;" classes are a metagame concept. When people look at a character, they may see "Dave" or "The Nightmare of Solomon" or "dark scary guy that just carved out some dude's kidney Ishouldprobablyrunawaynow" but they certainly don't see "Ninja 6/Fighter 4, sporting feats from CScoundrel." If the role is filled by rogues, the role must already exist in the world, and thus the ninja fits almost perfectly already. If you want to ban it, fine, whatever, your game, but do it knowing that your reason for doing so is completely without basis.

D&D is cooperative. We're reasonable people. We know this. Material inclusion should fall under this umbrella, too. Few things are going to just plop down and be perfect for a campaign setting -- there's a reason that just about everything comes with "Using ____ in Faerun" and "Using _____ in Eberron" tags these days, and it's not just to pad page counts. When WotC churns out the material, a lot of it doesn't "just click" for a lot of people.

The important question thus isn't "Does it fit?" so much as "Can it be made to fit?" D&D is a world of compromise -- there are better solutions to most problems than "Screw that, I'm the boss" and "Screw that, I'm leaving." Certainly a campaign world should be somewhat consistent. Drow should not necessarily *BAMF!* into a setting the moment a player wants to be one. Alternatively, they shouldn't not exist simply because the DM hasn't given the matter thought. We're playing D&D here; everything and its cousin can be explained by some form of "A wizard did it" if you absolutely need a fall back.

Some explanations are going to be more fitting than others; some simply won't fit at all. But there should be an effort to compromise here. If a player says "I want to play a drow that wields two katanas," the world's a happier place if your response is "How about an elf with short swords?" rather than "Drow don't exist. Go away." Don't want blade magic? Well, how about splitting Warblade levels with something else and sticking to Iron Heart, maybe with a side of Diamond Mind? Heck, maybe the new inclusion forms the basis for an up-and-coming group or a shift in a society's mindset. PCs are, by the nature of the game, special people. They're movers and shakers, not blacksmiths and bakers. They should be elements for change. Sometimes this happens with character development, and sometimes it happens with character creation.

Flat-out banning things and being totally inflexible doesn't make you a good DM. It doesn't necessarily make you a bad DM, either. It does, however, make you a bit of a mean-old-crankypants. And while there are good reasons for doing these things, one must still be careful to avoid falling into the realm of "Whiny, Spoiled Players." (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=695988)

Pardon me, friends.

Might I add my two cents? Indeed! Well, I believe that I shall, verily!

I have a friend who DMs. In his D&D world, very few PrCs are allowed. Sorcerers don't exist--warlocks do, in their stead. For a gish, you're pretty much fighter 2/wizard 7/EK 10. Some PrCs are available only to NPCs--the blood magus and shadowdancer, for example. Characters are allowed to have one ten-level PrC or two five-level PrCs. Half-elves aren't just a race you get to play. They're rare, and it's a huge deal to be one BECAUSE THEY'RE HALF-ELVEN AND HALF-HUMAN. If I recall correctly, half-orcs are virtually nonexistant, and orcs are all very evil and not playable.

No psionics. No ToB. No Incarnum. No ToM. No skill tricks. Many allowed PrCs are race-restricted. Races have attribute requirements like in second edition. Speaking of races, no freakish or oddball ones.

And, oh, God, don't even ask about playing as a ninja. You will feel pain.

Does this make him a bad DM? I don't think so. It doesn't make him unimaginative, either, as he's told me a bit about his world, and it seems quite interesting.

And you know what? I could say more but my hands are numb and stiff, so nyah.

Damn, I go and watch a couple of episodes of South Park and this pops up...

It is absolutely within the DM's prerogative to not allow things in his game. Elves in Caelic's campaign is a good example. "Well, I'd like to let you play that Drow Ninja, but - <plop> this here 300 page world document says otherwise. You could read it all, but I suspect you don't want to, so trust me when I say - NO DROW NINJAS."

But everyone plays - at least try to fit it in. The answer may still be "No Drow Ninjas", but at least the player knows you tried.

I am guessing that pretty much everything that can be said has pretty much been said.

However, I just couldn't help noticing a certain line about dms supposedly wielding unlimited power. I couldn't disagree more with that.

IMO, while a dm is as much in authority as he should be an authority in this field, he should ideally be relying more on the latter than on the former. The good dm uses firm but reasonable rulings to prevent disruptions to his game and also ensures that the players know the reasons behind why his rulings are the way they are. This not only keeps the game going smoothly, but resolves any feelings of dissent among the players. And in time, players will accede to his rulings more willingly as he has developed a reputation for ruling in favour of the game, not because he is a jerk.

As the saying goes "Justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done". I agree with some of the earlier posters that while the dm has the right to arbitrate, he should do so for fair and just reasons. Being dm does not mean having carte blanche to do as you deem fit. You have to serve the players as much as they serve you. It works both ways.

A dm who keeps banking on his authority as a DM to regulate the game will quickly lose the respect of his players and rapidly fall out of favour, IMO. It might warrant use under the most dire of circumstances, but it should not be utilized that often, if at all if possible.

Rule 0 exists for a reason and this thread does an excellent job at highlighting this reason. Kudos Caelic.

Off topic:

C. Written and published numerous game supplements.

Where might I find some of your published works? I'd be interested in perusing them.

Incorrect. If you ban things out of hand because you don't like the flavour (flavour can be changed with little effort) or because you're too lazy to learn the new rules, then I believe you're either an inferiour D&D player or have control issues.


This is just so wrong on so many different levels.

Last I checked there were close to 100 suplements of varying uselfullness. Many of these, such as Psionics, ToB, ToM and Incarnum contain new rulesets to use in a game. Many others contain elements that do not appear to have been well thought out, or designed to mesh well with each other.

Your comment about being too "lazy" to learn new rules, indicates that you have very little appreciation of the fact that many DMs have lives outside of the game. (Maybe you could look up the word "Family" somewhere). Being a busy person, I simply don't have the time to vet all of these.

Furthermore, having successfull roleplayed since the early 80s using a variety of systems (many with no more than the equivalent of a single book, or two) I know that all of these extra rules and suplements don't actually add anything concrete to the enjoyment of the game. Complexity, yes, but complexity does not equal enjoyment. The enjoyment comes from imagination, not rules.

Furthermore, I think we have probably all witnessed the situation in which something new and unexpected totally breaks the game open, because the DM has been to lazy, cowardly, or unimaginative to appreciate the implications of the newly introduced material.



I'm just sick and tired of people banning new supplements out of hand because "Ninjas don't exist in my world, but assassins do," or "ToB is banned because meleers shouldn't have access to anything even remotely looking like magic."

Why you should be sick and tired over what other people do in their own games is beyond me. Like we all have to do it your way?




HOWEVER, I do realize that not all groups are like mine. What I and we believe D&D is about may not ring true with anybody else. It's your group, y'all do what works for you.

Want to have it both ways now?

Its our group, and we will do what works for us, but you still like to think that we are "too lazy to learn the new rules", or "an inferiour D&D player or have control issues."

Its called rule Zero mate. DMs perogative...


If I go to a table with ToB in hand and the DM screams out loud that it's overpowered and he doesn't want it in his game, I'll say ok. Time for a new character concept. Not 'time to teach this DM a lesson'.

There was a thread a while back where the OP said his DM didn't allow ToB or psionics or some such. Everyone suggested that the OP break the game with a cleric or druid.

The blatant disrespect that people believe a DM should be treated with is baffling.

Yes, there was a guy who came in over the last couple of days, and I'm one of the people who encouraged him to stick it up his DM with a core class.

But this guy had been killed while he wasn't there, and then had the book banned out from under him, because the DM thought it was too powerful.

That was clearly a case of obnoxious DMing, and deserved to be repaid with poetry. Far too many DMs forget that respect needs to be earnt, and can't be demanded. Demand respect, and you breed contempt.




willing ignorance, in my book, is right up there with HATE CRIMES as the worst psychological plague on humanity I can think of.

I am so with you there!! :cool:

I have a problem with a DM running an otherwise open game, a player shelling out $40 on a new book, and the minute he walks in with the book the DM says "oh, sorry, that's off-limits because I don't want to deal with it."
</EDIT>

Personally, anyone who plays in my game knows I'm selective about what I allow in, but I usually allow things in provisionally Then if things don't work, I'll discuss it with the character and do a rewrite.

However, nobody in one of my games would be stupid enough to think that the price of entry for the Planar Shepherd was $45 down at Mindgames, then they deserve to resoundingly mocked.

You wanted it. You bought it. You didn't ask me. Don't complain if you never get to use it.

"I own it, I'll let you borrow it, I'll bring it to every game, and I'll inform you in advance of every new thing I can/will do with it., as well as researching it on the boards and letting you know what people think about it." Do you not trust your players?



Its yours, I'm not interested in it, leave it at home.

And no. My players are chronic powergamers and I wouldn't trust them to leave the game balance intact, if it meant they could show of thier nice shiney toys.

And no, over the years, I've found that players are human and the temptation to cheat and lie is strong.



"



<EDIT> I can't let this slide, sorry.


As I'm the one who said something was inferiour or lazy, I'm going to respond to this.

At no point did I say (or mean to say, if I did, I'm sorry, it's been a long month) that just because you banned X you're a bad DM. Rather, I said that if you ban ANYTHING out of hand without looking at it or even listening to reasoning as to why it should be allowed, then you're a bad DM, and an inferiour player. I explicitly stated that if you have a valid game-world reason to ban it, and you let your players know, then you're fine. I implied (and now explicitly state) that if there's an explicit mechanical imbalance ("brokenness") about something, and you let people know that's why you're banning it, you're fine. What isn't fine is saying "I've never looked at it or played it, but it's broken, so it's not allowed," or "I don't want to have to learn this alternate mechanic, so it's not allowed."

I'm curious as to why the seven days of the month, thus far have been longer for you than for everyone else. Still it doesn't excuse this sort of blinkered arrogance.

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, "I couldn't give a s**t about your new supplement and I'm not interested in learning and implementing new rules", is a perfectly valid reason for not including something in the game.

Hey, how about, "I've just spent 5 hours putting together this weeks adventure and just don't have any more time in my busy professional life to get to grips with your new rule system"?

Does that cut it, or do I have to drop everything so that I can introduce yet another set of new rules into the game? Rules which, experience tells me you'll soon get bored with when the next "new thing" hits the shelves next month?

Just because Wizards writes something doesn't mean that players have to use it. It certainly doesn't give them the right to inflict it on the game that I'm trying to run.

Personally, if you think that my not wanting to wade through nearly 100 official suplements, countless Dragon articles, and god only knows what third party material, makes me an inferior DM, then I can only conclude that you have very little experience in DMing anything outside of DnD 3rd Edn.

Newsflash!! You simply don't need all those books, rules and godonlyknowswhat to have a good time roleplaying!! The "Traveller" universe was nicely encompassed within three A5 sized handbooks of less than 100 pages each. It worked, we had fun and we made things up as required. Are you a baby that needs spoonfeeding?

All I see these days is a continual endless churn of classes, feats and PrCs that end up dominating the players, DM and game.

"
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my argument is being mutilated into things I barely recognize and what I said is being horribly misquoted and/or taken out of context in an attept to score a cheap point. In case you're not aware, that is a classic textbook case of the "strawman" logical fallacy, and either intellectual sloth or intellectual dishonesty, depending on whether you're not reading what I've said multiple times or intentionally distorting my arguement.

I was enjoying the debate, but now I'm going to bed before I say something I regret. I have to be up in six hours anyway.
</EDIT>

Good idea. Sleep on it. I can't wait to see what you have to say tomorrow...

Maybe you could get the sheep to sing you a lullaby...


It's your group, y'all do what works for you
It's your group, y'all do what works for you
It's your group, y'all do what works for you
It's your group, y'all do what works for you




The same logic applies to a Dm that forces all his players to be the same class , same race, chooses all their skill points for them, and talks them through the story and what happens. Decisions that he doesn't like them doing, he arbitrarily says that they can't do that. He *lets* his players make decisions in combat, and that's about it.

The above person is a bad Dm, and would be better suited to write a Novel or choose your own adventure story. It's another extreme example, and doesn't help anything.

I agree. This person is a bad DM. They come in all shapes and sizes. But the reason that he is a bad DM is that he is railroading his players and removing thier free will within the game.

This is an entirely seperate issue to that raise by the OP, which was deciding what books to allow. The latter occurs outside the game context and has little real impact on the player's decisions ingame. While it might restrict some options within the game (no SLA every round for example if there is no warlock), these restrictions are largely cosmetic, as the PHB, DMG and MM1 provide an ample rulebase for the players to do fairly much whatever they want within the game.

Banning ToB, for example doesn't prevent you from fighting melee, it merely means that you can't do it in the peculiar way unique to that book.

-
-
Anyway. Enough for now. I don't post often, but when I do... :rolleyes:

-
-

Hi everyone, :dice:

Besides the fact this is probably in the wrong forum - c'mon, you know it to be true, but I don't mind - I just wanted to poke my head in.

I just wanted to congratulate y'all on keeping a topic that can be - is, damnit - a hotbed of crankiness: calm, well-mannered, well thought out and considered. It's been a pleasure to read.

My own experiences shall not be recanted here, for they add nothing of significance to the topic at hand, but for years this forum has been renowned for having otherwise useful thread devolve into flame wars; I'm glad to see a genuinely useful thread that people can take some advice from to enhance their gaming in general that has avoided that fate.

Kudos to all.

I really dig the crazy-powerful-handful of elves idea, Caelic. May I join your group? I wanna play Bob! :P

I'm just glad it's out of that now-pointless ToB thread. But hooray for it being said someplace! I was pretty slack-jawed at how many people were tossing around the attitude that a DM who was the slightest bit circumspect about what they let into their games was "unimaginative". And sour grapes? Please.

Okay, think of the old fable. Who said the grapes were sour anyway? The fox. The fox wanted the grapes, couldn't get the grapes, and then said they were sour anyway.

Now, who do you think I was referring to when I said sour grapes? Caelic? Because Caelic doesn't want the grapes. The people who are complaining about not getting what they want from Caelic... it seems like they can't get what they want from Caelic, so they just say he's a restrictive DM... just like the fox who couldn't get the grapes said they were sour anyway.

Oh my. It's almost as if the fable fits perfectly into this situation, as long as you have some form of analytical prowess. I can't believe I have to spell out a fable story.

Oh my. It's almost as if the fable fits perfectly into this situation, as long as you have some form of analytical prowess.

Well, gee, thanks for the insult. But in this case the desired rules are the grapes — Caelic is merely the unbridgeable distance between the player and the grapes. So a proper fox-and-grapes analogy would have the player saying "Caelic won't let me play a Drow Ninja. Drow Ninjas suck." So there.

As for personal experience, I've DM'd a few games and probably grown more conservative with each one. The most liberal campaign is the c/o play-by-post game that was intended to allow nearly everything WotC puts out, and even that's not totally laissez-faire.

I've banned stuff b/c I consider it unbalanced and unworkable (Planar Shepherd), stuff that involved too much rules debates (like what version polymorph we're using), and stuff that I didn't understand (Incarnum, for the better part of a year until I figured it out and sorted through any potential ramifications). I've banned stuff I just thought wouldn't fit the campaign or stuff I just hate (Vow of Peace Diplomancers and Chameleons, respectively). I've never lost a player because of any of these decisions.

I have never regretted keeping something out of a campaign, even if it's only temporary. But I have regretted letting new rules into my campaign before I understood them properly.

I'd like to offer the participants of this thread and the boards as a whole an apology for my conduct yesterday. I can't believe I said some of the things I said and used some of the arguments I used. But most of all, I can't believe I let the stress of my personal life spill over here and make me spoil for a fight.

I'm sorry for calling people "inferiour players," and "lazy." I'm sorry for trouncing all over people and their opinions. And I'm sorry for losing sight of the single most important facet of D&D: it's a game, and it doesn't matter how you play so long as everybody's having fun.

I stand by my opinion that people with more options tend to have more fun, and that DMs that banhammer first without considering anything aren't any fun to play with. (I'd like to point out that Caelic and other DMs who have posted don't seem to be that type, because they think things out and have valid reasons for not wanting things in their games, rather than my the MO of some I have experienced, ie, "OMFG, Wizards can destroy the earth but Warlocks are banned because their eldritch blast is at-will.) But I realize now that that's based more on my experiences and my group's playstyle than anything else, so not everybody's experiences (and therefore opinions) will be the same as mine. I also realized that I did a poor job of making my point, resorting to logical fallacies and flaming when I should have been making the effort to make my point clearer. I'm still interested in debating the topic, and will make every attempt to stay civil from here out.

Again, my most sincere apologies for my conduct thus far.

A couple of thoughts....


A DM should be fairly flexible in meeting player expectations. Changing the flavor of pre-packaged material is rarely too difficult. I can usually fit most anything in.

That being said there are things banned in my games for mechanics reasons. Just because Wizards put it out doesn't mean that it isn't broken. The CO boards are great for pointing out game breaking builds & combos.

There other issue is integrity to the setting. The players should work with the DM, so that everyone has fun. The DM is shouldn't be a tyrant or a doormat.

Along the lines of what Previn was saying.....
A lot of what players want in concepts can be satisfied with what Champions call special effect. For example, a ninja can easier be simulated with a rogue, a swashbuckler & a knight can easily be modelled with a fighter (granted the fighter may want to delve into duelist for a swashbuckler). Just because a character has different fluff doesn't mean that they need new mechanics.

After if player asks the DM to change the fluff of something to fit his world so they get access to new crunch, then the player should be willing to accept the crunch the DM wants to use to fit the fluff of a concept.

I know that sounds complicated, but here is what I mean:
Player A wants to be a ninja. The DM doesn't use the ninja core class, but the DM is ok with Player A doing the concept, just as a rogue. The DM is not wrong here. The player should accept it.

I do tend to ban things that really add anything to the character but neat new abilities. If a niche is filled I tend to stick with it.

I don't use swashbucklers, play a fighter that goes into duelist. I don't use ninjas, play a rogue with unarmed strike. I don't use Scouts, play a ranger of a wilderness rogues.

I do use things that give both new niches & fluff, as well as, new mechanics. The Binder is a good example.

This, I have to say, is my biggest problem with ham-fisted use of the ban-hammer.

You say that a role is filled by rogues in your world. What difference does it make if a few of them are ninjas? This gets said just about every time someone utters the words "Stormwind Fallacy;" classes are a metagame concept. When people look at a character, they may see "Dave" or "The Nightmare of Solomon" or "dark scary guy that just carved out some dude's kidney Ishouldprobablyrunawaynow" but they certainly don't see "Ninja 6/Fighter 4, sporting feats from CScoundrel." If the role is filled by rogues, the role must already exist in the world, and thus the ninja fits almost perfectly already. If you want to ban it, fine, whatever, your game, but do it knowing that your reason for doing so is completely without basis.

Again, why should one plop ninja down because a player wants to be a ninja? You cite the Stormwind fallacy but fail to realize that it works both ways. The player is just as responsible for coming up with a concept given the rules and setting you've produced as a DM as you are for coming up with ways to let players have fun.

What do you think people did before the ninja was printed as a class? Sat on their thumbs and ho hummed about how they couldn't play ninjas? One doesn't have to have levels in samurai to be a samurai. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

I can see some frustration on the parts of both sides of this issue. Let me weigh in on it.

When I have a potential player come to me and say something like:

"I would like to play a Wemic something or other with 6 different prestige classes so that he is uber guber battle axe of death swinging freak" (Please note: this is the player's request translated into real speak :D )

My response is usually this: Let me see your character sheet. Then it becomes (If I do not know all of the rules because of a new book or something like it) explain to me how you came to this build.

If they tell me they got it off of the Character Optimisation boards, then I will preform a search. If I find out that it is not their creation, if they are following somebody else's creation, then I ban the character. You see, it is like plagerism to me.

Anyone can turn around and bring out a character sheet with the information someone else did. Why not just bring the stats for Drizzt to the game and be done with it.

On the other hand, if everything checks out, and all of the P's and Q's are lined up ~ (GASP! You mean I would actually have to check? What a freakin tragedy!) I would let the character in the game.

Part of being a good DM is you really have things on your side. You give me your best optimization on this board, and I will counter it with something that is not cheese ~ Like the characters on this optimization board.

Thing is, I applaud the imagination of a few coming up with different builds, and I like the combinations. I also like to see it in play. That is, I like to see a character grow. A lot of times, these combinations would only be good for 20+ level campaigns, and honestly, how many times have you actually played in one?

Most of the builds that I see here have the potential to be unbalancing, if they are placed into the campaign as a vacuum. I would like to see the characters here make it through the low to mid levels though. There is always something tougher out there. While it is cool to dream about your character at 18th level, it does you no good when you're 9th level, in the dungeon, fighting for your life. ;)

Finally, my answer in general is to not ban. I will always find a way for the character to defeat themselves. A lot of these builds function on one trick ponies. For example, the latest build I have read about the half giant bull rushing freak. Not a bad build, but very focused on one thing. So how does this character do outside of the dungeon? In a city? Perhaps in the underdark? Better yet ~ underwater? (Grin) Part of the job as a DM is to challenge the players by running the NPCs/Monsters as smart as you can within the limits of the intelligence/wisdom of said creature(s).

Banning things outright is in fact, lazy. Even with a "planned" excuse. (IE My campaign has no elves! Nyah!) I once tried to run that (back about 15 years ago when I was not a mature player.) There is always an exception to the rule. Otherwise it would not be fantasy. There is some real roleplaying experiences to be had being the only elf that is not insane in a human based world. Perhaps he is a human with elven blood in him. So what? It is such a minor thing.

Do I ban the Chameleon class because I think it is too powerful? No. I adjust. Perhaps some people should be adjusting the stat blocks of different creatures/NPCs based on party composition. (GASP! You mean we have to do that? That's part of being a DM? But I am using such-and-such module! I cannot change the printed stats! Hmmm... may need to rethink the whole being a DM thing.)

That feat getting you down? So what? Adjust. Your job is to make things challenging for the players. So many times I have seen the whole "you should not change an encounter based on one PC" Hogwash. I say you should. If the PC is taking all the limelight, you MUST compensate for that, or you will have a table full of bored players.

Anyways, enough of the soapbox, and I think I got the value of my 2 Galleons.

Kalmarjan

After playing for several years, i tried my hand at DM-ing. I wanted to do something "different", and came up with a setting in which there was a race war going on between humans and the invading elves. Obviously, with the party to be on the human side, elves were banned. I tied to classes to races (for instance sorceror would be elf-only, but wizards could be from any race). And it worked. The campaign was really cool, players did not complain - in fact, the players LIKED the fact that the campaign was different in this way. My moral here is that the conservativeness of the DM should match the players - it is a DM's prerogative to run a game as he likes to run it, and then to find the players which would like to play it.

I'd like to also add something to the debate: inter-player balance. I've DM'd groups with both very experienced players and absolute newbies. And part of the job here is to ensure that the experienced players do not end up with much powerfull characters then the newbees .... and yes, being conservative absolutely helps. There is no doubt that a ToB owner is able to make a more powerfull character then someone who just owns a PHB - more options equals more power. But it is up to the DM to ensure that all players have their niches in combat. Seeing a newbie playing a barbarian being outgunned by the local wildshaper will break the newbie's fun, and it is your job as a DM to prevent this from happening.

Not everybody optimizes, but inter-party balance is an absolute must for a good game. And this balance is achieved with both "coaching" newbies (so you wanted to play a rogue-ish wizard, hmm, take a look at the Arcane Trickster!), and keeping the optimizers in tome. And yes, this does mean that the optimizer can not use 8 PrC's in a single character ... because it will make him outshine the other players.

This, I have to say, is my biggest problem with ham-fisted use of the ban-hammer.

You say that a role is filled by rogues in your world. What difference does it make if a few of them are ninjas? This gets said just about every time someone utters the words "Stormwind Fallacy;" classes are a metagame concept. When people look at a character, they may see "Dave" or "The Nightmare of Solomon" or "dark scary guy that just carved out some dude's kidney Ishouldprobablyrunawaynow" but they certainly don't see "Ninja 6/Fighter 4, sporting feats from CScoundrel." If the role is filled by rogues, the role must already exist in the world, and thus the ninja fits almost perfectly already. If you want to ban it, fine, whatever, your game, but do it knowing that your reason for doing so is completely without basis.

There issue is that every role or concept doesn't need new mechanics. Especially if the mechanics are bad or unbalancing.

The classes/prcs/race etc. are partially metagame constructs, but the mechanics behind just about everything are metagame devices. (ie No character actually says, "I have an 18 Charisma, you must love me.")

The issue isn't the ninja as a concept the issue is the mechanics. You say why not let someone play a ninja. Obviously it is because DM X has an issue with the mechanics of the class.

Having a PC class of any kind makes the PCs special. NPCs with PCs classes are suppose to rare.

Another big issue I have is that Wizards material does not overrule the DM. Just because they put it out doesn't mean it has to be used.

Honestly in 25 years of gaming, this usually comes up when someone is trying to cheese out a character. Most players when they here that class/race/feat/etc X is banned but are give an alterantive that fits the concept are fine with it. The people who make a stink are usually trying to get an advantage. It really isn't even about a concept, it is about numbers.

There is always an exception to the rule. Otherwise it would not be fantasy.
Er, I have to disagree very strongly here. Consider the definition from The Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute and John Grant:
The identifying traits of fantasy are the inclusion of fantastic elements in a self-coherent setting.
The particularly important part of that definition is a self-coherent setting. Consider any fantasy novel you have read: there might be magic or fantastic creatures, but things happen for a reason, things exist for reason. These reasons might not be those of our world, but they make sense in the fantasy world's context. The author should not break the readers "willing suspension of disbelief" with elements that make no sense.

I believe the same thing is true of a reasonable FRPG world too. I also think that at some point if you throw too many elements into a world, it gets very hard indeed to suspend that disbelief.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

After playing for several years, i tried my hand at DM-ing. I wanted to do something "different", and came up with a setting in which there was a race war going on between humans and the invading elves. Obviously, with the party to be on the human side, elves were banned. I tied to classes to races (for instance sorceror would be elf-only, but wizards could be from any race). And it worked. The campaign was really cool, players did not complain - in fact, the players LIKED the fact that the campaign was different in this way. My moral here is that the conservativeness of the DM should match the players - it is a DM's prerogative to run a game as he likes to run it, and then to find the players which would like to play it.

See, I like this, because at least you had a reason for doing so ~ and your players agreed. Now, imagine if a player came to you saying they wanted to play an elf, to mix things up a little bit. Would you ban him? Or would you look into other roleplaying opportunties? Perhaps the elf in the party must conceal his true nature? Perhaps he is a deep cover agent working for the elves, but comprimised, now working for the humans? The answer may not be to ban the character, but work with the player.

I'd like to also add something to the debate: inter-player balance. I've DM'd groups with both very experienced players and absolute newbies. And part of the job here is to ensure that the experienced players do not end up with much powerfull characters then the newbees .... and yes, being conservative absolutely helps. There is no doubt that a ToB owner is able to make a more powerfull character then someone who just owns a PHB - more options equals more power. But it is up to the DM to ensure that all players have their niches in combat. Seeing a newbie playing a barbarian being outgunned by the local wildshaper will break the newbie's fun, and it is your job as a DM to prevent this from happening.

I do not really see it this way. If you have newbies in the group, why is it only the DM "training" them? I would think that perhaps the more experienced players would help the newbies with their character building. You touch on the fact that it is your job that all players are balanced equally. Not really. Your job is to make sure that everyone is having fun, regardless of their character builds.

Not everybody optimizes, but inter-party balance is an absolute must for a good game. And this balance is achieved with both "coaching" newbies (so you wanted to play a rogue-ish wizard, hmm, take a look at the Arcane Trickster!), and keeping the optimizers in tome. And yes, this does mean that the optimizer can not use 8 PrC's in a single character ... because it will make him outshine the other players.

Again, it comes down to how you DM. I can give a player with a plain jane fighter just as much fun as the 12 prestie class bearing player. It all comes down to your skill as a DM. It comes down to how you tailor your encounters for your players. (But the stat blocks were not written that way! GASP! ;) )

Kalmarjan

Er, I have to disagree very strongly here. Consider the definition from The Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute and John Grant:

The particularly important part of that definition is a self-coherent setting. Consider any fantasy novel you have read: there might be magic or fantastic creatures, but things happen for a reason, things exist for reason. These reasons might not be those of our world, but they make sense in the fantasy world's context. The author should not break the readers "willing suspension of disbelief" with elements that make no sense.



Have the book. It is a fantastic addition to my shelf. Consider this though, almost all fantasy novels (to use your supposition for a second) all hinge on something that is introduced as an exception to the rule. For example, terry goodkind's SOT series. You have a world where magic "does not exist", but that is turned on its head when it is revealed that Richard Rahl's grandfather is a First Wizard, and Richard Rahl is indeed a War Wizard with Subtractive and Additive magic. Now, using the model you stated above, it would be well with a DM's right to ban anyone from having a character that utilized subtractive magic. If that were to occur, then you would not have the basis for a War Wizard, and the story would end at the first book.

Yes, it is a novel, but it illustrates a point. Fantasy becomes fantasy when you introduce something that is an exception to the normal accepted reality. The characters are supposed to be the center of the universe. (Otherwise, why not play a Commoner12/farmer4 and be done with it?)


I believe the same thing is true of a reasonable FRPG world too. I also think that at some point if you throw too many elements into a world, it gets very hard indeed to suspend that disbelief.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

I agree. But in the case of a character, you are dealing with an anomoly. Even in the FRPG world, everyone is not a hero. You are dealing in the world of special people, with special powers. The point is to make things fun for the whole party. It may mean that you have to be on your toes, but that is the mark of a good DM. You can have a massively powerful comic book hero, but there is always something that can challenge the hero, otherwise it would be a boring comic to read.

Kalmarjan

I can see some frustration on the parts of both sides of this issue ...
Banning things outright is in fact, lazy. Even with a "planned" excuse. (IE My campaign has no elves! Nyah!) I once tried to run that (back about 15 years ago when I was not a mature player.)

So with that you're implying that DMs who create a world without elves are both lazy and immature? I can't imagine where the frustration you're noticing is coming from ... thoughtless comments, maybe?

Personally, I like Caelic's no-elves campaign and the reason for it. And even if I didn't, I'd respect his decision without suggesting he's lazy (which he's plainly not) or immature (again, evidence points to not).

Have the book. It is a fantastic addition to my shelf. Consider this though, almost all fantasy novels (to use your supposition for a second) all hinge on something that is introduced as an exception to the rule. For example, terry goodkind's SOT series. You have a world where magic "does not exist", but that is turned on its head when it is revealed that Richard Rahl's grandfather is a First Wizard, and Richard Rahl is indeed a War Wizard with Subtractive and Additive magic. Now, using the model you stated above, it would be well with a DM's right to ban anyone from having a character that utilized subtractive magic. If that were to occur, then you would not have the basis for a War Wizard, and the story would end at the first book.

Yes, it is a novel, but it illustrates a point. Fantasy becomes fantasy when you introduce something that is an exception to the normal accepted reality. The characters are supposed to be the center of the universe. (Otherwise, why not play a Commoner12/farmer4 and be done with it?)




I agree. But in the case of a character, you are dealing with an anomoly. Even in the FRPG world, everyone is not a hero. You are dealing in the world of special people, with special powers. The point is to make things fun for the whole party. It may mean that you have to be on your toes, but that is the mark of a good DM. You can have a massively powerful comic book hero, but there is always something that can challenge the hero, otherwise it would be a boring comic to read.

Kalmarjan

The problem being that when every player is an anomaly, it's not unquie or special any more, and it doesn't carry the story.

Say the SoT series suddenly has Verna get Subtractive magic too. Suddenly Richard isn't so special. Then Jennsen suddenly finds that she is magically gifted, with types of magic none the less! And each of your players/characters keeps breaking the mold and the whole story goes to pot.

For example, Caelic's game allows a single player to be an elf because the player want to play one. All the players suddenly think being elves is so mysterious and new, and everyone wants to play one (Drizzt syndrome). What does that do to the game? How many exceptions do you make?

If you make exceptions everytime someone wants something, that's where your game/story is headed. Too many cooks and all that.

Well... I suppose I knew this was coming... even if it doesn't belong in Co forums.

....
I have a lot to say, but I have school today and it mostly boils down to This: There are A-holes on both sides of this "debate" everyone's background and experience makes them feel differently about this topic.
So I hope I don't come off as a jerk.

Don't subject your self to playing with unreasonable jerks be it "acting" Dm or
"acting" player"
The Dm is not the "boss" because somethings you can do will just get you unseated as a DM. Anyone sitting at the table can do the job so don't act an high and mighty when its your turn. Which is not a D&D issue but a real life social issue. In my group we rotate Dm'ing so its a shared burden/blessing for all.

the rest is a personal anecdote.
My story Part 1.
I broke away from an couple (man and his woman) dms of one too lax/one too opressive DM.
The initial rub was this... I was playing a fighter, he houseruled that all characters get double the feats. That is to say at 1st 3rd 6th 9th etc you go two feats instead of one. Not to say bonus feats though of course.
We were friends and I pointed out that this situation really slaps down playing a fighter. This was one of my initial exposures to 3.5 from Ad&D years before that. I essentially did want him to fix that rule. He was not so obliging
I was accepting of this as I was still learning the system. His wife simply hated optimized play... But overall it was the rubric they played on that cheesed me off. They had this idea that all clerics were there for was healing batteries, fighters should always walk in the room first, etc.... then the grief I got when challenging these notions was astounding I got called "min-maxer and said to be acting "munchkiny" for really just making good play decisions.
This almost made me give up on this game.

Now there are a lot of things that I feel are Dm's perogative. In the end however, I want to play D&D not your idea of what d&d should be. I can get into a campaign world, but there are things I'm just not gonna agree and really no one with working knowledge of the game should.

Core only, for a brief time, I would not agree too. I decided the "core" 3.5 books were unbalanced (then I found the Co boards and it confirmed it) I try to explain it to people some get it some don't. Those that dont' understand that get the CoDzilla. Not because I'm a jerk but moreso to say let me show you what I mean okay? I give them the premise and show them what I mean. I realized that overall I end up dm'ing alot because I have a firm understanding and respect for the rules and a knack for storytelling.
There's no reason to ban most things but I do understand saying you can't use that because I as a dm dont' understand it.

Even in Caelic's game there could be a player who want to play an elven traitor... or a half-elven torn in between. If the party would agree to it then it should be allowed, but it shouldn't be the Dm who says. I DON"T WANT!
Then maybe its you being selfish. I think.
Races can be more tricky to adjucate than classes. Though I can understand where you're coming from cohesion-wise.
See you in 3 hours.
M.

So with that you're implying that DMs who create a world without elves are both lazy and immature? I can't imagine where the frustration you're noticing is coming from ... thoughtless comments, maybe?

Personally, I like Caelic's no-elves campaign and the reason for it. And even if I didn't, I'd respect his decision without suggesting he's lazy (which he's plainly not) or immature (again, evidence points to not).

He is not saying such things Rilem. I think he's referring to Dms who ban outright and aren't willing to work with the player. He's also referring to a kind of Dm who does this out of spite, and gives no reasons for banning stuff.

These exaggerated assumptions need to stop if this discussion will get anywhere.

He is not saying such things Rilem...

Sounded that way to me ... when you say "I used do so such-and-such, back when I was immature," you're implying that people who still do such-and-such are immature.

Maybe he didn't think of the implications of what he said. That's what I meant about "thoughtless comments".

Let me give you another example ~ I would have soooo much fun as a DM to anyone who tried to pull off this trick on me:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=705721

For example,

If you summon an Efreeti using the candle, you get three Wishes for 8400 gold. Use the two first Wishes for whatever you like and use the last of the three to ask for a Candle of Invocation. Rince and repeat!

I would smile, and give the player exactly what they wanted, the spent candle of evocation. :) (Wishes need to be carefully worded remember.)

Or how about this:

If you want to slip this by your DM, here's how I'd do it. Buy the candle along with a bunch of other stuff after a big payday, just as an afterthought alongside whatever else you're buying. Don't use it for a long time -- like, several levels. Then pull it out during a big fight and actually use your angel to fight for a few rounds. Only when he's just about to run out do you turn around and say "oh, also I wish for a big pile of Tomes". Ideally your DM won't have suspected anything, and at that point there's nothing he can do about it without retroactively changing the rules.

Hmm. This one would be a no-brainer. You got your wish. A pile of Tomes, all non magical. Again, careful how you word your wish.

I once had a player use the spiked chain fighter build. Now you would think I was frustrated? Nope. The baddies in the campaign quickly figured out who the chain warrior was, (after a few free kills for him) and instructed their troops in counter measures. IIRC, the chain fighter fell to a undead creature with reach. (A broken bone, a creation of mine that mixed a skeleton with a whirlwind) Problem for the chainslinger was his 10' reach did not help him there. He quickly found out that some of the bigger bad guys also used ranged attacks on him. Sure, he got his fill of the lower baddies, because that is what his character was built for, no?

So instead of nerfing the concept, (I saw what it was right away) the NPCs used their Intelligence/Wisdom to counter it. After all, their job is not to fall at the hands of the PCs.

Kalmarjan

Don't subject your self to playing with unreasonable jerks be it "acting" Dm or
"acting" player"


I once had a player use the spiked chain fighter build. Now you would think I was frustrated? Nope. The baddies in the campaign quickly figured out who the chain warrior was, (after a few free kills for him) and instructed their troops in counter measures. IIRC, the chain fighter fell to a undead creature with reach. (A broken bone, a creation of mine that mixed a skeleton with a whirlwind) Problem for the chainslinger was his 10' reach did not help him there. He quickly found out that some of the bigger bad guys also used ranged attacks on him. Sure, he got his fill of the lower baddies, because that is what his character was built for, no?

So instead of nerfing the concept, (I saw what it was right away) the NPCs used their Intelligence/Wisdom to counter it. After all, their job is not to fall at the hands of the PCs.

Kalmarjan

That is an interesting concept but its really very easy to dispatch fighters we all know this.
I like the adaptive universe concept and allowing stronger things... but....

You punished him for trying his best to make a poor class work. Its like no Npcs in your world have really used ranged weapons then your party spell caster learns fly... At which point every NPC in the universe suddenly comes equipped with +2 longbows or whatever... It says in the Dmg not to do this as a DM. Foul.

The problem being that when every player is an anomaly, it's not unquie or special any more, and it doesn't carry the story.

Say the SoT series suddenly has Verna get Subtractive magic too. Suddenly Richard isn't so special. Then Jennsen suddenly finds that she is magically gifted, with types of magic none the less! And each of your players/characters keeps breaking the mold and the whole story goes to pot.


Actually, (to continue the example), Richard pairs up with a woman who has and uses subtractive magic. (Nicci), and Jennsen is another anomoly. In the world of the SoT, everyone is magical, except those born without the spark. This goes to show you that the "cast" of main characters are all anomolies, and is what makes them interesting.

For example, Caelic's game allows a single player to be an elf because the player want to play one. All the players suddenly think being elves is so mysterious and new, and everyone wants to play one (Drizzt syndrome). What does that do to the game? How many exceptions do you make?

If you make exceptions everytime someone wants something, that's where your game/story is headed. Too many cooks and all that.

In Caelic's game, it would come down to roleplaying. So what if the whole party wanted to be elves? Then you have another experience alltogether. Now you have a group of elves, plunged into a human world, with all that comes with that. Everyone wants to play Drizzt because he was a cool character in a series of books. The difference would be that at least having an elf (or a group of elves) in a non elf world would open up the possibilities of roleplaying. (And optimization!) On the other hand, if all the characters were exactly the same... that would be a different story. (And would be like the Drizzt syndrome)

One thing I think a lot of DM's do not know, or forget:

Basically DMing is a lot like customer service. The trick is to give the "customers" (players) the impression that you are giving them what they want, without giving them your shirt off of your back. You want everyone to have fun, and be happy, yourself included.

As a DM, I have fun. Even if someone were to bring (or try to) Pun Pun in my game, I bet I could still make it fun. There is always a way to counter ANYTHING in game without a deux ex machina like banning the character. What it comes down to is playing your role as a DM and make it challenging for them.

Kalmarjan

There is always a way to counter ANYTHING in game without a deux ex machina like banning the character. What it comes down to is playing your role as a DM and make it challenging for them.


Here you and I totally agree.

Let me give you another example ~ I would have soooo much fun as a DM to anyone who tried to pull off this trick on me:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=705721
....

So instead of nerfing the concept, (I saw what it was right away) the NPCs used their Intelligence/Wisdom to counter it. After all, their job is not to fall at the hands of the PCs.

Kalmarjan

Which then just goes on to you and the player trying to outsmart each other over wishes. Is that really the best use of anyone's time? You having to figure out some loophole to not give the player what they were going for rather than just saying no in the first place?

I like the adaptive universe concept and allowing stronger things... but....

You punished him for trying his best to make a poor class work. Its like no Npcs in your world have really used ranged weapons then your party spell caster learns fly... At which point every NPC in the universe suddenly comes equipped with +2 longbows or whatever... It says in the Dmg not to do this as a DM. Foul.

No, I did not punish him. In fact, I gave him what he wanted. The ability to kick but with his build. There was no foul, I gave nothing "special" to the NPCs. All I did was play them to their abilities.

In the above example, the big bad guys knew that if the chain fighter were to get close to them, they would be curtains. If they rushed to attack him, they would be curtains. So they sicced a bunch of low level baddies on him to curb that danger. Hey - NPCs have a right to live too.

When the character died, he made a new character. Thing is, he really missed his old character, because he was not "feeling" the new one. He actually liked kicking but like his character was supposed to do.

So in effect, I did not nerf him, I gave him exactly what he wanted. Do you see the difference?

As for not giving your NPCs proper equipment? Show me the passage in the DMG (page number please) that says that I should not adjust the encounter's difficulty based on the PC party strength? Take a look on pages 49-50 in the DMG for suggestions on how to ramp up the difficulty of encounters.



Kalmarjan

Which then just goes on to you and the player trying to outsmart each other over wishes. Is that really the best use of anyone's time? You having to figure out some loophole to not give the player what they were going for rather than just saying no in the first place?

And the player is not trying to use a loophole? Saying no is bad form. It is much better, in my opinion to say "no" in the context of the game. So basically, saying "no" with actions instead of words. Your players will better accept the response. ;)

Wish as a spell in earlier editions of D&D was regarded as a dangerous spell. You had to be careful of what you wished for, because you just may get it. :D

Kalmarjan

I once had a player use the spiked chain fighter build. Now you would think I was frustrated? Nope. The baddies in the campaign quickly figured out who the chain warrior was, (after a few free kills for him) and instructed their troops in counter measures. IIRC, the chain fighter fell to a undead creature with reach. (A broken bone, a creation of mine that mixed a skeleton with a whirlwind) Problem for the chainslinger was his 10' reach did not help him there. He quickly found out that some of the bigger bad guys also used ranged attacks on him. Sure, he got his fill of the lower baddies, because that is what his character was built for, no?

So instead of nerfing the concept, (I saw what it was right away) the NPCs used their Intelligence/Wisdom to counter it. After all, their job is not to fall at the hands of the PCs.

I like the idea of a reactive world. I probably wouldn't make it a sudden thing (you need time for word to spread and appropriate counter-tactics to be developed), but intelligent NPCs definitely ought to be able to come up with something other than "I stand there and die," when faced with a new tactic. If the countermeasures followed the PCs from one area to the next, or if the perfect counters were put in place the day after the fighter picked up the spiked chain, that might be a bit much. But you're absolutely right that those threatened by the new tactic, once they find out about it, would make an effort to find a way around it.

Saying no is bad form.
Kalmarjan

I don't think it is, really. Saying "no" is expected as part of any negotiation.

And it's much easier to turn a "no" into a "yes" than it is to turn a "yes" into a "no" — point being, it's easier for a DM to put a ban on new material until you see it properly playtested than it is to allow everything and realize too late you let in an unbalanced ruleset or one that doesn't work with your group.

I realize this isn't what you were saying, by the way, and I don't have a problem with your anti-tripping or anti-wish tactics. Your quote just reminded me of the no-yes thing and I figured I'd mention it.

I like the idea of a reactive world. I probably wouldn't make it a sudden thing (you need time for word to spread and appropriate counter-tactics to be developed), but intelligent NPCs definitely ought to be able to come up with something other than "I stand there and die," when faced with a new tactic. If the countermeasures followed the PCs from one area to the next, or if the perfect counters were put in place the day after the fighter picked up the spiked chain, that might be a bit much. But you're absolutely right that those threatened by the new tactic, once they find out about it, would make an effort to find a way around it.

Ahh good. Someone who gets it. :D

Again, it is not me VS my players. I actually get a kick out of seeing them kick some butt. I do not encourage boring, cookie cutter play.

In the case of the above, like I said, I give the player what he wants. When they go to a new area, the player would get to kill to his heart's content. The denziens of that area would catch on very quick. Later on in the campaign, things get a little tricker, as the character now has a reputation. A 18th level chain fighter would probably be world renowned at that point for his prowress with the spiked chain. Unfortunately, his weaknesses would also be known.

Consider Archilles from greek mythology. Even he had a weakness ~ an arrow to the tendon at the bottom of his ankle. Everyone knew he could not be beat in battle... even Paris, who killed him with an arrow. :)

Kalmarjan

Consider Archilles from greek mythology. Even he had a weakness ~ an arrow to the tendon at the bottom of his ankle. Everyone knew he could not be beat in battle... even Paris, who killed him with an arrow.

Indeed, NPCs want to live too.

I don't have a problem with your Wish approach either, since the lore I've ever read about genies and the like all say they're horrible (or really great, depending on how you look at it) rules lawyers. (Aside: I saw a neat take on that the other day. My little bro was watching some cartoon, and the hero, in order to get what he wanted out of the genie, went and got a lawyer to write up the wish. Because of that idea, I think that any of my players that uses Wish and succeeds on a DC 20+genie's INT mod Profession: Lawyer check gets exactly what he wants :) )

Actually, (to continue the example), Richard pairs up with a woman who has and uses subtractive magic. (Nicci), and Jennsen is another anomoly. In the world of the SoT, everyone is magical, except those born without the spark. This goes to show you that the "cast" of main characters are all anomolies, and is what makes them interesting.

Everyone is an anomaly! That's not very interesting, nor an anomaly. It's not the powers that make the characters, but the otherway around. It's not the ninja class that makes a ninja it how the player plays the character.

In Caelic's game, it would come down to roleplaying. So what if the whole party wanted to be elves? Then you have another experience alltogether. Now you have a group of elves, plunged into a human world, with all that comes with that. Everyone wants to play Drizzt because he was a cool character in a series of books. The difference would be that at least having an elf (or a group of elves) in a non elf world would open up the possibilities of roleplaying. (And optimization!) On the other hand, if all the characters were exactly the same... that would be a different story. (And would be like the Drizzt syndrome)

And would not be Caelic's game. It would literally ruin what, 20 years of work? Is that worthwhile compared to just having a player not be an elf? Why is everyone so willing to trash a DM's hardwork because a player must have his way? There's a differenece between maing a new game and destroying the concepts of an existing one.

One thing I think a lot of DM's do not know, or forget:

Basically DMing is a lot like customer service. The trick is to give the "customers" (players) the impression that you are giving them what they want, without giving them your shirt off of your back. You want everyone to have fun, and be happy, yourself included.

Problem being that the customer isn't always right. Ninjas do not belong in a true European setting. Infinite wishes is not the best thing for the game, and yes it is a major plot point that your fighting against the elves, not for or with them. Consider what would happen if RttToEE a player wanted be a cultist, and then all the other players decide the same thing. It bascially destroys the module completely. You have to rewrite pretty much everything. Might as well just start a new game for all the work involved.

I do not understand why the concept of everyone, DM and players alike, needing limits is a difficult thing to grasp. You list a good example, but then gloss over that just banned it from the start with a quick explanation is a lot better than dealing with everything as it comes up.

As a DM, I have fun. Even if someone were to bring (or try to) Pun Pun in my game, I bet I could still make it fun. There is always a way to counter ANYTHING in game without a deux ex machina like banning the character. What it comes down to is playing your role as a DM and make it challenging for them.

Kalmarjan

You could counter Pun-pun without a deux ex machina? I find that statement to be absurd in the extreme. You basically banned the candle of invocation trick for infinite wishes (actually you just slowed it down till the player wishes for a charge candle), you just dressed up your banning with an in game reason.

A 'counter' is a fancy way of saying 'no it's not allowed' as far as I can tell. Why not save everyone the time and just say no at the start?

That being said, why is it always the DM's role to bend over backwards for a selfish player? Why can't a player be flexable and work with in the setting the DM has made? Why does the player get to be 100% inflexable and the DM have to be 100% flexable? Where is the logic in that?

I realize this isn't what you were saying, by the way, and I don't have a problem with your anti-tripping or anti-wish tactics. Your quote just reminded me of the no-yes thing and I figured I'd mention it.

It is not about Anti-This or Anti-That. I am against disruption for sure. Many good DMs who have been playing for years and years know about the balance of the game. There are some broken builds out there, I admit.

Look at it this way: Your job at the Table as the DM is to make the players believe that their character's lives are in danger, right? Otherwise, it would become boring VERY fast.

If one one side, there is a player who threatens the balance of the whole game with a build from the optimization boards, how do you rectify that? Perhaps you mistakenly let Pun Pun in your game.

On one side of this debate is the "BAN HIM! BURN THE BOOOKS!"
The other side is: "YOU'RE A LAZY DM FOR BANNING"

I am right in the middle. If someone showed me Pun Pun, I would laugh in their face, and tell them to go make a character, and stop copying someone else's ideas.

If they brought me another character that had the chance to be unbalancing for the party (and how do you gage that BTW?) It would be my job to bring things back in the balance.

Have you all seen the articles saying to tailor encounters based on your party's weaknesses and strengths? The idea is to GIVE your players what they are asking for with thier builds.

For example, the new bull rushing build from dungeonscape. The player wants to try something new... and they want to do some amazing amount of damage while doing it.

Do I nerf it? No. Why not give them what they want? I am not saying make all the combats require the set up for this situation, but at least their could be a few. Is it unbalancing? No. I would also give the player something tailored to his weakness, and see if he can get his way out.

Conflict is what creates the fun. The danger is what creates the fun. Saying a flat out "NO" does not indicate fun.

Some people are right BTW when they are talking about how DMs think they are the arbitrary "rulers" of the universe. What a load of crap. That is one thing that has always bothered me about this hobby. Those DMs with a complex that feel like they have to be the final "god speaking" word about everything.

Let me ask those DM's this:

You have what you want. Absolute control. Your players are ****** (or some of them are), they are playing in YOUR game. Is this cool?

OUR game is pretty cool. You can be basically anything you want. As long as you can back it up in play. Expect to be challenged when I DM. Heck, I'll even give you all 18s if that would make you happy. One thing though, and all of my players understand this. What goes for you, also goes for the NPCs.

Kalmarjan

Indeed, NPCs want to live too.

I don't have a problem with your Wish approach either, since the lore I've ever read about genies and the like all say they're horrible (or really great, depending on how you look at it) rules lawyers. (Aside: I saw a neat take on that the other day. My little bro was watching some cartoon, and the hero, in order to get what he wanted out of the genie, went and got a lawyer to write up the wish. Because of that idea, I think that any of my players that uses Wish and succeeds on a DC 20+genie's INT mod Profession: Lawyer check gets exactly what he wants :) )

LOL. Now that just made my day. Can you imagine an episode of Monty Python regarding this?

Kalmarjan

Finally, my answer in general is to not ban. I will always find a way for the character to defeat themselves. A lot of these builds function on one trick ponies. For example, the latest build I have read about the half giant bull rushing freak. Not a bad build, but very focused on one thing. So how does this character do outside of the dungeon? In a city? Perhaps in the underdark? Better yet ~ underwater? (Grin) Part of the job as a DM is to challenge the players by running the NPCs/Monsters as smart as you can within the limits of the intelligence/wisdom of said creature(s).

Indeed. In fact, if you check my bull rushing thread, you'll notice my DM posted there. I was playing a very competent "bull-rushing freak" and having a lovely time. I have NOT found, however, that it's a do-all, be-all, perfect character. My DM and I have really enjoyed playing out a variety of combat situations, and I think we've BOTH learned to be better with tactical battle-mat movement as a result. It's been loads of fun.

Then we met up with a demon.

I think many of the problems DMs run into have less to do with players being ridiculous in their requests and more to do with their own capabilities and knowledge of the rules. The module my DM was running called for this demon (a flying one who showed up as we were crossing a rope bridge spanning a huge chasm) to use flyby attack and rakes to harry the party.

My DM saw that it had acid fog (solid fog that makes acid damage!), blasphemy, and cloud kill.

Luckily it's an evil party, so the blasphemy didn't outright kill us.

In the end, we ran. He took pity and, instead of having it be SMART (i.e., continue casting nasty ranged spells that limited our movement and made us completely ineffective), had it give chase.

My rusher killed it in one hit when it rounded the corner, smushing it into the wall. On the other hand, if my DM had continued using the creature's abilities intelligently, we would have had no chance - in hell or elsewhere. We would have been steamrollered.

The thing is that at certain power levels DnD becomes an elaborate game of "paper-scissors-rock." Force Cage/Solid Fog beats Bull Rush. Dimension Door beats Force Cage/Solid Fog. True Seeing beats Invisibility. And so on.

I believe DMs should have control of their games. That said, I play with friends - people I know and like. We don't argue much about rules; we're there to have a good time and hang out with each other. If we spent a lot of time arguing, we wouldn't game. For me, gaming's a fun way to hang with friends - not something that possesses independent merit. It is a fun way to exercise your brain, though, which is why I lurk around this board.

Bottom line is that most arguments between a DM and players usually stem from a differing knowledge of the rules. A DM who does not run his monsters optimally won't be ready for a player who creates his character optimally.

What "should" happen in these circumstances is really dependent on the circumstances. Most of the time it's better for one to voluntarily limit his capacities - like in my example above. My DM could have killed my party - eadily - because he knew the rules for the creature's abilities and was using them to maximum effect. However, he chose not to kill us - after all, when you're stomped like ants it doesn't feel quite as satisfying when you die heroically, almost taking the bad-guy out.

As an alternate example, take the other game I'm in at the moment. The guy running has every WotC book published and nearly every 3rd party splatbook as well. He has characters in his games roll 4d6, re-roll any 1's or 2's, and roll 7 times - drop the lowest. He also lets you roll stats as many times as you like. He lets you use EVERY BOOK he owns, and he loves creatures with level adjustments - he actually says he "hates humans." Often.

So I made a character. I was so blown away by some of the feats he was allowing (like the one that lets you spend 1d4 hit points for an extra partial action once per round) that I went nuts.

I scared him.

He initially couldn't believe what my character was capable of. I walked him through it. I then realized I'd gone overboard and shredded my sheet. I went through a dozen or so ideas with him, throwing out some I knew would be too scary and making my builds much more generalized. He liked a few, I chose one, I played it. Everybody's happy! The game is tons of fun (I've gotten used to his style of play - kind of epic, in a way), and I don't feel in any way "limited" by having to play something with a little less "bang." It's kind of like driving my '64 Chrysler Newport (her name is Harriet!) - she's not a Porsche, but she's got a lovely driving feel all her own (rather like a yacht at high tide).

I think my bottom line is: be friendly. Be understanding. Play with people you get along with. Respect each other.

Peace, love, and dice, baby!

I have two points to make. One, this DM-player time thing is annoying me. There are 8 players in my current game, so in our typical 5 hour seesion, we put in 40 hours. I know the DM does not put in 35 hours prepping that game. The players as a unit put in more time. Whatever makes the group of players happy seems most important.
Secondly, this I don't have time to learn a new system argument ticks me off. I know Caelic is likely familiar with everything WotC puts out't, so this statement doesn't appy to him, but I'm sure that his 300 page setting probably took a long time to write. I also know that it is hard to memorize the exact dates of virtually every important event in dragonlance continuity, which several of my friends have. When I see people who devote that much time to their games tell me "you can't play psionics because I don't have time to learn the system", I will cry foul.

You could counter Pun-pun without a deux ex machina? I find that statement to be absurd in the extreme. You basically banned the candle of invocation trick for infinite wishes (actually you just slowed it down till the player wishes for a charge candle), you just dressed up your banning with an in game reason.

That's the point, though. Something needs to have an in-game reason for being banned. Banning warlocks because "OMGWTFBBW Br0kenz0rz!!!" is not acceptable, while the exact same DM banning Warlocks in the exact same game because "Well, if you remember, magic here is powered by mana crystals/technology left from an ancient race/some other external factor, not innate in everything like Star Wars' Force, so there's no real way to be a warlock," would be fine.

Can you imagine an episode of Monty Python regarding this?

That would be among the greatest comedic moments ever. I had to stop myself from literally laughing out loud when I read that and imagined it.

Everyone is an anomaly! That's not very interesting, nor an anomaly. It's not the powers that make the characters, but the otherway around. It's not the ninja class that makes a ninja it how the player plays the character.

Interesting. I would counter that the PCs are in fact an anomoly, or they would not be intersting enough to be PCs. Otherwise, every Tom Dick and Harry would be a hero.

And would not be Caelic's game. It would literally ruin what, 20 years of work? Is that worthwhile compared to just having a player not be an elf? Why is everyone so willing to trash a DM's hardwork because a player must have his way? There's a differenece between maing a new game and destroying the concepts of an existing one.

I say that if Caelic wants the game "his" way, going solo is about all he can do. Campaigns are not (contrary to popular belief) only made by DMs. A DM presents the idea, maybe the framework for the campaign, but it is the "group" of the DM and the Players that truly make the campaign.

Problem being that the customer isn't always right.
Sure. The thing is you need to make sure they leave happy. One customer mad will equate to 10 mad otherwise. Trick is to offer an alternative when you say no. But that belongs on the "customer optimization boards. :D"

Ninjas do not belong in a true European setting.
Is that because you say so? What about a trade caravan that was ransacked by bandits etc etc... {insert story here}
Consider what would happen if RttToEE a player wanted be a cultist, and then all the other players decide the same thing. It bascially destroys the modual compeltely. You have to rerite pretty much everything. might as well just start a new game for all the work involved.

Funny thing, I am running RTTTOEE online. So I am qualified to answer this response. What would I do? Use my imagination. Perhaps now the players are cultists. But know what? They do not know the entire extent of the Cult of Triad's plans. Perhaps they are cultists in the Fire Temple, charged by Tessimon to go and put an end to the Water Temple once and for all. (This would be the start of the campaign.)

I would have to adjust things a bit, but they could STILL explore the CRM, and have a chance to find out what was really going on. Then they could either decide to stop it. Or better yet ~ There is a party of NPCs that are attacking the temple, and they have to stop them at any cost.

Is there more work? Not really. All of the work was done already, you just have to shift your focus. Would I tell this group of players, "No way! You cannot be cultists!"

No. I would then miss the makings of a great campaign.

I do not understand why the concept of everyone, DM and players alike, needing limits is a difficult thing to grasp. You list a good example, but then gloss over that just banned it from the start with a quick explanation is a lot better than dealing with everything as it comes up.

You could counter Pun-pun without a deux ex machina? I find that statement to be absurd in the extreme. You basically banned the candle of invocation trick for infinite wishes (actually you just slowed it down till the player wishes for a charge candle), you just dressed up your banning with an in game reason.

Why is it so hard to comprehend? Pun Pun can be countered. Give the munchkin what he wants. It is like this: Give a 2 year old brat a cookie to stop them from whining. There you go. Problem solved. Pun Pun is no different. A player bringing that character to my game would lose respect from the group. They would laugh in his face, and make fun of him. How original. If he persisted, I would let him play with Pun Pun. Then I would give Pun Pun exactly what he was designed for ~ effectively negating him.

A 'counter' is a fancy way of saying 'no it's not allowed' as far as I can tell. Why not save everyone the time and just say no at the start?

That being said, why is it always the DM's role to bend over backwards for a selfish player? Why can't a player be flexable and work with in the setting the DM has made? Why does the player get to be 100% inflexable and the DM have to be 100% flexable? Where is the logic in that?
This is a funny quote. Boiled down, it is asking, "Why does a player have to be so infexible as to not accept the inflexable DM's campaign?

A counter is not the same/fancy way as saying no. Saying no is negative. Countering something is positive. Therefore, you give the feeling of offering an alternative rather than the obtrusive "NO!"

Why is it so hard for some DM's to work with their players? What are they afraid of? Their players having fun?


Kalmarjan

That's the point, though. Something needs to have an in-game reason for being banned. Banning warlocks because "OMGWTFBBW Br0kenz0rz!!!" is not acceptable, while the exact same DM banning Warlocks in the exact same game because "Well, if you remember, magic here is powered by mana crystals/technology left from an ancient race/some other external factor, not innate in everything like Star Wars' Force, so there's no real way to be a warlock," would be fine.

Except that the candle got banned for "OMGWTFBBW Br0kenz0rz!!!", not for a real rp reason. Which goes back to my point of, what if the player was more clever than the DM with the wish? Would you rather spend time in the middle of the game coming up with some reason on the fly why the candle or wish didn't work, possibly putting the game on hold, or just say to the players before hand: Sorry guys the candle of invocation just isn't a well designed item and I'm not going to allow it.

I don't think there needs to be an in game reason to prevent something like infinite wishes everytime it comes up.

Did anyone even see my post?

Why does no-one ever respond to the rational, non-ranting posts?

Why must we all hate on each other?

Just ask yourself: who would Jeebus troll?

I say that if Caelic wants the game "his" way, going solo is about all he can do.

Assuming that Caelic is telling the truth about the length of his campaign and the lengthy terms of his players (and there's no reason to assume he's lying) I'd say this assessment is off-base. Apparently more than one style of DMing can work.

That would be among the greatest comedic moments ever. I had to stop myself from literally laughing out loud when I read that and imagined it.

Okay great and wise Genie ~

In the aforementioned legally binding contract of the wish that the prior party is about to undertake, it is understood that before the wish is granted, after which the goldfish will be fed, before hanging the aforementioned hat on the lower rung of the rack right between the letter to Gygar's grandmother that will be written before the end of this very wish and positioned just so that the rock that holds it will be picked acording to the strenous requirements of the beforementioned genie that was written while the mailman delivered the parcel sent by Frangar's sister which indicated that the scarf tied to the said package will be affixed to the ......

LOL. I can just see the episode now. Something like the "Meaning of Life. :D )

Kalmarjan

Assuming that Caelic is telling the truth about the length of his campaign and the lengthy terms of his players, I'd say this assessment is off-base. Apparently more than one style of DMing can work.

Okay, I'll bite:

If I was Caelic, and I was approached by a player over the concept of playing an elf in his "non-elf" world, my first reaction may be, "WTF! I said no elves!" My next thought would be, "why does this player want to play an elf?"

Perhaps it would be for an optimisation. Perhaps it would be for roleplaying purposes.

Do I just ban it outright? I could, and would be within my *right* as a DM I guess. Or, I would do something like this:

Meet with the player, find out the motives. Work with that player to build some reason why he is an elf. Perhaps the elf grew disgusted with the ways of the elves before. Perhaps now he "sees the light" and no longer wants to be in that other world.

Now we come to the interesting (role-playing part). How does this elf fit into the world? Does he constantly need to be disguised? Do the other players know about it? When would it be revealed that their companion is in fact~ an elf. What kind of possibilities would that bring on for role-playing?

Perhaps it could be revealed later on that the character is not *actually* an elf, but has some blood in him that gives him those traits. Soap Opera anyone?

I understand having a concept. Sometimes players want to push the envelope a bit. Why not give it to them? The game is not always just about the DM. Players are playing too. So my comment is not really that off base.


My responsibility is to the campaign as a whole--not to any one player.

This is where I differ in philosophy with Caelic. I believe that the responsibility is to the players and the campaign as a whole. While you may have put sweat and tears into the campaign, it really comes down to the group as a whole. If everyone is cool with the restrictions, then that is okay. But to arbitrarily nerf someone's concept in the name of "keeping the campaign intact, no matter what" is kind of... well, I will leave it unsaid, but you get the point.

Kalmarjan

I run an open game.

Well, open is a relative term, as the game that runs opposite mine (month on-month off so neither of us get overworked) is a gestalt-without-the-suggested-or-mandated-restrictions tardfest 17th level game, but that's a story for another time. In fact, it's five or six. I've got characters in my Champions game that can't compare to some of the feats I've seen from that game. One guy's playing a Warjack. Like from Warmachine. Specifically, the Avatar of Mennoth. Mind you, I'm playing the Testament, but that's once again, for another time.

I run an open game. I've got a Divine Metamagicking Radiant Servant of Pelor. I've got a Tome of Battle tweaked Samurai (I swapped out some class features to make the last 7 levels count as full instead of half for martial maneuvers). I've got an Ibixian Fighter-Pious Templar (or soon will be) of Hextor. I've got a scout-cleric-something-something-fleet runner of elhonna that doesn't do a whole lot of anything, but does it very quickly. I've got a full-on Warblade Master of Nine

I have a few things banned. The book of Holy Carp. The book of Evil Shyte. Psionics. Tome of Battle with exceptions, the character has to come from a particular area.

Psionics are banned for two reasons. Fluff: The residual effects of an Annulus are still present in this world. It was fed power via a planar rift until it literally exploded, ridding the world of psionics and naturally psionic creatures to stop an ancient civilization of illithids from dominating the planet. It also brought about another stone age, as it wiped out most higher intelligence as well.

Crunch? I don't like Psionics. I've seen them, I've used them, I've seen them used. The variety of people who ask me if Psionics are allowed, are usually also asking me if Tome of Battle is allowed, or Tome of Magic. Usually for the purpose of breaking a character. I've really never seen use for Psionics, I've never liked the system, not in 2nd edition, not in 3rd edition, and not now. I don't have time to research all the broken combos, or even the misuses of things that are written not to be broken. I can't be bothered to make sure my player is only doing the things they should/could be able to do. I'm busy making it fun for the other 11 players I have. (Oh, right, did I mention I've got three full tables of players? I'm bringing one of them on as a Co-DM). Tome of Magic hasn't come up yet because, well, for the most part it sucks. However, I'm going to be banning shadow striking, because I really don't like it. It's too big an answer to a problem that can be fixed with a simple addition.

Second level spell. Reveal Weakness. Provides a competence bonus equal to caster level on Knowledge checks to reveal resistances, DR, and vulnerabilities.

But that's all I really dislike about ToM. I ban it, however, with a few exceptions. Why? I don't know the system. I don't know how it can be broken, and I don't want to find out.


For decades, people worked perfectly fine with Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Illusionist, Rogue, Bard. And less, too. Just because a supplement exists doesn't mandate it's use. And for the things that I know are broken but don't want to ban because there are non-broken uses? I simply ask this question: "Why would your character have that?"

If you can't answer that question in one sentance, you can't. You may be able to later, after a quest, or an in-character justification, or a signed statement saying you get crushed by rocks if you do abuse it, but not right now.

I don't really have a whole lot of in-theme banning, because there really is enough diversity in my setting for nearly anything that the rules allow for.

That doesn't mean I want to see an anthropomorphic squid master thrower. I will hit you with my nerf bat. (Yes, I bring a nerf bat to my D&D games. Yes I hit people with it. Sometimes I give it to my players to hit each other with. It's theraputic.)

.02 gp

Interesting. I would counter that the PCs are in fact an anomoly, or they would not be intersting enough to be PCs. Otherwise, every Tom Dick and Harry would be a hero.

And yet, great stories are written about the average person. PCs aren't really an anomaly either, for every hero that dies, there's a dozen more to take his place. They're just off stage most of the time.

I say that if Caelic wants the game "his" way, going solo is about all he can do. Campaigns are not (contrary to popular belief) only made by DMs. A DM presents the idea, maybe the framework for the campaign, but it is the "group" of the DM and the Players that truly make the campaign.

He's telling a story, granted the players are involved in it, but the example we're using is a rewrite of that story. See below.

Sure. The thing is you need to make sure they leave happy. One customer mad will equate to 10 mad otherwise. Trick is to offer an alternative when you say no. But that belongs on the "customer optimization boards. :D"

One mad customer doesn mean you have 10 more mad ones. And you can't make everyone happy. I'm still waiting for my Candles of Invocation. But why can only the player's leave happy? Should the DM have fun running the game too? Why is a player's enjoyment more valuable than the DMs?

Is that because you say so? What about a trade caravan that was ransacked by bandits etc etc... {insert story here}

True. As in historically accurate. And there's no reason that you need a ninja to have a ninja concept. if you call a ninja a bandit, why do you need to have the ninja class to go along with it? Does calling the ninja class the bandit class means it's no longer suitable for a ninja? Does a bandit need sudden strike to be a bandit?

Funny thing, I am running RTTTOEE online. So I am qualified to answer this response. What would I do? Use my imagination. Perhaps now the players are cultists. But know what? They do not know the entire extent of the Cult of Triad's plans. Perhaps they are cultists in the Fire Temple, charged by Tessimon to go and put an end to the Water Temple once and for all. (This would be the start of the campaign.)

I would have to adjust things a bit, but they could STILL explore the CRM, and have a chance to find out what was really going on. Then they could either decide to stop it. Or better yet ~ There is a party of NPCs that are attacking the temple, and they have to stop them at any cost.

Is there more work? Not really. All of the work was done already, you just have to shift your focus. Would I tell this group of players, "No way! You cannot be cultists!"

It's easy to toss off a quick idea like that, but a heck of a lot more to sit down and do all the work. Where do they go once they trash the other 3 sections? They don't have any real beef with most of the module. You have to rewrite massive amounts of it.

A party of NPCs attacking the temple is a huge rewrite as well, possibly more so that cultists from with in.

No. I would then miss the makings of a great campaign.

But a different one from what was presented in the module. You'd have the maps and some NPC, but you'd have to rewrite the plot completely from a cultist' perspective.

If the DM wanted to run the module he bought screw him for the players? Don't gte me wrong it's great that you're willing to do all that work for you players, but that doesn't mean that it's feasable or fair to make every DM work around every player's whims.

Why is it so hard to comprehend? Pun Pun can be countered. Give the munchkin what he wants. It is like this: Give a 2 year old brat a cookie to stop them from whining. There you go. Problem solved.

No. That just reinforces that when they whine they get what they want. You need to sit down and talk with the player beofre hand. Put a little effort into helping them understand the problems it introduces and then send them on their way if it doesn't work out, not spoil a brat further, and possibly ruin a good game to appease one person.

Pun Pun is no different. A player bringing that character to my game would lose respect from the group. They would laugh in his face, and make fun of him. How original. If he persisted, I would let him play with Pun Pun. Then I would give Pun Pun exactly what he was designed for ~ effectively negating him.

So your solution is to let the players make fun of him until he gives up? You wouldn't just sit down and have a talk with the player before hand, but would rather throw things at him that the rest of the group has no chance at being useful for?

Exactly what was pun-pun designed for anyways? And how does letting him do that negate him? Where do the level 7 wizards of the group fit in?

This is a funny quote. Boiled down, it is asking, "Why does a player have to be so infexible as to not accept the inflexable DM's campaign?

No, it doesn't. It's a give and take relationship on both sides. You're portraying it as being a 100% give from the DM, and I'm asking why does the DM have to be the flexable one every single time. Why even have DM design a world, cultures, histories and everything else if the players just rewrite it at whim?

A counter is not the same/fancy way as saying no. Saying no is negative. Countering something is positive. Therefore, you give the feeling of offering an alternative rather than the obtrusive "NO!"

Yes, it is a fancy way of saying no. When the candle rears it head again, and the player corrects the wish, you do the same thing, distort it to say no. And again next time until the player gives up. You're doing it in a nicer way, but betwen reasonable people, it shouldn't have been a problem to start with if you just said no.

Can you tell me that the simpler solution wasn't to just say no directly in the first place? That wasting the groups time, and the player's resources is a better response than just saying it doesn't work in the beginning?

Why is it so hard for some DM's to work with their players? What are they afraid of? Their players having fun?

Why is it so hard for some players to work with their DMs? What are they afraid of? Their DMs having fun?

The DM has the right to say no, as do the players. But the player's don't have a right to walk all over the DM and visa versa.

These whinefests are so much fun.

Some here really need a hug or something.

I dont allow Psionics in my campaign, never have from whatever Edition. In my mind it isn't fantasy, nor do I allow people more than 3 classes/PrC(that would be 1 class+2 Prc or 2 Class +1 Prc). I find it silly to see Rogue2/Fighter1/Sorc3/Uberwhacker 4/OMGlookathowkewlicantwink10
Only allow the brown books as well. I dont care what 'kewl' concept you got. No ECL.

Yep I'm that knuckle cracking nun.

Did anyone even see my post?

Why does no-one ever respond to the rational, non-ranting posts?

Why must we all hate on each other?

Just ask yourself: who would Jeebus troll?What makes you so important that everyone has to move out of their way to say something to you?

Happy now?

Okay, I'll bite:

If I was Caelic, and I was approached by a player over the concept of playing an elf in his "non-elf" world, my first reaction may be, "WTF! I said no elves!" My next thought would be, "why does this player want to play an elf?"


You miss the point entirely. The point being, there ARE no elves. Caelic has drawn the curtain back a bit to show us there really are elves, but as he said he knows where each one of them is and what they are doing. For all intents and purposes, elves are extinct. Them's the campaign setting. A player has no more right to play an elf in that setting than play a warforged or a shifter in Dragonlace or a kender in Forgotten Realms (which is to say, by special circumstance only). Caelic has decided that no special circumstance exists, thus no elves. It doesn't make him lazy, it doesn't make him vindictive, it doesn't make him a bad DM. If anything it's the other way around. Pick something that's non-elf, how hard is it really?

I believe that the responsibility is to the players and the campaign as a whole. While you may have put sweat and tears into the campaign, it really comes down to the group as a whole. If everyone is cool with the restrictions, then that is okay. But to arbitrarily nerf someone's concept in the name of "keeping the campaign intact, no matter what" is kind of... well, I will leave it unsaid, but you get the point.


We'd figure something out together. If I wasn't satisfied with these, I might give the option to one of my players to be a human, but they could mechanically be an elf, (weapon prof. ect.).

So... since Caelic refuses to hand out pointy ears he gets the "lazy, inferior DM" argument? He is obviously willing to work with a player to fit his concept into the world. He is NOT willing to compromise backstory and history of the campaign. I see nothing wrong with that. Responsiblity to the players is not the same as responsibility to any one player. That one player being an elf drastically alters the campaign for all players involved, thus the elf is out.

Aww. So sweet.

Yep, I am! Hell, it's just nice to see a post without angry exclamation points.

You know I love you, Inferno. :inlove:

One mad customer doesn mean you have 10 more mad ones. And you can't make everyone happy. I'm still waiting for my Candles of Invocation. But why can only the player's leave happy? Should the DM have fun running the game too? Why is a player's enjoyment more valuable than the DMs?

One mad customer tells 10 people... who in turn tell 10 people. This is why it is important to maintain customer relations. But that is a subject for another board. :D

True. As in historically accurate.
Are we playing D&D or watching the history channel? Why not give the benefits of the class without calling it the class. After all, there was a show called Kung-Fu, the legend. While not "historically accurate", it did manage to tell the story in a way that people liked.

It's easy to toss off a quick idea like that, but a heck of a lot more to sit down and do all the work. Where do they go once they trash the other 3 sections? They don't have any real beef with most of the module. You have to rewrite massive amounts of it.

A party of NPCs attacking the temple is a huge rewrite as well, possibly more so that cultists from with in.

But a different one from what was presented in the module. You'd have the maps and some NPC, but you'd have to rewrite the plot completely from a cultist' perspective.


Actually, it is not that hard. You might be required to read the module to understand all the factions and their interactions with each other, but in the end, it is just a shift of plot. The crunch is there in the module. In fact, there are parts of the module which deal with the PC's infiltrating the temple. What would they do after clearing out the 3 sections of the temple? Well, lets put our DM hat on for a second:

There is the plot element of Varacan in the module. Perhaps he "converts" them? Remember as well, that the CRM inhabitants know "something big is going on", but they do not know the specifics of it. They do not know that they are just a front for the worship of Tharizdun.

Perhaps injecting a plot element in so far as the PCs discover that the upper echelon of the cult really want the strife and all connected to the raiding of the temple to occur because it really powers the mad cult's plans.

I digress. You say the module has to be rewritten. Not neccessarily. All the crunch is there, you would be changing the plot lines and so forth. Should you not be doing this anyway, because the book is available? That is the trademark of a GOOD DM, the ability to adapt the storyline based on what the CHARACTERS do, not based on what the DM thinks should happen.


If the DM wanted to run the module he bought screw him for the players? Don't gte me wrong it's great that you're willing to do all that work for you players, but that doesn't mean that it's feasable or fair to make every DM work around every player's whims.

That is part of being a DM, be prepared for what the players WILL throw at you. It may be hard, but that is part of the challenge, the fun.

No. That just reinforces that when they whine they get what they want. You need to sit down and talk with the player beofre hand. Put a little effort into helping them understand the problems it introduces and then send them on their way if it doesn't work out, not spoil a brat further, and possibly ruin a good game to appease one person.

That is definately a viable way to do things. On the other hand, if the player was your best friend, then what? Sometimes it is okay to give them what they want. After all, they are there to have fun too.

So your solution is to let the players make fun of him until he gives up? You wouldn't just sit down and have a talk with the player before hand, but would rather throw things at him that the rest of the group has no chance at being useful for?

Honestly, if a player really brought Pun Pun to the table, they probably would deserve what they got, unless they were inexperienced, or just plain stupid. So yes. Call it peer pressure.

Exactly what was pun-pun designed for anyways? And how does letting him do that negate him? Where do the level 7 wizards of the group fit in?

Pun Pun was created by someone with too much time on their hands. I did not say that I would let him in, but if for some reason, I was stupid enough to, I could manage it.

No, it doesn't. It's a give and take relationship on both sides. You're portraying it as being a 100% give from the DM, and I'm asking why does the DM have to be the flexable one every single time. Why even have DM design a world, cultures, histories and everything else if the players just rewrite it at whim?

I agree on the give/take relationship. What I do not agree with is the whole "It's my world ~ take it or leave it."

Both are extremes. If a player wants to play an optimized character, why not? Perhaps that is how he will have fun. Are you going to "force" the player to make a character that they will not have fun with? Note the word "fun". If the player wants to play a Duskblade/Ninja/Barbarian/Arcane Archer/Totem Warrior and it is within the rules, why not? Give the character something to do within an encounter. Make them happy. Have fun - it's your job as the DM.

Yes, it is a fancy way of saying no. When the candle rears it head again, and the player corrects the wish, you do the same thing, distort it to say no. And again next time until the player gives up. You're doing it in a nicer way, but betwen reasonable people, it shouldn't have been a problem to start with if you just said no.

Can you tell me that the simpler solution wasn't to just say no directly in the first place? That wasting the groups time, and the player's resources is a better response than just saying it doesn't work in the beginning?

I guess the candle could rear its ugly head again. I guess the player would not have gotten the hint. Perhaps it is in character. Perhaps the character would go down in history as the character that searched in vain for all the candles. Perhaps he would get a second chance to retry his wishes. Perhaps, after all of that energy, I would even give the player what he obviously wanted. See - that is the point of the D&D game.

Believe it or not, a DM's job is to give the players what they want, after they go through the struggle to get it. It is called the "reward". For instance, if you translate it to the palidan who desperately wants the +5 Holy Avenger sword, and dedicates his time to quest for it, gather clues for it, go through all the hoops the DM has set up... do you deny the palidan the sword because it would "unbalance" the game? The player has worked for it ~ by the GODS! Give it to him, then give him situations where (*GASP!*) he can use it!

Why is it so hard for some players to work with their DMs? What are they afraid of? Their DMs having fun?

The DM has the right to say no, as do the players. But the player's don't have a right to walk all over the DM and visa versa.

I agree. The whole point of this thread is the OP saying that he has the right to arbitrate what the players can have. In my books, that is "walking" over the players. The same can be said about a player saying "I have to have Pun Pun because the rules say I can!"

Kalmarjan

Banning for fluff, because something doesn't fit the world is one thing, although simply re-fluffing the item in question is usually enough to fix that. No, there are no ninja's in my campaign world, but there are Shadow Blades, a study of combat and infiltration first developed by the Halfling Tribes of the Stukka steps, and brought to other lands 200 years ago by the talented 1/2 Orc Thorgg Smallfriend, later known as Thorgg the Unpresent.

No, there are no elves in your campaign, but there might be the human Illuwen tribe, who live in harmony with the great forest of Illuway and have over time, with some crossbreeding with fey early in their bloodline, taken on traits similar to those of core elves. I'm not saying a DM should have to re-fluff, if no elves means no elves then so be it. But it's a least worth considering as a possible compromise for a player who has come to expect playable elves as a basic part of the D&D experience.


Banning something because it is an entire new complicated mechanic that the DM simply doesn't have the time or energy to learn is also, in my mind, acceptable. Core magic is complicated enough, some DMs, especially (but not only) new DMs, can be forgiven for not wanting to learn eldritch magic, soul magic, mind magic, blade magic, word magic, shadow magic, and binding on top of it, all with completely differant mechanical bases, much less try to fit all of them within a single world.


Banning for balance reasons, however, should be done with caution. Some things literally break the game (anything granting unlimited free wishes or infinite loops, for instance), and deserve the balance ban. Of course, a slight tweak to the mechanics is often enough to fix that (ie, use the sane interpretations of the Crusader class and White Raven maneuvers instead of the CustServ rulings and suddenly Energizer Bunny's infinite actions per round go away).

But balance bannings or balance nerfings should be avoided when the item in question does not literally break the game, especially when the banning in question might be just a knee-jerk reaction to something new (Oh no's, Favored Souls get wings! Oh no's, Warlocks can use their powers a lot! BANZORZ!ONE!!11). Psionics, for instance, are less abusable then magic, not more. Banning Psionics to stop a character from being broken won't work, it just tells the player to break the character with the far more abusable core magic system.


And yes, I'm the guy who will ask you if I can play something from Tome of Battle, and if I can't then can I play a Psionic Warrior, and if not can I play a Soulborn, and if not can I play a Duskblade, and if not, can I use the Eldritch Blade, Spell Sword, and Abjurant Champion prestige classes, and so on.

This is not because I'm out to 'break' my character. This is because I like playing martial characters, guys who wear armor and swing swords, but I also like having options and cool moves in combat. The core martial options simply don't have either. They're boring*. I don't feel like a hero, I feel like the common thug underling of the other, more grand and heroic party members. Note that I don't like to multiclass. I prefer one class, maybe one prestige class. But in an restrictive game I'll do it if I have to (in a core only game I'll even stoop to playing a druid) and usually end up considerably more powerful then I would have been if you had simply allowed me to play a Sword Sage or Soul Born or Duskblade to begin with.



*with the possible exception of the Ranger or Paladin, if you're allowing some of the extra spells printed in various supplements, and aren't trying to steal the paladin's meager class abilities with Catch 22 situations every other adventure. Even then, they aren't as fun to play as any of the classes I mentioned above.

That's the point, though. Something needs to have an in-game reason for being banned. Banning warlocks because "OMGWTFBBW Br0kenz0rz!!!" is not acceptable
Except that... it is acceptable.

A DM can simply say... I don't feel like dealing with the whole invocations thing. And that would be fine.

Where do you get off saying there *must* be an in-game reason to ban something?

If you want to play a warlock, and the DM doesn't want warlocks, go find another game. Problem solved. You're both better off for it.

You guys simply feel that you are owed so much for simply being players in his world. As a DM, I couldn't care less if you just bought Tome of Magic and want to play a Truenamer. If I don't feel like introducing a new system, I will say no. And I don't have to explain myself either.




And for the record, this is the right forum. The CO Board often tells people posting that a DM should allow this and that because it is not broken, giving no mind to the fact that DM's may ban something for other reasons. Everything we do here is largely metagame, and should have no bearing on actual gameplay. We don't know how someone else runs his/her game, so we can't tell someone that introducing ToB, or Incarnum, or Psionics in the game is not problematic and any DM who doesn't is lousy and deserves to be punished.

Get over yourselves. You are D&D players, not divas.

You miss the point entirely. The point being, there ARE no elves. Caelic has drawn the curtain back a bit to show us there really are elves, but as he said he knows where each one of them is and what they are doing. For all intents and purposes, elves are extinct. Them's the campaign setting. A player has no more right to play an elf in that setting than play a warforged or a shifter in Dragonlace or a kender in Forgotten Realms (which is to say, by special circumstance only). Caelic has decided that no special circumstance exists, thus no elves. It doesn't make him lazy, it doesn't make him vindictive, it doesn't make him a bad DM. If anything it's the other way around. Pick something that's non-elf, how hard is it really?



I don't think I am missing the point at all. I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that IF the player had his heart set on playing an elf, I would give him an option to "emulate" that. That way, we are both happy. He is not an elf, and the player gets to play what he wants.

In Caelic's world, it sounds like the Elves dissapearing are fluff. No sorcerers? That is pretty big. What if a player likes playing sorcerers. Why is it "banned" in the first place? Does Caelic not like spontaneous casting? Is it truly just fluff?

Why not have the player who wants to play an elf have the abilities, but remain human? Perhaps they give up their free feat. Explain it another way. What's the difference? That the "game" caelic created will be ruined?

So... since Caelic refuses to hand out pointy ears he gets the "lazy, inferior DM" argument? He is obviously willing to work with a player to fit his concept into the world. He is NOT willing to compromise backstory and history of the campaign. I see nothing wrong with that. Responsiblity to the players is not the same as responsibility to any one player. That one player being an elf drastically alters the campaign for all players involved, thus the elf is out.

BTW: If I was at Caelic's table, I would respect what he wished. I would create something different. I would wonder though, what is the reason he does not like the elves?

I once played in a group that the DM dissallowed any AoO. I found out because it was too confusing for him to remember the rules for AoO. So, he nerfed the abilities of almost half of the core classes, because he did not understand/like a rule?

That is what I am speaking against.

Kalmarjan

Why not have the player who wants to play an elf have the abilities, but remain human? Perhaps they give up their free feat.

I'm pretty sure Caelic suggested something quite similar to that idea, actually.

Except that... it is acceptable.

A DM can simply say... I don't feel like dealing with the whole invocations thing. And that would be fine.

Where do you get off saying there *must* be an in-game reason to ban something?

Because I believe that, barring an in-game reason to ban it (elves not existing being a very good one), a player ought to be able to play what he wants. A good DM will never say "Your character wouldn't do that," during play, so why the does argument "Your character would never think of doing that," during creation or level up hold so much more water? Before ToB came out, I told the DM that I wanted to play a martial artist. Not a monk, but someone who is quick, flashy, agile, and gets the job done. We agreed on a Swashbuckler, and it really didn't cut it, because while the fluff matched the concept, the crunch didn't. So when I saw ToB in the store, I bought it that day, only to be told at the next level up "You can't take a Warblade level since you'd never think of doing all this stuff." WTF??? That was the character concept from the beginning, especially the jumping around stuff in Tiger Claw. So why wouldn't he have thought of it, I asked? "Well, because I don't want that book in my game." Okay, fine, I took another level of Swash, but that argument has never held any water. And truth be told, that's probably why I'm taking this argument so seriously.

Yes, I'm the kind of guy who will ask you if I can play something from Tome of Battle? and if I can't then can I play a Psionic Warrior? and if not can I play a Soulborn? and if not can I play a Duskblade? and if not, can I use the Eldritch Blade, Spell Sword, and Abjurant Champion prestige classes?

This is not because I'm out to 'break' my character. This is because I like playing martial characters, guys who wear armor and swing swords, but I also like having options and cool moves in combat. The core martial options simply don't have either. They're boring*. I don't feel like a hero, I feel like a common thug underling of the other, more grand and heroic party members.

Indeed. I also enjoy playing a guy with a sword that can do more than "I hit it. *next turn* I hit it again. *next turn* I hit it again."

In Caelic's world, it sounds like the Elves dissapearing are fluff. No sorcerers? That is pretty big. What if a player likes playing sorcerers. Why is it "banned" in the first place? Does Caelic not like spontaneous casting? Is it truly just fluff?
The point being... it doens't matter why. Only that it is. Sorcerers are out. Next.
What's the difference? That the "game" caelic created will be ruined?
What's the point of a DM creating a world for the players to play in if it has to change to their specifications? Essentially, Caelic or any other DM should call his players up as he creates and run everything by them.

DM: Hey, I had a really good idea for my campaign's history. Is it ok if ToB is long forgotten and known by no one alive today?

Player: *yawn* This doesn't sound to me like a good enough reason to prevent me from playing a ToB character. Do something else.

DM: Well, it's actually pretty interesting.

Player: Well, in the end it doesn't matter what you find interesting. I want to play a ToB character. You can disallow it, and I will call you names and trashtalk you on the boards, you can allow it and kiss your stupid campaign story goodbye, or you can disallow it and go through the efforts of still allowing me to play it one way or another. Your call.



Alternatively... players interested in playing in his game can just bite the bullet, respect the time and effort he's put into it, and play something else.

And I think that's the perception problem we're having. If you're interested in playing an elf, you're not interested in playing in Caelic's game. Likewise, if you can't play a non-elf, Caelic's not interested in having you as a player.
BTW: If I was at Caelic's table, I would respect what he wished. I would create something different. I would wonder though, what is the reason he does not like the elves?
Yeah. And it's not his responsibility to satiate your seemingly self-centered curiosity.
I once played in a group that the DM dissallowed any AoO. I found out because it was too confusing for him to remember the rules for AoO. So, he nerfed the abilities of almost half of the core classes, because he did not understand/like a rule?
None of the core class abilities depend on AoO's except the Rogue's opportunistic strike available at 10th level.

And he didn't understand the rules. What the heck do you want from him? Everytime an AoO would come up someone would have to spell it out for him. That seems.... irritating. For everyone.

Both are extremes. If a player wants to play an optimized character, why not? Perhaps that is how he will have fun. Are you going to "force" the player to make a character that they will not have fun with? Note the word "fun". If the player wants to play a Duskblade/Ninja/Barbarian/Arcane Archer/Totem Warrior and it is within the rules, why not? Give the character something to do within an encounter. Make them happy. Have fun - it's your job as the DM.

Kalmarjan

Who's fun is more important? 1 person's or the other 5 people's?
If the other 5 have their fun quota normally at 91% but That Guy is dragging them down to 78% well. If I was the Dm know what I would do. It's also why you get with the group before hand so you know the expectations.

Don't be That Guy

You know what, you are right. I think what kills me are statements like this:

In general, in my experience, it's the other way around. Crunch is easy to write. I write better crunch than most of the people currently working for WotC.

No offense, but I have yet to see any attributed work from Caelic.

Others, (And I hope this is tongue in cheek)


The DM has the right to shape his world however he sees fit. If he doesn't want ninjas, so be it. If he doesn't want sword magic, why hold it against him?

Why should the player's desires automatically override the DM's wishes? Because players are arrogant and spoiled that's why.

A DM can ban anything off-hand and shouldn't be worried about insults or players abandoning him.

If I go to a table with ToB in hand and the DM screams out loud that it's overpowered and he doesn't want it in his game, I'll say ok. Time for a new character concept. Not 'time to teach this DM a lesson'.

There was a thread a while back where the OP said his DM didn't allow ToB or psionics or some such. Everyone suggested that the OP break the game with a cleric or druid.

The blatant disrespect that people believe a DM should be treated with is baffling.

I read this and laugh to myself. The irony in those statements is amazing. Disrespect? You only get what you give. Calling your players "spoiled brats?"

Kalmarjan

The fact remains that my "uncreative, uninnovative" approach has kept a campaign going for two decades, and that for most of that time, I have had to turn away players because I had a full table and couldn't accomodate any more.

I have also turned away players for other reasons, of course--like coming to my table expecting that mere ownership of a book entitles them to use it, and I am in some way obligated to facilitate that.


I completely agree with the rest of your post. I myself restrict some materials (not as much as you, it seems, but regardless) and have added my own homebrew stuff.

However, this part of your argument is where you lose me. Are you really suggesting that the only factor in keeping your game going is the restrictions you place on it?

I don't think you do, but you certainly seem to imply that no other factors have any relevance. *shrug*

Because I believe that, barring an in-game reason to ban it (elves not existing being a very good one), a player ought to be able to play what he wants.
And a DM ought to be able to ban what he wants.

How do we decide who ought to do what over what the other ought to be able to do?

<snip>What I would take issue with as "ban first, ask questions later" is a DM who bans new material simply... because. Not because he knows what it is an it doesn't fit his game's setting, not because he feels that it's unbalanced, but simply because he can and he has some strange vendetta against new material, or because he thinks that anything published after core is unbalanced by default.<snip>


Perhaps the DM wants to see it playtested some first before he lets it in
to his world. Errata and FAQ entries are a good thing to check. Not
neccessarily for the rules therein but to show at least someone has
raised an issue about something. The Living Greyhawk campaign gets
to "introduce" new books into the campaign 1/year. Respectfully a home
DM should be given at least a month or so to review it before deciding
whether or not to allow it.


The second, I feel is not - while the DM can run whatever game he wants, your parents could raise you more or less however they wanted to, too. Was "NO! Why? Because I said so!" ever an adequate response from them?

Actually, the "because I said so" should be adequate when warranted. If the
child actually has both self respect and respect for the parents, then that should be enough. They can come to understand later WHY the parent said no, but the no is enough for now.

Now, in the home campaign I participate in, the DM allows material in from
new WoTC sourcebooks on an individual case basis. So far, everything I have
asked for has been let in (though Heward's Bedroll costs 2x in his campaign)
but he also is quite capable at correctly setting accurate CR'd critters against
our APL 12 group.

I am still "in love" with blaster warlocks but we also have a BDF (half giant psion mindblade who power attacks and regularly does 40+ min damage per hit)

I read this and laugh to myself. The irony in those statements is amazing. Disrespect? You only get what you give. Calling your players "spoiled brats?"
I don't have players. I am not a DM. But I can read. And I visit these boards often. So I can correctly conclude that some players are spoiled brats. You need to know why you can't play as a certain class or race. You just can't accept 'no'. It has to be reasonable *to you*. Apparently, the right to play whatever you want is yours, to hell with the DM. Only if you believe that the DM's reasons are ok, will you not give him any trouble. Otherwise, the namecalling ensues.

So there is no irony there. Only truth. We have a bunch of whiners whining that they can't get what they want.

One mad customer tells 10 people... who in turn tell 10 people. This is why it is important to maintain customer relations. But that is a subject for another board. :D

Heh, I suppose that counts if you relay on hear say. I tend to not do that, so I'm a bit biased. :)


Are we playing D&D or watching the history channel? Why not give the benefits of the class without calling it the class. After all, there was a show called Kung-Fu, the legend. While not "historically accurate", it did manage to tell the story in a way that people liked.

Because some of the benefits of the class don't fit in with the History Channel game that everyone else is playing. I've actually had the exact problem before (ninja class in a non-magic historically accurate European setting). I said no because of the Invisibility, Ghost step and such abilities in addition to flavor. I could have reworked them, and worked it into the game, but it was easier o just say that it didn't fit in with what we were playing and that he could do everything the player was really interested in with the basic rogue.

Actually, it is not that hard. You might be required to read the module to understand all the factions and their interactions with each other, but in the end, it is just a shift of plot. The crunch is there in the module. In fact, there are parts of the module which deal with the PC's infiltrating the temple. What would they do after clearing out the 3 sections of the temple? Well, lets put our DM hat on for a second:

There is the plot element of Varacan in the module. Perhaps he "converts" them? Remember as well, that the CRM inhabitants know "something big is going on", but they do not know the specifics of it. They do not know that they are just a front for the worship of Tharizdun.

Perhaps injecting a plot element in so far as the PCs discover that the upper echelon of the cult really want the strife and all connected to the raiding of the temple to occur because it really powers the mad cult's plans.

I digress. You say the module has to be rewritten. Not neccessarily. All the crunch is there, you would be changing the plot lines and so forth. Should you not be doing this anyway, because the book is available? That is the trademark of a GOOD DM, the ability to adapt the storyline based on what the CHARACTERS do, not based on what the DM thinks should happen.

The trade mark of a good DM is that they have the ability to do so if they need to, not that they do it. I shouldn't have to rewrite the module because half way through the group decides that they want to switch sides (something several parties I've had go through there have done or considered). It's nice to accommodate players, but if I rewrite everything at the drop of a hat, that's player's walking all over me.

That is part of being a DM, be prepared for what the players WILL throw at you. It may be hard, but that is part of the challenge, the fun.

I really don't find it fun to have to over turn a months worth of work because someone decided that it would be more fun to assassinate the other players while they slept and join the cultists in a long running game.

That is definately a viable way to do things. On the other hand, if the player was your best friend, then what? Sometimes it is okay to give them what they want. After all, they are there to have fun too.

What does being your best friend have to do with it? Is the friendship so shallow that you can't talk openly about why it's a problem?

Honestly, if a player really brought Pun Pun to the table, they probably would deserve what they got, unless they were inexperienced, or just plain stupid. So yes. Call it peer pressure.

[quote]I agree on the give/take relationship. What I do not agree with is the whole "It's my world ~ take it or leave it."

Execpt that you don't seem to think the DM has any part in the take. The player's don't have to take what the DM gives, they get what they want or you're a bad DM from your thinking. {"That is the trademark of a GOOD DM, the ability to adapt the storyline based on what the CHARACTERS do, not based on what the DM thinks should happen."}

Why aren't the players adapting to the story line? How can you even have a story line if you allow any whim in the game?

Both are extremes. If a player wants to play an optimized character, why not? Perhaps that is how he will have fun. Are you going to "force" the player to make a character that they will not have fun with? Note the word "fun". If the player wants to play a Duskblade/Ninja/Barbarian/Arcane Archer/Totem Warrior and it is within the rules, why not? Give the character something to do within an encounter. Make them happy. Have fun - it's your job as the DM.

Pun-pun is within the rules, and you are willing to emotionally hurt a real person for wanting to play pun-pun as a deterrent. If a player wants to play an optimized character, why not? Perhaps that is how he will have fun. Are you going to "force" the player to make a character that they will not have fun with?

Oh, wait, you are.

I guess the candle could rear its ugly head again. I guess the player would not have gotten the hint. Perhaps it is in character. Perhaps the character would go down in history as the character that searched in vain for all the candles. Perhaps he would get a second chance to retry his wishes. Perhaps, after all of that energy, I would even give the player what he obviously wanted. See - that is the point of the D&D game.

Give the players what they want? Do you honestly think that's the entire point of a D&D game? And yet, if I want Pun-pun, or infinite wishes....

Believe it or not, a DM's job is to give the players what they want, after they go through the struggle to get it. It is called the "reward". For instance, if you translate it to the palidan who desperately wants the +5 Holy Avenger sword, and dedicates his time to quest for it, gather clues for it, go through all the hoops the DM has set up... do you deny the palidan the sword because it would "unbalance" the game? The player has worked for it ~ by the GODS! Give it to him, then give him situations where (*GASP!*) he can use it!

Unless it's something else that offends your sensibilities as a DM, like say Pun-pun where you are then justified to mock and ridicule the player and force them, through real damaging emontioal preasure, to change their character to something you find acceptable.

I agree. The whole point of this thread is the OP saying that he has the right to arbitrate what the players can have. In my books, that is "walking" over the players. The same can be said about a player saying "I have to have Pun Pun because the rules say I can!"

Kalmarjan

Saying no to something is walking all over the players? For Bob's sake man, that's patently absurd on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

<snip>I have a problem with a DM running an otherwise open game, a player shelling out $40 on a new book, and the minute he walks in with the book the DM says "oh, sorry, that's off-limits because I don't want to deal with it."

Perhaps the player should instead consult the DM BEFORE shelling out the money. Honestly, this is not a collectible card game where spending more
money makes you win by increasing the number or rares you get.

<snip>
Yet again, world-related reasons are good reasons, while "It's not Core," or "I haven't played it or seen it played but I know it's overpowered," are not. Again, think what you like.
Turn that on its head: why should a DM's wishes automatically override the players'? DMs aren't supposed to be God, after all.


"I haven't played it or seen it played so I dont know if it's overpowered"
is a very good reason. And the DM - semantic wise - is the creator of the
world the pc's exist in; this sounds like a deity to me (for RPG purposes.)
So yes, for DnD DM's are in fact supposed to be "god". Now I believe you meant that last comment to be more to the point of characters having
choices on what/how to play. They do. Otherwise, this would be one of
those cheesy novels that gives you choice X or Y after 5 pages or so.

What's the point of a DM creating a world for the players to play in if it has to change to their specifications? Essentially, Caelic or any other DM should call his players up as he creates and run everything by them.

DM: Hey, I had a really good idea for my campaign's history. Is it ok if ToB is long forgotten and known by no one alive today?

Player: *yawn* This doesn't sound to me like a good enough reason to prevent me from playing a ToB character. Do something else.

DM: Well, it's actually pretty interesting.

Player: Well, in the end it doesn't matter what you find interesting. I want to play a ToB character. You can disallow it, and I will call you names and trashtalk you on the boards, you can allow it and kiss your stupid campaign story goodbye, or you can disallow it and go through the efforts of still allowing me to play it one way or another. Your call.



You make a good argument in this case. It is already spelled out there. The players are actually stating the game is not interesting. They want to play a ToB character. At that point, what's the point in pressing the point?

What you could do is argue with the player, wasting the other 5 players time, and making them uncomfortable at the same time. Or, you could ask him to explain the specifics of the character to you. Perhaps you could even quickly brush up on the the finer points of the book. While he explains it to you, you could even make a few minor changes to challenge him with your NPCs. Or, you could just ban it outright. Seems to me that would not be much of a challenge though.

Yeah. And it's not his responsibility to satiate your seemingly self-centered curiosity.

Self centered? Not really. Just a curiosity. I would expect a DM to explain to me why it is banned though. Why is that everyone thinks that the DM is the "Final" word in everything. I have been a DM for 17 years now. I never had a problem explaining something to someone when they asked. For instance, when I started my online campiagn, I restricted the books to the Core+AE+BOED+BOVD. When someone asked, I told them the truth. I wanted to keep it simple at first so that everyone could get into the swing of things using the software we were using.

Later, I had someone approach me wanting to play a Ghaele. Did I nerf it? No. Play resumed as normal. Then someone wanted to play a Chameleon. Nerf? No. Play resumed as normal. Even with the optimized builds, there was plenty of challenges for the people. Role-playing and crunch wise.

None of the core class abilities depend on AoO's except the Rogue's opportunistic strike available at 10th level.

Hmm. So negating the feat for combat reflexes, allowing disarm/grapple checks, spellcasting in threatening range without the benefit of an AoO will not break the game? So now you can have someone practically automatically grapple you as a fighter and negate you. (They are attacking you with a touch AC remember.)

And he didn't understand the rules. What the heck do you want from him? Everytime an AoO would come up someone would have to spell it out for him. That seems.... irritating. For everyone.

Not half as irritating as knowing it was because he did not know or understand the rules. What would be next? dissallowing dispel magic?

Kalmarjan

We have a bunch of whiners whining that they can't get what they want.

Uh, right. Asking for a reason other than "because I said so" is whining because people can't get what they want. Right. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe there are decent people out there, who aren't privy to the thoughts in your head, and want to understand why certain decisions are made? If it's a decision due to a problem, then explanation of the decision can help overcome the problem as it's worked out, while a lack of explanation leaves the requestor angry for being seeminly arbitrarily denied (why is Bob's stuff allowed but not mine?) and the requestee keeps the problem.

I think there are two worldviews out there, and that's where some of the problems are coming from:

1) Anything published as D&D material is out there and fair game unless specifically denied, and
2) Only Core is allowed by default and everything else must be expressly permitted.

Nothing necessarily wrong with either style, I just prefer the first one, because there are a wealth of options out there, and I think options = flexibility & utility = more fun.

Uh, right. Asking for a reason other than "because I said so" is whining because people can't get what they want. Right. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe there are decent people out there, who aren't privy to the thoughts in your head, and want to understand why certain decisions are made? If it's a decision due to a problem, then explanation of the decision can help overcome the problem as it's worked out, while a lack of explanation leaves the requestor angry for being seeminly arbitrarily denied (why is Bob's stuff allowed but not mine?) and the requestee keeps the problem.
Except that it goes beyond explaining the thoughts in your head.

You guys want an explanation to know if it was justified according to you. You want wiggle room. You want that sliver of hope that even though the DM said no, you may be able to talk him into it. It isn't curiosity. You want the reason why to see if the verdict can be changed.

Because you want something that you can't have. And you're willing to fight for it.

And if the DM doesn't oblige your continued-attempts-masked-as-curiosity... well, we can see how you feel about that.

The simplest way of preventing this kind of situation is to have a play "bible" ready. This way, before the campaign/game begins, everyone involved can peruse the document in order to familiarize themselves with the way the DM is running the game. Of course this includes what prestige classes are allowed, as well as races, history etc.

I have been DMing for around 14 years now and I have never run into any issues with having to say "no" to a player (and yes I have had a number of people that politely declined playing b/c they did not like my style etc). I mean, its pretty simple, if you don't like the DM's play style/rules simply don't join the game or leave if need be. Whenever I join a game I ask (before putting a character together) what exactly is allowed/disallowed. Like other people have said it is up to the DM to dictate what is and isn't available.

Anyhoo, thats my .2cp

I think there are two worldviews out there, and that's where some of the problems are coming from:

1) Anything published as D&D material is out there and fair game unless specifically denied, and
2) Only Core is allowed by default and everything else must be expressly permitted.

Nothing necessarily wrong with either style, I just prefer the first one, because there are a wealth of options out there, and I think options = flexibility & utility = more fun.

That is a very vaild point. It just goes back to whatever your group is comfortable with is fine, just don't assume your group is the paradigm everyone else goes by.

This is a recreational activity intended for the fun of all at the table. Not 'Story Hour with the DM', not a power trip for the DM. This is D&D. If the DM is going to add a lot of house rules and restrictions, fine, but players should be free to up and leave the game, maybe with a little complaining on the way.

It's as if they had come to play Monopoly and were told nobody was allowed to be the shoe 'because shoes don't exist in this world' and boardwalk and park place cannot be purchased, even if you land on them, 'because they're unbalanced'. Yes, it might make a differant feeling game, maybe more interesting to some, but if you just came to play Monopoly, and wanted to be a bloody shoe and build a hotel on park place, then I wouldn't blame you for storming out and calling your friends stupid on the Monopoly boards.


We get just as much DM whining around here as player whining. DM's can be spoiled brats too.

"My stupid paladin player quit because I built every adventure around trying to cheat him out of his meager class abilities by setting up stupid and pointless catch-22's! He's such a jerk and doesn't care about good storytelling!"

"My players are hogging the spotlight from my NPCs! How do I punish them?"

"My players killed an NPC villain fair and square, but I made him not be dead because I want him for the story and now they're mad! Don't players suck?"

"My player wants to be a warlock, and even though they're perfectly balance and fit my campaign world like a glove, I won't let him, and refuse to give him a reason. Now he's mad, why are players spoiled?"


A lot of DM's act like it's their Divine Right to lord over players and stomp on their fun whenever possible, forgetting that D&D is a group experience, forgetting that the Players are the 'Heroes' of the story, not some hapless suckers caught up in the ironclad path of the DM's narrative, forgetting that the Campaign World is for the Players, not the other way around.



So don't go throwing names at players so easily, and don't go assuming players are the only ones to blame, and don't be so quick to take the DM's side in every dispute.

You guys want an explanation to know if it was justified according to you. You want wiggle room. You want that sliver of hope that even though the DM said no, you may be able to talk him into it. It isn't curiosity. You want the reason why to see if the verdict can be changed.

Or maybe an attempt to work with the DM to find out what the reason is. If the DM says "No ToB" (sorry I'm using so much ToB in my examples; it's about the only really controversial thing I'm familiar with) and I leave it at that, then how will I ever know that it's the Desert Wind maneuvers he has an issue with, and I don't get to play my Warblade (with whom the DM wouldn't have a problem with since he doesn't get Desert Wind). Or say he doesn't like the fact that Warblades get Weapon Aptitude, fighter feats, and a d12; and my character was going to be a swordsage? And he has a problem with the Warblade and I want to play one, is there some way to come to an agreement (give up Weapon Aptitude and fighter feats, and drop it to a d10, maybe)? Communication and compromise, remember those keys to not getting mad at each other? If I'm trying to find a way around something, I don't ask the reason the decision was made, I go to the rulebooks. If I'm asking why a decision was made, I want to know why to see if any compromise is possible.

Yeah. And it's not his responsibility to satiate your seemingly self-centered curiosity.Not as a DM, no - but as one human being to another, there's some responsibility. You can't just tell people what they can and cannot do - even in a game, you should explain it. Point to the 300 page world bible and say "Its in there." if that's all you can say.

These people are your peers and sometimes your friends. They deserve to be respected, at the very least.

Of course you are free to vote with your feet and walk away. If that's how you really feel then everyone is going to be happier for it. Me for not having to deal with a player who can't handle "No Shoes" and you for not having to deal with a game that isn't just Monopoly.

Not as a DM, no - but as one human being to another, there's some responsibility. You can't just tell people what they can and cannot do - even in a game, you should explain it. Point to the 300 page world bible and say "Its in there." if that's all you can say.

These people are your peers and sometimes your friends. They deserve to be respected, at the very least.

AMEN.

These people are your peers and sometimes your friends. They deserve to be respected, at the very least.

I think that's the big key I see here. All the respect, all of it has to go from the DM to the players for those who are against banning things. They seem to have no respect for the DM.

Except that it goes beyond explaining the thoughts in your head.

You guys want an explanation to know if it was justified according to you. You want wiggle room. You want that sliver of hope that even though the DM said no, you may be able to talk him into it. It isn't curiosity. You want the reason why to see if the verdict can be changed.

Because you want something that you can't have. And you're willing to fight for it.

And if the DM doesn't oblige your continued-attempts-masked-as-curiosity... well, we can see how you feel about that.Incorrect. We want an opportunity to present a reasonable case for the inclusion of the material in question. Our willingness to abide by the decision and be rational and reasonable players is directly related the DMs willingness to show the same courtesy and consider the case we present objectively and with a mind towards what will be more fun for everyone involved.

I am a human being and I expect when I put forth a time commitment to play in a D&D game that my views will be listened to and respectfully considered regardless of what side of the DM screen I am sitting on. If someone cares so much more about one of their opinions, their majestic storyline, their view of game balance in D&D or any other abstract principal than being part of an enjoyable game among friends then I do not want to game with them.

A lack of willingness to even entertain debate on the subject is very disrespectful to me and to the other players, and to the DM if one of the players is the cause, and I will not tolerate it. If you won't even have the conversation I will not play, regardless of how important the specific decision was to my enjoyment, because the DM (in most cases, sometimes a player) has shown they do not respect my opinion enough to hear me out, which is selfish, rude, and intolerable.

Not as a DM, no
Although it wasn't made clear, this was my point. As a DM, he isn't obligated to make sure that everything he decides on is justified to you as the player.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't explain. But the sentiment seems to be that he owes the player an explanation, it better be a good one, and if there seems to be a way to compromise, the DM should, and if not, he's being unreasonable.

That's not fair to the DM. Even if there seems to be a compromise (such as making adjustments to a new system, or fitting it into the backstory) it shouldn't be expected and it shouldn't be held against the DM for not taking it up.

EDIT: DH? I didn't know you still posted here :).

Execpt that you don't seem to think the DM has any part in the take. The player's don't have to take what the DM gives, they get what they want or you're a bad DM from your thinking. {"That is the trademark of a GOOD DM, the ability to adapt the storyline based on what the CHARACTERS do, not based on what the DM thinks should happen."}

Why aren't the players adapting to the story line? How can you even have a story line if you allow any whim in the game?



Okay, I may have missed your logic boat, but where do I implicate myself as a "Bad DM"?

See, you hit the nail on the head. You said "story-line". That is not role-playing. This sort of infers that the players will not have any input on what will happen in the game. This is accepted as bad form as a DM. What if your story-line indicates that the BBEG will kidnap Renne in order to hold her hostage, and they will get away? Do you make it so it is impossible for the PCs to actually rescue her? Take a look though most D&D modules, and you will not see that. There always must exist a chance that the players will have an outcome to the "story-line", or you are leading them by the nose.

For the party switching sides in the RTTTOEE example, why would that be so bad? You may have to improvise in an area that is not necessarily written in the module. So? Isn't that your job? Do you really have to follow the linear events laid out on the page? What is more bad, telling the players that they are not allowed to switch sides? That seems like bad DMing to me.

Pun-pun is within the rules, and you are willing to emotionally hurt a real person for wanting to play pun-pun as a deterrent. If a player wants to play an optimized character, why not? Perhaps that is how he will have fun. Are you going to "force" the player to make a character that they will not have fun with?

Like I said before, if it came down to it, I would let the person play Pun Pun. I would just give them the situations to get what they wanted out of Pun Pun. (I am not even sure what that would be, except to really disrupt play). Keep in mind though, that this would ONLY be if the person was the creator of Pun Pun. As I stated before, I would tell the player that I think they should come up with a character of their own, not plagerize from the optimization boards.

Oh, wait, you are.

Give the players what they want? Do you honestly think that's the entire point of a D&D game? And yet, if I want Pun-pun, or infinite wishes....
I never said you would not get the infinite wishes. As a matter of fact, I believe I stated that you would get what you wished for. Not my fault that you did not specify exactly what it is that you wished for. Nothing about punishment here. I am just old-school when it comes to wishes, where the players would get together and really "think" about how to word their wish.

I was once a player in a game where another player wished for the most powerful artifact. Well, he got it. (Can't remember what the artifact was ~ could be the hand of vecna or something - this was back in 1st ed). What he aslo got was the curse, and a very mad God-Liche on his butt. It also provoked a campaign from that. (A memorable one - fighting the 1st ed cult of Vecna Gygax Ya!)

Point is, he got what he wished for. It may not have been what he expected, but he DID get what he wished for.

Saying no to something is walking all over the players? For Bob's sake man, that's patently absurd on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

Patently absurd. Okay. I am going to repeat to you again my whole take on this:

I am saying that it is OKAY to say no, as long as you offer an alternative. Meaning, it is not just "No ~ because I say so!" (I mean, who do these people really think they are? They are playing D&D for Pete's sake!) In the case of the so-called "infinite wish loop" or "Pun Pun", it is giving them what they want, and using your skills as the DM to keep them challenged.

In the case of the Elves mentioned in the OP, it is acceptable to say, "listen, there are no elves that you know of in the known world. You can have the traits of an elf, but you are human. You will have to give up the free feat though."

That is the difference, as opposed to "I am DM, NOW HEAR THIS! NO ELVES ALLOWED! IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT ~ THERE'S THE DOOR!"

Kalmarjan

Not as a DM, no - but as one human being to another, there's some responsibility. You can't just tell people what they can and cannot do - even in a game, you should explain it. Point to the 300 page world bible and say "Its in there." if that's all you can say.

These people are your peers and sometimes your friends. They deserve to be respected, at the very least.

Amen! :D

Kalmarjan

Keep in mind though, that this would ONLY be if the person was the creator of Pun Pun.
Where and when do you DM? I'm coming over!

In the case of the Elves mentioned in the OP, it is acceptable to say, "listen, there are no elves that you know of in the known world. You can have the traits of an elf, but you are human. You will have to give up the free feat though."

That is the difference, as opposed to "I am DM, NOW HEAR THIS! NO ELVES ALLOWED! IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT ~ THERE'S THE DOOR!"

The only difference here is semantic. It still comes down to "Can't be an elf, sorry."

Indeed, NPCs want to live too.
I don't have a problem with your Wish approach either, since the lore I've ever read about genies and the like all say they're horrible (or really great, depending on how you look at it) rules lawyers. (Aside: I saw a neat take on that the other day. My little bro was watching some cartoon, and the hero, in order to get what he wanted out of the genie, went and got a lawyer to write up the wish. Because of that idea, I think that any of my players that uses Wish and succeeds on a DC 20+genie's INT mod Profession: Lawyer check gets exactly what he wants :) )

The Fairy Oddparents Season 4, episode 56, Production Code: 504B 513A
"Genie Meanie Minie Moe"
http://www.tv.com/the-fairly-odd-parents/genie-meanie-minie-moe----back-to-norm/episode/393295/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;56

Timmy rules!

Where and when do you DM? I'm coming over!

Online ~ Via Fantasy Grounds. Playtime is 11 AM GMT (I think that is 6:00AM EST)

I say bring it on. You created him, now lets see if he survives. <Grin>

www.fgrtttoee.com

Kalmarjan

Relishing another victim from that what is the RTTTOEE machine!

I'm not saying that he shouldn't explain. But the sentiment seems to be that he owes the player an explanation, it better be a good one, and if there seems to be a way to compromise, the DM should, and if not, he's being unreasonable.

As a DM, no, he doesn't owe an explanation. But on a more basic level, as a fellow human being, you bet your last dollar he owes an explanation. And if there's a compromise available that will address the DM's concerns, why not take it?

To use my Warblade example, if the DM said "Okay, it looks cool and all, but I don't like the d12, I don't like the effective fighter level or fighter feats, I don't like Weapon Aptitude, and I don't like that 9th level strike that lets you kill something in one hit," I'd try to compromise. "Okay, what if I drop the HD to d10, drop the fighter levels/feats alltogether, lose the Weapon Aptitude, and don't take that strike?" I've addressed his concerns. I've made the effort to compromise. If at that point he says "I don't care, you just can't play one and that's that," then I'm ticked because he's told me why he doesn't like it and I made the effort to address his concerns, and at that point he's being unreasonable (by definition: he's resisting the effort to reason with him).

<EDIT>
The Fairy Oddparents Season 4, episode 56, Production Code: 504B 513A
"Genie Meanie Minie Moe"

That's it! Awesome episode, I sat down to watch it with him :)
</EDIT>

There have been plenty of examples on both sides of unwilling to comprimise.

If instead of saying Reason A, B, C, and D what if your DM said "I've seen them in action and I feel they are more powerful that comprible charecters of their level"? Would you then counter "Well, we can make them more comparable, what if we did A, B, C, and D"? And then if your DM said "I simply don't see it working"? Wouldn't it be much easier to just pick a different class?

The only difference here is semantic. It still comes down to "Can't be an elf, sorry."
Some people can't have something denied them without feeling as if they still recieved something in its stead. In this case, the DM had to put it to them delicately.
As a DM, no, he doesn't owe an explanation. But on a more basic level, as a fellow human being, you bet your last dollar he owes an explanation.
Yeah, no one's disputing that.
And if there's a compromise available that will address the DM's concerns, why not take it?
Because the DM doesn't want to.

DM: Yeah, I could tweak the system so that it doesn't break my game apart, but I'd rather just not include it.
I say bring it on. You created him, now lets see if he survives. <Grin>
I'm no fool. Pun-Pun doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the DM :).

<snip>
None of the core class abilities depend on AoO's except the Rogue's opportunistic strike available at 10th level.
And he didn't understand the rules. What the heck do you want from him? Everytime an AoO would come up someone would have to spell it out for him. That seems.... irritating. For everyone.

Maybe the DM first d20 experience was Star Wars d20 (the first one, not the revised core rulebook) and found that the lack or AOO's made gameplay much more smooth. Frankly I didn't miss AOO's for the 2-3 years I played in Living Force before they switched to the RCR and brought AOO's back in.

See, you hit the nail on the head. You said "story-line". That is not role-playing. This sort of infers that the players will not have any input on what will happen in the game.
Now, now. Most people who enjoy this hobby, particularly anyone who's ever played Vampire:the Emo or any of that line, are familiar with the term "story-line" as it applies to an RPG.

You do realize that, without a background story, without a framework for the players actions, DnD can get, well.. rather boring.

"you meet in a tavern, go into a dungeon, kill monsters and take their stuff. Rinse and repeat"

And heck - even _that_ can be considered a story-line, albeit a very simple one. Any DM who uses recurring NPCs and a generalized series of events that the players can affect the outcome of, is still generating a "story-line".

This is distinctly different from "rail-roading" which is what you're talking about - that the story cannot evolve through player actions.

All the the earlier poster was claiming was that, for a more enjoyable experience all around, the players have a responsibility to react to the story-line as well. It makes for more fun if you create a character that is believable within the world. Believable characters tend to have more depth, more connection with the game-world and more life. They're simply, more fun to play.

Plot Hooks ? If your character comes from a place in the world, has a family, has connections to a noble house, or a criminal organization (or both!) or something, it gives a ready supply of useful, believable plot hooks. To suggest that the DM ought to view every selfish players desire to play some game-world anomaly as merely an opportunity for more plot hooks is just silly. Sure, these things can sometimes work, but really - an elf in a world without elves requires some major changes to the back-story, or to the cohesion of the game-world. It's not a "free" source of "interesting" plot, and in most cases, it just won't work. The character becomes either completely unbelievable, or the focus of an entire campaign - either of which can spell death for a game-world and the enjoyment of the other players.

Each player has as much a duty to work with the the group as a whole in selecting a character as the DM does, and respect is a two-way street.

If a player wants to play a rogue in a group of paladins, he better have a good reason for it, or it's just "no". And a player wanting to introduce a paladin into a group of criminals will be met with the same response

"This just isn't that kind of game, save that character concept for the next one"

Okay, I may have missed your logic boat, but where do I implicate myself as a "Bad DM"?

You misread what I wrote. I'm referring to people who don't give the player's what they want as bad DMs. not you personally.

See, you hit the nail on the head. You said "story-line". That is not role-playing. This sort of infers that the players will not have any input on what will happen in the game.

....

There always must exist a chance that the players will have an outcome to the "story-line", or you are leading them by the nose.

Bzzzt! Wrong! Every game as a story line! Be it short or long, it exists. You can't role play without a story to be in, it's called chess otherwise.

For the party switching sides in the RTTTOEE example, why would that be so bad? You may have to improvise in an area that is not necessarily written in the module. So? Isn't that your job? Do you really have to follow the linear events laid out on the page? What is more bad, telling the players that they are not allowed to switch sides? That seems like bad DMing to me.

You missed the point. If I have to switch what's happening at a player's whim, that's players walking all over me.

DM: The Balor bears down upon you...
Player 1: Make it something else, we don't really want to fight a Balor.
DM: What?
Player 2: Yeah, a multiheaded advanced behir would be cooler! Make it one of those!
DM: Uh... ok, a multiheaded advanced behir bear...
Player 1: Make it psedonatural too!
Dm: Uh, no guys. It's a balor just go with it.
Players 1&2: Why? You're a bad DM for not improvising!
Dm: Because I had the balor planned for this encounter.

Like I said before, if it came down to it, I would let the person play Pun Pun.

After hurting a real person to try and get them to not play it. You're not getting any brownie points about that from me ever. That you were willing to handle it in such an abhorrent way is in my eyes unforgivable.

I never said you would not get the infinite wishes. As a matter of fact, I believe I stated that you would get what you wished for. Not my fault that you did not specify exactly what it is that you wished for. Nothing about punishment here. I am just old-school when it comes to wishes, where the players would get together and really "think" about how to word their wish.

I was once a player in a game where another player wished for the most powerful artifact. Well, he got it. (Can't remember what the artifact was ~ could be the hand of vecna or something - this was back in 1st ed). What he aslo got was the curse, and a very mad God-Liche on his butt. It also provoked a campaign from that. (A memorable one - fighting the 1st ed cult of Vecna Gygax Ya!)

Point is, he got what he wished for. It may not have been what he expected, but he DID get what he wished for.

"I guess the player would not have gotten the hint." Does not sound like you were on the player's side, or going to give him what he wanted. it actually sounds very antagonistic to me.

"Perhaps, after all of that energy, I would even give the player what he obviously wanted."

Yeah, you're real nice in maybe giving the players what they want, as long as it suits you.

I am saying that it is OKAY to say no, as long as you offer an alternative. Meaning, it is not just "No ~ because I say so!" (I mean, who do these people really think they are? They are playing D&D for Pete's sake!) In the case of the so-called "infinite wish loop" or "Pun Pun", it is giving them what they want, and using your skills as the DM to keep them challenged.

Why do I have to offer an alternative? because I'm a bad DM if I don't let the players walk all over me? Because I say no to a ninja and "you'll have to use the near identical rogue class and rp it," I'm a bad DM?

In the case of the Elves mentioned in the OP, it is acceptable to say, "listen, there are no elves that you know of in the known world. You can have the traits of an elf, but you are human. You will have to give up the free feat though."

That is the difference, as opposed to "I am DM, NOW HEAR THIS! NO ELVES ALLOWED! IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT ~ THERE'S THE DOOR!"

Kalmarjan

Except that a breif explanation and a good reason are not enough for you. You have to give it to the players in whatever concept makes them happy, mechanically or rp. Your method of DMing sounds very much like handing out candy to spoiled children to keep them happy, and very little like a good relationship between a DM and a play group.

There have been plenty of examples on both sides of unwilling to comprimise.

If instead of saying Reason A, B, C, and D what if your DM said "I've seen them in action and I feel they are more powerful that comprible charecters of their level"? Would you then counter "Well, we can make them more comparable, what if we did A, B, C, and D"? And then if your DM said "I simply don't see it working"? Wouldn't it be much easier to just pick a different class?

Then I pick something else (as I did when I grabbed another level of Swash). I do feel, though, that if the DM makes a list of things he finds questionable or objectionable about something, and the player makes the effort to compromise on those points, then the outright refusal to even consider the compromise is telling.

Because the DM doesn't want to.

DM: Yeah, I could tweak the system so that it doesn't break my game apart, but I'd rather just not include it.

And it's at that point when the DM starts disregarding his players and playing the "I'm the almighty DM, do exactly as I say or I shall smite thee," bit.

NOTE: I'm talking about minor things like removing or exchanging class abilities, not completely rewriting everything about the class.

<EDIT>
You missed the point. If I have to switch what's happening at a player's whim, that's players walking all over me.

No, it's not. The DM's job is to create the world, not tell the players what's happening. They decide what they do.


DM: The Balor bears down upon you...
Player 1: Make it something else, we don't really want to fight a Balor.
DM: What?
Player 2: Yeah, a multiheaded advanced behir would be cooler! Make it one of those!
DM: Uh... ok, a multiheaded advanced behir bear...
Player 1: Make it psedonatural too!
Dm: Uh, no guys. It's a balor just go with it.
Players 1&2: Why? You're a bad DM for not improvising!
Dm: Because I had the balor planned for this encounter.

Bad analogy. They're not telling you to change the world, they're saying "Instead of going to the Nine Hells, the wizard sends us to the Plane of Air." Then you want to throw a Balor at them because, well, the sheet had Balor written on it. You're negating their decisions in the name of what you want to happen, which is not your job as DM.
</EDIT>

I agree flat out banning the ToB might be over the top. However, it's a big book, mostly new material, not just some list of feats and equipment with a couple new classes like any of the complete books. No, it endevors to completly change the D&D combat system, and before it can be allowed in a DM would have to review it and become familiar with it. In that case "I simply don't have time" is a perfectly reasonable reason. Should a DM have reasons for doing what he does? Sure, but as a player you should respect those reasons rather than trying to challenge them.

Reducing the HD, changing the class features, and limiting access to the base material for the class seems like rewriting the class to me. As a DM I already have to put in at least twice as many hours as any particular player (not all players as a whole mind you) and if I can't find time to review a particular concept for a particular player then yes, he's SOL. That being said, I personally think the ToB is awesome, and closer to what Melee combatants should have been in the first place.

Wrong forum. And you know better...

Now, don't get me wrong: Xanadu is far from the only person to whom I'm responding, here. Really, I'm responding to everyone who embraces the philosophy of "If you don't play with everything, or if you say no to a player, you're an inferior DM."Strawman.

IF a group wishes to play at some power level, that is great. But a ban first, and ask questions later is just lazy.

You also create a false comparison between your robust and flavored campaign, in which you and your long time players have vast experience with various player/DM options and power levels, and a DM who just bans everything.

Also A HUGE pet peeve of mine is "CONSERVATIVE." It's use in DnD is entirely inappropriate. We already have robust language to describe every aspect of DnD. Do we absolutly need such a politically loaded tearm here?
Will we all start running around with Capital "R"'s or "D"'s next to our name? Shall we begin the politics of personal destruction too!

No, it's not. The DM's job is to create the world, not tell the players what's happening. They decide what they do.

Actually, your job as a DM is exactly to tell the players what's happening and then let them decide what they do and how they react, and then judge if that would reasonably work or not and then dictate to the characters the results of their decisions.

Bad analogy. They're not telling you to change the world, they're saying "Instead of going to the Nine Hells, the wizard sends us to the Plane of Air." Then you want to throw a Balor at them because, well, the sheet had Balor written on it. You're negating their decisions in the name of what you want to happen, which is not your job as DM.
</EDIT>

I think you missed the point. The players already got to the encounter in my example and then wanted it changed after the fact, they were not rail-roaded into fighting the Balor in some weird place, just that when that encounter occured, it had a Balor. Perhapse the Balor had been tracking them for weeks, or they had just opened the main halls of a descrated temple (which they arrived at by their own decisions and methods). Point is the players can't always get what they want and saying no is a reasonable thing to do with little to no explination or offer for replacement many times.

One problem is that DM's are inclined to see a campaign as 'my game' and 'my story', and not include the players in it by thinking in terms of 'our game' or 'our story'. Then they get testy with players who have the audacity to even consider questioning them on something.

That's a sign to back out as a player and find another game. A DM who looks down on players, and believes he's granting the players the 'privaledge' of playing in 'his' game in my experience frequently suffers from other GM power trip problems (NPCs as the REAL heroes, railroading, player favoratism, class favoratism, etc).

A DM willing to sit down with a player and explain why they don't want something, willing to at least consider potential compromises, even if they are eventually rejected in favor of the original stance; a DM willing to try new things, and rebuild parts of the campaign world around the players; a DM willing to see new mechanics as opportunities rather then threats; a DM willing to acknowledge that more is not always more powerful, and that balance issues exist all the way back to Core; that kind of DM is a joy to play with, because he's building a story around the players, a group effort with the characters as the heroes. In that kind of game, the characters are the larger then life personalities and the world blossoms around their feet, rather then a world that is larger then life crushing the life out of the ever smaller and more restricted characters.


Of course, keep in mind that I still feel bannings for fluff or because the DM can't learn a new system should be accptable. I'm half playing devils advocate here. I'm just saying that a DM with a world set in stone can often be stone-like in other ways. A stone on the player's backs slowing down their creativity, or a stone tied around their feet dragging them into the depths of boredom, for instance.

Bad analogy. They're not telling you to change the world, they're saying "Instead of going to the Nine Hells, the wizard sends us to the Plane of Air." Then you want to throw a Balor at them because, well, the sheet had Balor written on it. You're negating their decisions in the name of what you want to happen, which is not your job as DM.

Except they're not. They're saying "Hey, instead of playing a perfectly acceptable character that fits in the game-world, I want to play an elf, and I want you to work out how to fit that in you world that has no elves. Call it an opportunity !"

If the world doesn't have gunpowder, you can't be a gun-slinger. It's one thing as a DM to adapt to the PC's actions - it's quite another to be expected to allow a PC concept that doesn't work in the game-world from the outset.

"My PC Does X" is different from "I want my PC to BE X"

And there's rules about what PCs can do, and the DM's job is to adjudicate those actions.

"My fighter casts fireball!"
Um - no he doesn't.

Who here would balk at a DM who decided against the Fighter claiming to be able to cast Fireballs? No one.

So why balk at the DM deciding against letting an elf into his world ? What's the difference ? One is against the rules about Fighters, and the other is against the "rules" of the game-world. I can't see that the former is stronger than the latter.

I agree flat out banning the ToB might be over the top. However, it's a big book, mostly new material, not just some list of feats and equipment with a couple new classes like any of the complete books. No, it endevors to completly change the D&D combat system, and before it can be allowed in a DM would have to review it and become familiar with it. In that case "I simply don't have time" is a perfectly reasonable reason. Should a DM have reasons for doing what he does? Sure, but as a player you should respect those reasons rather than trying to challenge them.

I agree it's completely new, and that someone wishing to use it ought to hand it over to the DM for a while so he can see what it's all about (in fact, of the first month I had ToB, my DM was in posession of it for 2-1/2 weeks at least). I'm not saying DMs should let new things into games blindly. I'm saying they need to look at it and think it over rationally before going "OMG, an instant death melee attack, this book is banned!"

Also A HUGE pet peeve of mine is "CONSERVATIVE." It's use in DnD is entirely inappropriate. We already have robust language to describe every aspect of DnD. Do we absolutly need such a politically loaded tearm here?
Will we all start running around with Capital "R"'s or "D"'s next to our name? Shall we begin the politics of personal destruction too!

Conservative has a meaning far more robust than just X, Y, or Z political philosophy (yes, there are three different types of conservative in politics). Unless you're in government, I'm willing to bet I deal with and think about politics far more in one day than you do in three, and I saw nothing political at all about the thread title.

You misread what I wrote. I'm referring to people who don't give the player's what they want as bad DMs. not you personally.


Hey, no offense. Just wnated to be sure. :)

Bzzzt! Wrong! Every game as a story line! Be it short or long, it exists. You can't role play without a story to be in, it's called chess otherwise.
You missed the point. If I have to switch what's happening at a player's whim, that's players walking all over me.

DM: The Balor bears down upon you...
Player 1: Make it something else, we don't really want to fight a Balor.
DM: What?
Player 2: Yeah, a multiheaded advanced behir would be cooler! Make it one of those!
DM: Uh... ok, a multiheaded advanced behir bear...
Player 1: Make it psedonatural too!
Dm: Uh, no guys. It's a balor just go with it.
Players 1&2: Why? You're a bad DM for not improvising!
Dm: Because I had the balor planned for this encounter.


Sure, every adventure may be a story-line, but the actions of the PCs should have some outcome on said stroyline. What would you do if the PCs managed to thwart the BBEG plan of robbing the jewelry store? Sure, the next point in the module deals with the aftermath of the robbery, but the PCs thwarted it...?

After hurting a real person to try and get them to not play it. You're not getting any brownie points about that from me ever. That you were willing to handle it in such an abhorrent way is in my eyes unforgivable.


LOL. I am not trying to gain brownie points from you, and I am not trying to hurt the player either. I am simply saying that if someone came to the table with that character concept (pun pun), they would be laughed out of that idea.


"I guess the player would not have gotten the hint." Does not sound like you were on the player's side, or going to give him what he wanted. it actually sounds very antagonistic to me.

Not at all antagonistic. I do not consider myself as an "against the players" type of DM. All I am saying is that if the player tried repeating the event, it would be like he was banging his head against a brick wall and not expecting a headache. In the end, if the player REALLY had to have this wish loop come true... then I would make it happen... after some work. Nothing is free after all. Chances are, the player would want to retire that character afterwards anyways, as his abilities would get pretty boring for him very fast. D&D is a little different than playing a PS3 FF type game. It is not all that fun when you have max gold/max HP/Max Spells/ Max everything. So the infinite loops scenerio would probably play out as a boring scenerio. Chances are, I would just ask what the player wanted in the end, and if he said an infinite loop, there you go - inifinite loop. Next character please.

"Perhaps, after all of that energy, I would even give the player what he obviously wanted."

Yeah, you're real nice in maybe giving the players what they want, as long as it suits you.

???? I am not sure how to respond to this, except to correct you. "as long as it suits the players/campaign".

Why do I have to offer an alternative? because I'm a bad DM if I don't let the players walk all over me? Because I say no to a ninja and "you'll have to use the near identical rogue class and rp it," I'm a bad DM?

Uhh, I said that makes you a good DM. You are doing what I suggested to do in the first place. Say no, and offer an alternative.

Except that a breif explanation and a good reason are not enough for you. You have to give it to the players in whatever concept makes them happy, mechanically or rp. Your method of DMing sounds very much like handing out candy to spoiled children to keep them happy, and very little like a good relationship between a DM and a play group.

Hmm. That's pretty insulting to my players. (I don't take it as an insult). None of my players are spoiled brats. I think I have a good relationship with my group, as they have now played online with me for 1 1/2 years. (Which is forever in internet time.) And yes, I am there to make the players happy. I want them to come back and enjoy the game.

I had a player once ask to play a Wemic. I said yes. I even let him use the stats in the 2E MC (This was back in the 2e days.) You know what, he played that character very cooly. (Kind of like a Klingon if I remember correctly.)

I was withing my *god given right* as a DM to nerf him, but I said to myself, "self! What could be the harm?"

A good relationship can be defined as mutual respect. I respect my players, they respect me. I do not have to tell them "YOU CANNOT DO THAT!" or whine, or jump up and about. They understand me, and I make it my business to understand them.

I have a player who plays a giant in an AE Variant. The first time I introduced them to the Bluespawn Godslayer, they we actually afraid for their characters. The fight raged on for about 20 rounds, and this is with the player having 4 hero points. Know what? I gave the guy what he wanted, and also gave him a memorable encounter to go along with it.

So basically that would be the difference between you and me. I treat my players as people. (Kind of like customers) I don't think they are spoiled brats, and I genuinely want to give them what they want; a good time.

If that means they want to play a Ghaele Priest of Pelor with a VoP, so be it.

Kalmarjan

DM: The Balor bears down upon you...
Player 1: Make it something else, we don't really want to fight a Balor.
DM: What?
Player 2: Yeah, a multiheaded advanced behir would be cooler! Make it one of those!
DM: Uh... ok, a multiheaded advanced behir bear...
Player 1: Make it psedonatural too!
Dm: Uh, no guys. It's a balor just go with it.
Players 1&2: Why? You're a bad DM for not improvising!
Dm: Because I had the balor planned for this encounter.

This example is laughable. We are speaking of nerfing core elements. Not changing encounters in mid stride. In my philosophy of gaming, I have NEVER had the above happen. (In 17 years of gaming)

I usually get, "Oh Sh*t, we're going to die!"

Kalmarjan

"My fighter casts fireball!"
Um - no he doesn't.

Who here would balk at a DM who decided against the Fighter claiming to be able to cast Fireballs? No one.

Okay - so now you are equating this discussion with something that clearly violates the RAW? The OP is taking published rule elements away from the game, which is a lot different than a player wanting their fighter to cast a fireball.

Kalmarjan

Actually, your job as a DM is exactly to tell the players what's happening and then let them decide what they do and how they react, and then judge if that would reasonably work or not and then dictate to the characters the results of their decisions.

You misunderstand, or I phrased badly. I don't mean it's not the DM's job to tell what's going on in the area (it is, as you correctly point out). I'm saying it's not the DM's job to determine, before the game, that they'll go to the palace, meet with the king, take this mission to rescue the village, go fight the orcs, lizardmen and trogs... It should be perfectly acceptable for them to say "You know what? We don't care if the king wants to meet with us, we want to go be highwaymen on the Gold Road."

I think you missed the point. The players already got to the encounter in my example and then wanted it changed after the fact, they were not rail-roaded into fighting the Balor in some weird place, just that when that encounter occured, it had a Balor. Perhapse the Balor had been tracking them for weeks, or they had just opened the main halls of a descrated temple (which they arrived at by their own decisions and methods).

Which is why I said it was a bad analogy. Your analogy dealt with the results of choices already made, while the argument is over what choices can be made in the first place.

A DM willing to sit down with a player and explain why they don't want something, willing to at least consider potential compromises, even if they are eventually rejected in favor of the original stance; a DM willing to try new things, and rebuild parts of the campaign world around the players; a DM willing to see new mechanics as opportunities rather then threats; a DM willing to acknowledge that more is not always more powerful, and that balance issues exist all the way back to Core; that kind of DM is a joy to play with, because he's building a story around the players, a group effort with the characters as the heroes. In that kind of game, the characters are the larger then life personalities and the world blossoms around their feet, rather then a world that is larger then life crushing the life out of the ever smaller and more restricted characters.

Very, very true.

If the world doesn't have gunpowder, you can't be a gun-slinger. It's one thing as a DM to adapt to the PC's actions - it's quite another to be expected to allow a PC concept that doesn't work in the game-world from the outset.

If you'll remember, I said it was okay to disallow stuff for not existing in the world, so long as the DM explains that and why. "You can't be an elf because I say so," is a lot different from "You can't be an elf because they're extinct." "No guns because I say so," is different from "No guns because the technology isn't there yet." See what I'm saying? It's not the act of banning material that I necessarily have a problem with, it's the manner in (and extent to) which it's done.

And there's rules about what PCs can do, and the DM's job is to adjudicate those actions.

"My fighter casts fireball!"
Um - no he doesn't.

Who here would balk at a DM who decided against the Fighter claiming to be able to cast Fireballs? No one.

That's what game rules are for. Game rules say fighters can't cast spells, so unless there's a houserule or something else in place that says he can, he can't. Now you're just throwing non-issues into the debate.

So much whining.

I'm with Caelic. Even more than that, I won't even 'fake' an elf, if there are no elves in the world.

I have no clue where you people come from...seriously, most players won't sit down and come up with a reasonable, rational background that specifically *fits in the world they want to play in*, without prodding. Until they get past that point, there's not even room for discussion.

That's what game rules are for. Game rules say fighters can't cast spells, so unless there's a houserule or something else in place that says he can, he can't. Now you're just throwing non-issues into the debate.

And campaign rules of a homebrew campaign setting (expansive or otherwise) may state that any techniques from the ToB are long lost. There really is no difference. To play in that campaign setting (of the DM's creation) you accept "No ToB" just as much as you accept "No fireball for fighters".

Boo. Yah.

Sure, every adventure may be a story-line, but the actions of the PCs should have some outcome on said stroyline. What would you do if the PCs managed to thwart the BBEG plan of robbing the jewelry store? Sure, the next point in the module deals with the aftermath of the robbery, but the PCs thwarted it...?

So you go with that, but that's based on the character's action, not the player's whims. If there was a reason for the characters to switch sides, or let the store get robbed, sure, I'm all for that. But letting the characters switch sides because the players want to just doesn't work. There's a big difference between character actions and player whims.

???? I am not sure how to respond to this, except to correct you. "as long as it suits the players/campaign".

Your original statement implies that you knew what the character wanted, and denied it to them because you didn't want him to have it.

Uhh, I said that makes you a good DM. You are doing what I suggested to do in the first place. Say no, and offer an alternative.

Perhaps I was too general in my example. In the example assume that the rogue was always available. The only difference is semantics:
1) The ninja doesn't fit, you'll need to play a rogue and rp it.
2) Ninjas aren't allowed.

The only difference is how the player reacts. The DM didn't offer any more choices than the player already had. The second one is a little more blunt, but a player who respects the DM wouldn't need to be told to use a rogue. But he suddenly becomes a bad DM because he said the samething without giving the player a direct pointer back to where they had come from.

Hmm. That's pretty insulting to my players. (I don't take it as an insult). None of my players are spoiled brats. I think I have a good relationship with my group, as they have now played online with me for 1 1/2 years. (Which is forever in internet time.) And yes, I am there to make the players happy. I want them to come back and enjoy the game.

Forgive me, it was not meant as an insult to you or your players. It was meant to compare always giving players whatever they want as a bad method of cultivating a good DM/player relationship. Namely for the lack of respect toward the DM.

A good relationship can be defined as mutual respect. I respect my players, they respect me. I do not have to tell them "YOU CANNOT DO THAT!" or whine, or jump up and about. They understand me, and I make it my business to understand them.

....

So basically that would be the difference between you and me. I treat my players as people. (Kind of like customers) I don't think they are spoiled brats, and I genuinely want to give them what they want; a good time.

If that means they want to play a Ghaele Priest of Pelor with a VoP, so be it.

Kalmarjan

My problem is that I don't see you advocating respect for the DM anywhere. All I see is respect for the players and giving them what they want.

This example is laughable. We are speaking of nerfing core elements. Not changing encounters in mid stride. In my philosophy of gaming, I have NEVER had the above happen. (In 17 years of gaming)

Replace it with the feat of your choice from an expansion and players demanding the feat be changed. The exact details of the example aren't that relevant as the player's attitudes toward the DM is. Mainly that everything should change to suit their whims as players.

And campaign rules of a homebrew campaign setting (expansive or otherwise) may state that any techniques from the ToB are long lost.

Which is... wait for it... a valid world-related reason for banning something. Which is what I've been saying is okay for six pages now. If it's not in the world, and there's a reason it's not in the world, then you're good.

Everybody pay attention to catch my argument, since so many people are miunderstanding it:

I just have a problem with "This is banned because I said so." If there's a good world-related or outrageous balance-related reason for it being banned, and the DM makes said reason known, then that's fine. Banning something out of hand because you feel like it is not fine.

<EDIT>
My problem is that I don't see you advocating respect for the DM anywhere. All I see is respect for the players and giving them what they want.

Possibly because we're arguing from the position of DMs? If I were arguing from the standpoint of the player I'd advocate just as much respect for the DM as I do now for the player. The problem is that so many people in thread are taking the stance that just because the DM can do whatever he wants, he can and should do so with no regard towards his players. I know that's not how you guys run your games (at least, I hope not), but that's the position being presented, that the DM can and should make rulings that appear arbitrary with no explanation whatsoever, which shows a lack of respect for the players.
</EDIT>

Which is... wait for it... a valid world-related reason for banning something. Which is what I've been saying is okay for six pages now. If it's not in the world, and there's a reason it's not in the world, then you're good.

Everybody pay attention to catch my argument, since so many people are miunderstanding it:

I just have a problem with "This is banned because I said so." If there's a good world-related or outrageous balance-related reason for it being banned, and the DM makes said reason known, then that's fine. Banning something out of hand because you feel like it is not fine.
But you see... we are saying that if it's not in the world, that's good enough. Period. End of story. You are adding silly things like 'a good explanation', implying that even if an explanation is given, it still has to pass the Player-Seal-of-Approval before the player drops the issue.

Who is to say what a good reason is? What if the DM really thinks a system will be broken in his game? What if you try all your hardest to bring him to the light, giving him all the reasons the CO has to offer on why system X isn't broken, and he still doesn't agree?

That's what game rules are for. Game rules say fighters can't cast spells, so unless there's a houserule or something else in place that says he can, he can't. Now you're just throwing non-issues into the debate.

It's not a non-issue.

The elements of the game include a DM to adjudicate what is possible. The Game of DnD is not the RAW. You can't sit down with the rulebooks and play. The rulebooks need a DM to interpret them ; to give the game life. Just as the DM can't play a game without players.

I'm not claiming that the player is going against RAW - I'm merely pointing out that a Game is more than the rules - it's the DM + the setting + the rules + the Players - all of them. If one player wants to break the setting, that's as important a violation as wanting to break the RAW, and a DM is just as within his rights to say "No" to that as he would be to say no to a RAW violation.

Okay - so now you are equating this discussion with something that clearly violates the RAW? The OP is taking published rule elements away from the game, which is a lot different than a player wanting their fighter to cast a fireball.

It's different, but no less important. The DM decides what part of the RAW is usable within his setting. In fact, that's rule #0. A Good DM will work with a player to find a character that the player wants to play in his setting. He might compromise on some items, or adjust the setting for a particularly interesting character, just as he might make house rules for source material that he thinks is broken, or creates new Prestige classes or bans other prestige classes based on the needs of his group and his "storyline" or whatever. This is part of his job, and rolling over to satisfy the demands of every player's whim isn't a compromise - it's capitulation.
Just as you see the needs of game-balance require that fighters can't cast fireballs , so too does the need of setting-consistency require that some classes or combinations are not allowed.
Furthermore, not all groups use all RAW optimally. So in some groups, the addition of some source material will break the group dynamic. A Good Dm can assess that, say, in this group of two fighters, one sub-optimal half-elven wizard, and a Cleric with crappy domains, adding a ToB class might be overpowered. So there's also the question of what will work in his group, to consider.

I agree that shouting "No ToB , I heard it's Broken!" and throwing the Player out the door is quite silly - but it's just as stupid to sit back and say "yeah, whatever dude. Bring on your elven half-dragon half-minotaur anthropomorphic baleen whale ninja shadow-pouncer, I guess I can fit him in somewhere."

The Game is more than the RAW.

Which is... wait for it... a valid world-related reason for banning something. Which is what I've been saying is okay for six pages now. If it's not in the world, and there's a reason it's not in the world, then you're good.

I am confused. This statement alone allows the banning of most everything. There is no 'standard' D&D setting with allowed materail and non-allowed. All games are to some degree a homebrewed game. Why then is banning someting a problem?

Everybody pay attention to catch my argument, since so many people are miunderstanding it:

I just have a problem with "This is banned because I said so." If there's a good world-related or outrageous balance-related reason for it being banned, and the DM makes said reason known, then that's fine. Banning something out of hand because you feel like it is not fine.

<EDIT>

Again, it is ok to ban stuff for homebrew campaigns, which pretty much every game is, but it's not ok to ban stuff?

What is the difference between "This is banned because I said so" and "This is banned because for a world-related reason?"

Is saying it's world related suddenly not a good enough excuse?

But you see... we are saying that if it's not in the world, that's good enough. Period. End of story. You are adding silly things like 'a good explanation', implying that even if an explanation is given, it still has to pass the Player-Seal-of-Approval before the player drops the issue.

Who is to say what a good reason is? What if the DM really thinks a system will be broken in his game? What if you try all your hardest to bring him to the light, giving him all the reasons the CO has to offer on why system X isn't broken, and he still doesn't agree?

I'm saying "a good reason" because my premise is that "because I said so" shouldn't cut it. If it's not in the world, it's not in the world, and that's the DM's call. But I want him to think about why it's not in his world before he says it isn't, because I think long and hard about banning anything in my games, and I think I deserve the same amount of respect.

I think the problem in understanding my argument comes from when I got off on the tangent about compromising. That has less to do about after the ban as before it, when you're making the call about what to ban or not. Since I believe that groups have more fun when they have more options, I believe that a DM ought to at least make the effort to remove/rework the unbalanced things and give the player the chance to reflavour it. You may not have the kind of time to do that, and just ban it because it doesen't fit. That's your call as DM. However, I know I try to accomodate new things.

A Good DM will work with a player to find a character that the player wants to play in his setting. He might compromise on some items, or adjust the setting for a particularly interesting character, just as he might make house rules for source material that he thinks is broken, or creates new Prestige classes or bans other prestige classes based on the needs of his group and his "storyline" or whatever.

YES! Exactly! Work with the player rather than just saying "Nope, you can't do that, next."

<EDIT>
I am confused. This statement alone allows the banning of most everything. There is no 'standard' D&D setting with allowed materail and non-allowed. All games are to some degree a homebrewed game. Why then is banning someting a problem?

It's not the act of banning something that's good or bad. It's the why you ban it and how you go about it that makes that determination. There's a huge difference between "X is banned because of Y reason," and "X is banned, get over it." The first is fine: you've treated your players with respect and dignity, and held on to your ground. The second is not so fine: you've basically told your players that you don't respect them enough to explain your decisions, and opens the way to accusations of heavy-handedness and playing favourites in the future.

I agree with Tyraxus.

Here's the problem with so called conservative dm's.
That's a sign to back out as a player and find another game. A DM who looks down on players, and believes he's granting the players the 'privaledge' of playing in 'his' game in my experience frequently suffers from other GM power trip problems (NPCs as the REAL heroes, railroading, player favoratism, class favoratism, etc).


You as a Dm are not the "Boss" you are not the God of that world and you don't get to lord it over players. You're not special cause you're Dm'ing. Its a privilage! Anyone competent at D&D can be the DM if they have the time.

No. No elves. No. No ToM of battle. No. No Clerics... period. No. No. No. No...
No new material. NO! OMG CORE ONLY.

Okay seriously, pass me the damn Dm screen. We know the Game is unbalanced we know Fighters stop working and Orc as a race gets the shaft.
So as a "GROUP" fix it, but as a DM yeah you do have to justify (run it by) your world by your player to some varying extents or you're not gonna be playing D&D you're gonna be sitting somewhere alone.

D&D is not a dictatorship but a democracy.


p.s. Balancing issues vs. New Material is BS, because the Core PHB was broke and unbalanced since its inception.

I'm saying "a good reason" because my premise is that "because I said so" shouldn't cut it. If it's not in the world, it's not in the world, and that's the DM's call. But I want him to think about why it's not in his world before he says it isn't, because I think long and hard about banning anything in my games, and I think I deserve the same amount of respect.

I am again confused. What is the difference between how his world works and what is in it (the DMs opinion) and saying I don't like it so I'm banning it (the Dm's opinion)?

Also why should how you ban (or not ban as the case maybe) things applied to everyone exactly the same? Is there something in your method of review that makes it better than some else's?

You may not have the kind of time to do that, and just ban it because it doesen't fit. That's your call as DM.

So as a DM... it's my call... to ban things... just because they don't fit... but saying I'm banning it because it doesn't fit.... makes it wrong?

:confused:

Let me add, however, that, as a DM, I'm often excited by a new supplement, and if it appeals to me, I often spend time trying to figure out where and how it fits in my game-world. If it works in there somewhere, and a player comes with a concept that includes some new race or class, then I'll give them suggestions about character background that includes those ideas I already had.

If the player isn't willing to work with me on that, then perhaps they'll be willing to play something else, or , in the direst of straights, nothing at all.

Because basically, compromise requires both people to make concessions. The DM has the burden of making a game appealing to everyone at his table. If some of his players aren't willing to work with that in mind, then they're probably not interested in working with the group as a whole when the game convenes.

So really, I don't see them leaving my table at that point as much of a loss.

Fortunately, I haven't had a problem like that in many years.

So you go with that, but that's based on the character's action, not the player's whims. If there was a reason for the characters to switch sides, or let the store get robbed, sure, I'm all for that. But letting the characters switch sides because the players want to just doesn't work. There's a big difference between character actions and player whims.


Okay, so if the player decides to switch sides, but you decide it is just a whim, what then? Are you going to tell the player how they play their character?

I can see the other argument, if it would disrupt play with the other players. Then it is up to them to stop him. I cannot imagine someone doing this unless they are bored ~ in which case you need to rectify that by giving them something to do, or they are genuinely disruptive. (I have seen a player like that once. The DM handled it effectively. Keep in mind it has been 1nce in my qhole gaming career.)


Your original statement implies that you knew what the character wanted, and denied it to them because you didn't want him to have it.

I knew what the player wanted, and knew their motivation as well. Hey, I read the optimization board as well. ;) I would not make it that easy, that is all.

Perhaps I was too general in my example. In the example assume that the rogue was always available. The only difference is semantics:
1) The ninja doesn't fit, you'll need to play a rogue and rp it.
2) Ninjas aren't allowed.

The only difference is how the player reacts. The DM didn't offer any more choices than the player already had. The second one is a little more blunt, but a player who respects the DM wouldn't need to be told to use a rogue. But he suddenly becomes a bad DM because he said the samething without giving the player a direct pointer back to where they had come from.


Again, a point of a good DM is knowing your players. If the response of "No ninjas allowed" will hold water, then that is good. Explaining it in terms other than, "I never liked that class" will make you a better DM.

Forgive me, it was not meant as an insult to you or your players. It was meant to compare always giving players whatever they want as a bad method of cultivating a good DM/player relationship. Namely for the lack of respect toward the DM.

Hey, no offense taken. As for the lack of respect? Not so. I respect my players as much as they respect me. If they want to bring a build into the game for whatever reason, that is cool, as long as they can justify it, and play it to the best of their abilities. A set of stats is not going to stop me from challenging the players!

My problem is that I don't see you advocating respect for the DM anywhere. All I see is respect for the players and giving them what they want.

I am the DM. I do not crave respect. I get it. There is a difference. If I make a ruling, then my players can trust that I am doing so fairly. This is much different than an off the cuff ruling banning something or other because I do not like it. That does not breed respect. What it does breed is distrust of the DM amongst the players.

I do not need to "command" respect. I give it, and then I receive it.

Replace it with the feat of your choice from an expansion and players demanding the feat be changed. The exact details of the example aren't that relevant as the player's attitudes toward the DM is. Mainly that everything should change to suit their whims as players.

Again, you are missing the point. I suppose that the fighter casting fireballs could be equated with this (but logic dictates otherwise), but a feat that is printed in an accessory is a lot different than a player arbitrarily deciding that their fighter can cast fireballs at whim.

I go by one rule. I may have the final say, but it is also understood that what goes for PCs, also goes for NPCs.

I read the optimization boards as well. My players know as well as I do, if they want to play the game, I will play it just as hard. I am there to challenge them, and to make sure they have fun.

Kalmarjan

Well, let me toss some kerosene on here.

The Stormwind Fallacy exists in part because of players who can't separate character from class. If you want to be a ninja, be a rogue, and drop a sock over your head. I want to be the greatest woodsman in all the land! Class? Fighter. I sunder mountains with my mastery of all things arcane. Class? Cleric. Magic domain. Or Rogue with Use Magic Device and a lot of rumors spread about him/herself. Hell, bard fits here.

For gods' sakes people, this entire arguement would be over with if people would sit down and create a concept before rolling dice. It's threads like these that make COers have the reputation we have. There's no good and valid reason why if you can't play one class, you can't play in that game other than "I don't want to play anything else." It's not like you showed up, character and background in hand, stats done, to the game, only to be told, "Oh, right, you. Uh, don't know how to say this, but you can't play your character, go home." And if you did, you set yourself up to be in that position. You're playing in the DM's game. You as the player have the responsibility to find out what is acceptable for that game. Period. If you want to change what's acceptable, run your own game.

I love how everyone who says 'DM's act like it's a privilege to play in their campaign world, or in their game...' say it like it's a bad thing. The DM is going through the effort to run the game for you. If he walks away, you're playing with yourself. That kind of gives him say in what goes on. Mind you, there are exceptions. There are players who ask for the moon and aren't happy unless they get it. There are DMs who roll 20s behind closed screens and arbitrarily kill players for a lucky string of crits. There are DMs who withhold treasure, XP, and class features just because they can, or because they want to 'simulate a challenge'. But these aren't your average DMs or Players.

Attacking a DM for banning things is setting up people who don't know the situation, for the expectation that they should be able to bring whatever they want to a game, regardless of the flavor. The fact is, the vast majority of games don't allow every book under the sun, and have restrictions. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid. Additionally, the vast majority of players out there aren't so disagreeable that they can only ever play one character and if they can't play one character they will shatter into a million tiny wrist-cutting emo pieces. Hell, I've given a player little more than "No, you can't play that." because I didn't like the build he was using, or more specifically, where that build was going. He shrugged, smiled, and built another character.

And to be honest, 99% of players who come here know when a character they made won't be allowed before they put pen to paper. Be honest with yourselves. This isn't a civil rights movement. It's a game. A game with people in it, where you know beforehand, or can easily find out beforehand, what's allowed. And yes, you, Joe Schmuckatelli player do have the responsibility to ask if your character fits in the game, not the other way around. To be honest, asking a comprimise without one given can border on patronizing and harrassment. If you get a flat out "No" it's usually not going to work to ask for a watered down 'no' in response to a watered down thing that got the 'no' in the first place. If it's explained, you've got a better chance. But either way, you can avoid the whole thing by just not setting yourself up for that situation in the first place


If the DM doesn't let you play your character, play a different damn character.

If the DM doesn't let you play the game, play a different damn game.

I agree with Tyraxus.

Here's the problem with so called conservative dm's.
That's a sign to back out as a player and find another game. A DM who looks down on players, and believes he's granting the players the 'privaledge' of playing in 'his' game in my experience frequently suffers from other GM power trip problems (NPCs as the REAL heroes, railroading, player favoratism, class favoratism, etc).


But this isn't all "conservative" DMs. Some conservative DMs are that way simply because experience with recent source material shows it to not always be well thought out, or playtested. And in many cases, (Tome of Magic, for example) introduces flavour *and* rules that don't always fit. A Whole new system of magic (psionics, ToB martial adepts, shadow, true name ) etc might outright be either broken (a game-balance question) or anathema to the setting. What if there really is no psionics in that game-world? And some conservative DMs are simply unable to purchase every book their players have so that they can learn and digest the rules. Not everyone gets paid the same, and some of those with the money to buy those books are working so hard to get that money, they don't have the time to read them :)

Sure we hate those Lord-it-over-you DMs. But some of those guys love the new source material as much as you do (although usually they keep it for the NPCs). It's not "conservative" DMs we hate, but egotistical ones.


Okay seriously, pass me the damn Dm screen. We know the Game is unbalanced we know Fighters stop working and Orc as a race gets the shaft.
So as a "GROUP" fix it, but as a DM yeah you do have to justify (run it by) your world by your player to some varying extents or you're not gonna be playing D&D you're gonna be sitting somewhere alone.

D&D is not a dictatorship but a democracy.


Hear Hear. And as your elected official, the DM is simply doing his job by vetoing things he doesn't think will work in his campaign. You don't expect to be able to call up the President of the USA and say "You must stop invading Iraq, and instead, invade Australia ! Cause I said so!" , just because the USA is a democracy, do you ?

If you think your elected DM is doing a crappy job, elect someone else or find a new country. If no one else is volunteering for the job, then you're working under his rules. Learn to live with it.


p.s. Balancing issues vs. New Material is BS, because the Core PHB was broke and unbalanced since its inception.

Which is why many DMs are forced to house-rule even core RAW.

The Game != RAW.

KHAN
And for the record, this is the NOT the right forum. The CO Board often tells people posting that a DM should allow this and that because it is not broken, but that's not our goal our goal is to optimize the game using available material thats why we're here on the CO BOARDS. I belive. Though I'm sure some of are here to day just to vent.

Get over yourself (Oh mighty Creator of PUN_PUN). You are a D&D player, not a diva.

post 116
Actually, the "because I said so" should be adequate when warranted. If the
child actually has both self respect and respect for the parents, then that should be enough. They can come to understand later WHY the parent said no, but the no is enough for now.
This kind of attitude is what I have a problem with. . . you don't wanna be flexible work with your players, don't DM.
The very premise of this is wrong a Dm is not in the same category as parent this incenses me.


Hear Hear. And as your elected official, the DM is simply doing his job by vetoing things he doesn't think will work in his campaign. You don't expect to be able to call up the President of the USA and say "You must stop invading Iraq, and instead, invade Australia ! Cause I said so!" , just because the USA is a democracy, do you ?


No but you just un-elect him which can happen a lot more easily in a game.
Bush is a bad example. He still is supposed to go through congress. In a slightly different country he'd might be killed for war crimes. Thats anthoer topic all together though.
Every time you say his campaign you're touching on my point. Its not his campaign, its OUR campaign.

I am again confused. What is the difference between how his world works and what is in it (the DMs opinion) and saying I don't like it so I'm banning it (the Dm's opinion)?

The only difference is that in order for the DM to have a world-related reason to ban something, he has to review the material to get a feel for if and how it would fit into his world. Thinking is always better than not thinking, and reasoned response is better than kneejerk reaction to a single page in a 100+ page book.

Also why should how you ban (or not ban as the case maybe) things applied to everyone exactly the same? Is there something in your method of review that makes it better than some else's?

It might not come up, but let's say Bob is playing the fighter guy. He sees the ToB and goes "Wow! That's some really cool stuff for fighter guys," but the DM bans the book without any discussion or reason. Then a while later Steve, who plays the rogue type, brings in Complete Scoundrel and says "Hey guys, check out what I picked up," and the DM lets it in with no discussion or reason (same as the ToB, he has his reasons, but doesn't share them). Now Bob is going to feel cheated, and rightly so, because all he's seen is his cool stuff thrown out and Steve's cool stuff let in. All it would have taken is the DM sitting down and talking to the group about the books as people brought them, and you wouldn't have a problem, but as it stands, due to the DM's "I'm the DM, what I say goes, and I answer to no one because it's my world muahahaha," attitude, he's on the verge of losing a good player, and possibly a friend.

I completely misread what you wrote, and I'm sorry. The above is a clarification on what I meant by possibly being accused of heavy-handedness and playing favourites. But if I'm now reading you correctly, you're asking why my system of review is better.

It's not. Review how you want and based on whatever criteria you want. I'm more permissive than some DMs, and that's okay. I just don't think a DM should do things relating to a character or the material without talking to the players. Make whatever decision you wish, but tell the players why you made it so they don't start feeling like you don't respect them or their characters.

So then the entire point of this thread is "Read the book before saying OMGWTFBBQ Borkenz!"? I doubt many people would have a problem with that.

Actually, the "because I said so" should be adequate when warranted. If the
child actually has both self respect and respect for the parents, then that should be enough. They can come to understand later WHY the parent said no, but the no is enough for now

I too have a problem with this statement. We are not raising children here, we are playing D&D. This is exactly what I am speaking about. Respect. Give it, and you will receive.

Now I think I know why some DMs have to yell, kick, scream in order to "get their players in line."

With an attitude like the one above, it is a wonder the DM has friends, let alone a player in his campaign.

So then the entire point of this thread is "Read the book before saying OMGWTFBBQ Borkenz!"? I doubt many people would have a problem with that.

I honestly believe thats a big part of it yeah. Theres a lot of different things going on in this thread. I really feel like that would help if people did that.

That, and that it's not against the rules to reflavour things to fit the setting. Since I'm a fan of more options, I tend to do that much more than others, it seems.

Midnight - I'm not sure why you quoted me.. perhaps you misunderstood my point. Or perhaps you actually agree with me after all.

To say that the game is a democracy is one thing - but to expect that the DM ought to allow all source material at the whim of the players doesn't follow from that. Hence my example of the President. He's not going to allow you to tell him how to run the country just because you voted for him, any more than the DM should be expected to allow you to change the nature of his game-world just because you deign to play with him, and have recently purchased a new book.

There are plothooks, and then there's "Hey, lookit me, I'm SPECIAL!" Insisting on playing a race that doesn't exist is the latter in my book. And then there's my DM (who also wrote his own campaign for the Eberron setting) who thought it would be interesting and fun if my back-up character was a kender plane-shifted in from Dragonlance. I agreed, so I'm trying to develop a beguiler (which I think is perfect for a kender) with help from folks in this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=803971).

My DM is willing to consider anything in his campaign, but after two players made use of Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords he decided to ban the book for all future characters. Same for the Goliath race - before the campaign started he said he won't allow any character larger than Medium, but one player honestly missed the message and created a character using the Goliath race with ToB. The DM made an exception, although he was unhappy about it.

So, is he a bad DM? I don't think so. Yes, he bans stuff. It's his campaign he worked so hard to develop, so he of all people should judge what is and isn't allowed. But he's willing to consider player suggestions, and he even suggested introducing a kender into Eberron!
-A

Me too tyraxus, its actually good to see I'm not alone. You and Kalmarjan seem to be on the same page with me about a lot of this. Its great that were all on right now, but I know this is just the calm before the storm...

I gotta add that with that friendship, mutual respect, comes trust. I trust my players to introduce new material, I trust them to negotiate with me, and come to mutual understanding both with me and the other players.

I trust them not to break the game. I don't know what some peoples D&D experience have been like but man reading this I feel like maybe I live in vacuum of play.

Try saying it.
I'm the DM, I'm not the Boss, Its not my game, I'm the rules adjucator and primary storyteller, Its my turn to help entertain.
Thats were I'm coming from. I want my players to have freedom and fun...
Am I making a mistake Dm'ing?

Again, a point of a good DM is knowing your players. If the response of "No ninjas allowed" will hold water, then that is good. Explaining it in terms other than, "I never liked that class" will make you a better DM.

Hey, no offense taken. As for the lack of respect? Not so. I respect my players as much as they respect me. If they want to bring a build into the game for whatever reason, that is cool, as long as they can justify it, and play it to the best of their abilities. A set of stats is not going to stop me from challenging the players!

Giving players what they want has limits. You can't get respect from monty haul, and sometimes you can't give the player what they want. No insult as I don't know you or your players, but I don't see what you have done to earn their respect besides giving them what they want.

If they respect you, 'No ninjas' alone is good enough. If they don't respect you then you have to lay it all out for them? The only difference is if the players will accept the answer given?

Why/when does it become ok to just say "No ninjas allowed?"

I am the DM. I do not crave respect. I get it. There is a difference. If I make a ruling, then my players can trust that I am doing so fairly. This is much different than an off the cuff ruling banning something or other because I do not like it. That does not breed respect. What it does breed is distrust of the DM amongst the players.

I do not need to "command" respect. I give it, and then I receive it.

"If I make a ruling, then my players can trust that I am doing so fairly." Is this not the exact position of Caelic, indeed of everyone who is willing to ban material? That their players can trust them to know what's fair? Why can they trust you but not other DMs?

Again, you are missing the point. I suppose that the fighter casting fireballs could be equated with this (but logic dictates otherwise), but a feat that is printed in an accessory is a lot different than a player arbitrarily deciding that their fighter can cast fireballs at whim.

I cannot fathom what you are trying to say. I do not know where fireballs and fighters came from, nor how they relate to players demanding that things be changed because they want them so, and then calling bad DM when they don't get what they want.

I go by one rule. I may have the final say, but it is also understood that what goes for PCs, also goes for NPCs.

So you as a DM have the final say, but that doesn't count for other DMs? Why not?

Hmm. Not at all, in my book.

Funny thing is, the OP has not weighed in on this issue in a long time. Wonder where he/she is?

Kalmarjan

Giving players what they want has limits. You can't get respect from monty haul, and sometimes you can't give the player what they want. No insult as I don't know you or your players, but I don't see what you have done to earn their respect besides giving them what they want.

If they respect you, 'No ninjas' alone is good enough. If they don't respect you then you have to lay it all out for them? The only difference is if the players will accept the answer given?

Why/when does it become ok to just say "No ninjas allowed?"

If it is a monty haul game the players want, then you should give it to them. The point is that they are there for the experience. Not necessarily the experience "you" have invisioned for them. I gain the respect from them because they have faith knowing that they will have a good time consistently in my game. I do not have to bark, ban, punish or do any of those things I sometimes come across on these boards. It is not necessarily anything I have "done" to gain their respect, except give it to them. That is, realizing that they have a choice in how the campaign goes too.

"If I make a ruling, then my players can trust that I am doing so fairly." Is this not the exact position of Caelic, indeed of everyone who is willing to ban material? That their players can trust them to know what's fair? Why can they trust you but not other DMs?

Uhh... where is this question going? Excuse me, I am going to read back through my posts for a second... nope. I never said that anyone should trust me over other DMs. I simply answered the charge that I am not respecting the DM in the campaign. (Me.)

I cannot fathom what you are trying to say. I do not know where fireballs and fighters came from, nor how they relate to players demanding that things be changed because they want them so, and then calling bad DM when they don't get what they want.

I was responding to the post asking about whether it was okay to let a player say his fighter casts fireballs. It was probably weakly alluding to the post I made about allowing pretty much anything into our campaign. A very weak attack. That sum it up?

So you as a DM have the final say, but that doesn't count for other DMs? Why not?

I am not sure if you have experience with the game or not, but generally there is one DM at the table. Rule 0 states the DM has the final say at the table. I am not saying that any other DM does not have a say, I am just stating my philosophy for this debate on "conservative DMs".

Kalmarjan

I gotta add that with that friendship, mutual respect, comes trust. I trust my players to introduce new material, I trust them to negotiate with me, and come to mutual understanding both with me and the other players.

I trust them not to break the game. I don't know what some peoples D&D experience have been like but man reading this I feel like maybe I live in vacuum of play.

I as well. I'm wondering if there'll be a way to keep my (apparantly excellent) group together when we start graduating in a year, because these guys are turning me off pickup games.

Funny thing is, the OP has not weighed in on this issue in a long time. Wonder where he/she is?

Perhaps not off from work or whatever yet. The only reason I've been able to be on all day is I've not been assigned to anything since I finished up the last project.

KHAN
And for the record, this is the NOT the right forum. The CO Board often tells people posting that a DM should allow this and that because it is not broken, but that's not our goal our goal is to optimize the game using available material thats why we're here on the CO BOARDS. I belive. Though I'm sure some of are here to day just to vent.
I am well aware of the purpose of these boards Midnight. But because this particular topic does not involve optimizing a character, doesn't mean it doesn't pertain to this board. Truth is, CO takes for granted that a DM will allow any and all sources and mechanics. And when someone says 'My DM doesn't allow this, any other suggestions?' more often than not the OP doesn't get more suggestions, he gets preachy rants about his DM's poor DMing skills or tips on how to stick it to his DM.

In my opinion, this topic and thread are ok here.
Get over yourself (Oh mighty Creator of PUN_PUN). You are a D&D player, not a diva.
You are right, I am not a diva. A diva is demanding. A diva needs certain things to feel comfortable. A diva does not understand the word no and needs to have things her way.

Out of everyone in this thread, I agree I am not a diva.

I was responding to the post asking about whether it was okay to let a player say his fighter casts fireballs. It was probably weakly alluding to the post I made about allowing pretty much anything into our campaign. A very weak attack. That sum it up?


Well if you can't be bothered to read the thread you can't really be expected to get the source right. The Fireballs thing was mine, page 5, in response to someone else. The "attack" was merely an example to show that no one would have a problem with a DM who adjudicates the RAW to protect his game balance - but why were so many people hesitant to accept his word on game-setting or even game-balance in his game? They're effectively the same thing.

In the first situation, you're trusting WOTC to publish balanced and fun material ... people you've probably never met.

In the second situation you're trusting someone who you may have known for years to make a good call on the story-elements of his setting, or the balance of a particular set of rules in his setting.

Why is the first accepted without question and the second approached with some reticence?


I am not sure if you have experience with the game or not, but generally there is one DM at the table. Rule 0 states the DM has the final say at the table. I am not saying that any other DM does not have a say, I am just stating my philosophy for this debate on "conservative DMs".
Kalmarjan

So you have the final say in your game, but allow your players to include any old material without even consulting you ?

If you get a say-so in what the players bring to the table, and can veto any one of their requests, then you're no different from a conservative DM except in your own self-perception. In the end, a conservative DM simply says "No right now, but maybe if you can convince me it'll work". Whereas you say "Sure, anything goes, but wait, that turned out to be broken, so no dice!"

End result : very little difference.
Only at the extremes do you have a perceptible difference : Extremely conservative DM says Never, and extremely permissive DM says "always". Neither extreme sounds like a lot of fun to me.

There is no right or wrong way to DM in general, there exists an optimal way to DM a specific group of players. If Caelic's players all need to be ruled with an iron fist to keep things running smoothly, then that's his bag. If you happen to be in a group where the players take a vested interest in constructing the world/plot, then a hard-line DM would stifle that and would not be "optimal".

So it's really all dependant on the people. Personally, I prefer the players to be very involved in the creation of the plot. As a DM I like to just create an environment and simulate the consequences of the players' plot. I put a big stress on group interaction, group back-story, and group planning to help things go smoothly. Why? If your players are genuinely interested and genuinely creative, then the DM's job becomes interesting. I find it all together too exhausting to write up an entire plot, only to have it screwed up by the PCs. The worlds I create are only as complex as the players demand. Should the players inquire about X,Y,&Z political groups or organizations, suddenly they pop into existance. It's just like real life, when you think about it... so much goes on in the background that you don't ever really get to know it until you start looking into things. Essentially it's like the fog on a RTS video game map, stuff comes flying out of the darkness and you don't know why... you just know it happened. Then you investigate and see that there's a base out in the fog that'd producing all these flying things. So as a DM I can just throw weird stuff at the PCs until they get the gumption to investigate, only then do I create the story for it. I mean, you gotta be reasonable and you need to have at least a vague idea of what might be happening in the background, but I like to keep my options open until the very last second.


Back to what I was saying originally, though, my "Schoedinger's DMing" technique of leaving the cause for events unknown until observed is probably not for everyone. It requires that the players take an active role in the game. Some may like to just sit and enjoy the story, so a linear plot and hard-line DM might be better for that kind of group.

Now, as for source material, I'm again not the conventional DM. I regard flavor text with utmost disdain. I couldn't care less what the class name is, what suggested organizations it requires, or even what alignment it requires. All I look for is mechanics. If the mechanics are sound, then its okay. I let the player re-write the flavor to fit the campaign. This lets the player do what they functionally want to do and fit it with a flavor that they want. I mean the player's character is the player's character, they can do what they want with it. So long as everyone has fun, the plot progresses, and stuff doesn't get out of hand it's all good. Remember, I don't write the plot -- so they can't screw anything up... unless they screw up their own agenda.


But again, it's all dependant on the group. If the group is full of conniving munchkins, then limiting source material is probably a good idea. Some people like to have a firm DM, it's like a security blanket. Some people crave freedom. You gotta figure all this in when you pick your DMing style.


Of course, if you've got your pick of players as a DM you can behave however you want. But in the usual case where you're playing with a group of friends, it's best to taylor your DMing to the group. Same goes for players, taylor your characters to the DM.


Bottom Line: In general there is no one, true right path to DMing. In general there is no one, true right path to being a player either. The only hard and fast rule is that you need to be prepared to deviate from your preconceived notions about either role.

Only at the extremes do you have a perceptible difference : Extremely conservative DM says Never, and extremely permissive DM says "always". Neither extreme sounds like a lot of fun to me.
Yeah. I wouldn't have much fun playing alongside an anthro whale, or some powerful angel or demon. It's too over the top for my taste. And maybe my DM agrees with me.

Too bad it doesn't matter. All it takes is one player. If he wants to be an anthro whale... it would be wrong for anyone to say no for the simple reason of 'it's dumb'.

Well if you can't be bothered to read the thread you can't really be expected to get the source right. The Fireballs thing was mine, page 5, in response to someone else. The "attack" was merely an example to show that no one would have a problem with a DM who adjudicates the RAW to protect his game balance - but why were so many people hesitant to accept his word on game-setting or even game-balance in his game? They're effectively the same thing.

No offense, I forgot the origin of the thread because the argument held no weight whatsoever. No offense intended. :)

In the first situation, you're trusting WOTC to publish balanced and fun material ... people you've probably never met.

In the second situation you're trusting someone who you may have known for years to make a good call on the story-elements of his setting, or the balance of a particular set of rules in his setting.

If I did not trust them, why would I buy the book? As for the second comment, I would trust the guy if he gave me a little more respect than the old "I am the DM hear me roar" diatribe. I would be surprised though if the DM would not actually let in an elf character in disguise to further his plot strings in the end. To each his own. I am just saying that in general, people (read: DMs) who arbitrarily ban things with no explanation are not exactly exacting any form of respect.

In Caelic's case, since he would probably explain the reasoning to me, I would accept his terms. See, that is because he actually gave a sh*t about explaining it to me.

So you have the final say in your game, but allow your players to include any old material without even consulting you ?


For someone who accuses me of not reading your posts, it shows you have not read mine. I said that I would allow the player to bring something in as long as they cleared it with me first. I even gave the example of my online campaign ~ where the player wanted to create a Ghaele character.

If you get a say-so in what the players bring to the table, and can veto any one of their requests, then you're no different from a conservative DM except in your own self-perception. In the end, a conservative DM simply says "No right now, but maybe if you can convince me it'll work". Whereas you say "Sure, anything goes, but wait, that turned out to be broken, so no dice!"

End result : very little difference.

I *could* veto their requests, but it has never happened in all the years that I have DMed. The difference? I find a way for it to work in the game. I would also take responsibility for my decisions. I would never turn around and nerf something because it does not work. The game goes on. Things right themselves eventually.


Only at the extremes do you have a perceptible difference : Extremely conservative DM says Never, and extremely permissive DM says "always". Neither extreme sounds like a lot of fun to me.

I guess it all depends on your idea of fun. If your idea of fun is to screw your players, withhold thier treasure, make it almost impossible to get what they desire to play, and it is working for your players, then cool. Go with that. I just do not see what is wrong with the guy wanting to play his reach chain fighting freak. THere is a role to fill there, and I enjoy challenging that player.

Kalmarjan

Yeah. I wouldn't have much fun playing alongside an anthro whale, or some powerful angel or demon. It's too over the top for my taste. And maybe my DM agrees with me.

Too bad it doesn't matter. All it takes is one player. If he wants to be an anthro whale... it would be wrong for anyone to say no for the simple reason of 'it's dumb'.

LOL. Okay, you want to play the Anthro Wale? You going to be close to the water? Are you sure? Why do you want to play the Anthro? Is it cool? Did I ever tell you I like to prepare sushi?

A demon on the other hand, could be fit into the game. I could see something akin to a "hellboy" theme. There would be restrictions, but it could be workable.

I guess this would be extreme. If I encountered this, I would be tempted to use the Veto power as a DM. OTOH, I have never come across a player who would "demand" this. (*Touching wood*)

Kalmarjan

I am well aware of the purpose of these boards Midnight. But because this particular topic does not involve optimizing a character, doesn't mean it doesn't pertain to this board. Truth is, CO takes for granted that a DM will allow any and all sources and mechanics. And when someone says 'My DM doesn't allow this, any other suggestions?' more often than not the OP doesn't get more suggestions, he gets preachy rants about his DM's poor DMing skills or tips on how to stick it to his DM.

In my opinion, this topic and thread are ok here.

You are right, I am not a diva. A diva is demanding. A diva needs certain things to feel comfortable. A diva does not understand the word no and needs to have things her way.

Out of everyone in this thread, I agree I am not a diva.

Uhm... Sorry Khan, I respect your work... If I came off as an ass ... I didn't mean it you're not a diva but the way you put it. It seemed like you called all of us divas so... I felt bullied. So I perhaps wrongfully pushed back.
I apologize.

Edit... I trust my players not to Bring an Anthropomorphic wale (That's hilarious)... I'd wouldn't stop someone trying to play a demon, with the proper level adjusments and hit dice restrictions assuming the rest of the players didn't mind. Often its not even a good deal to do so...

Posted By T_Ghola
Now, as for source material, I'm again not the conventional DM. I regard flavor text with utmost disdain. I couldn't care less what the class name is, what suggested organizations it requires, or even what alignment it requires. All I look for is mechanics. If the mechanics are sound, then its okay. I let the player re-write the flavor to fit the campaign. This lets the player do what they functionally want to do and fit it with a flavor that they want. I mean the player's character is the player's character, they can do what they want with it. So long as everyone has fun, the plot progresses, and stuff doesn't get out of hand it's all good. Remember, I don't write the plot -- so they can't screw anything up... unless they screw up their own agenda.

Man Damn T_G you should open up a optimization school! I have to agree with this whole heartedly. I'm glad you don't spend ALL your time in the theoretical optimization board. (Hey more Toadyism!) LOL.

Seriously, I take issue with people who cling to fluff. I had one of my players desperately try to build Bladesinger, because he liked the fluff. Which was fine by me, but in play what he really wanted to do was be a full gish. I suggested that he just build the elf gish he wanted and transfer the fluff. He resisted at first but after doing so he's much happier.

I figure thats how things should go, you can only screw up your own agenda.

LOL. Okay, you want to play the Anthro Wale? You going to be close to the water? Are you sure? Why do you want to play the Anthro? Is it cool? Did I ever tell you I like to prepare sushi?

A demon on the other hand, could be fit into the game. I could see something akin to a "hellboy" theme. There would be restrictions, but it could be workable.

I guess this would be extreme. If I encountered this, I would be tempted to use the Veto power as a DM. OTOH, I have never come across a player who would "demand" this. (*Touching wood*)

Kalmarjan

So your reason for getting rid of the anthro whale is "I like sushi?" I thought the whole point was nothing is banned out of hand without in game reasoning.

Not long ago there was a thread called "help me make my DM cry". Aparently he wanted to pitch out ToB after letting this charecter play a warblade for a while and not liking the feel of it, so the poster wanted an all core build that would be leaps more powerful than the last one to "prove" the ToB was ok. Talk about a bass-aackwards way of proving a point. Given the same scenario as a DM you can bet the "new" charecter wouldn't last long.

You guys need to cut us a little slack here man. When you see "The DM has banned X" why not assume there is a perfectly good reason for X being banned rather than "your DM is dumbzor, go find someone who will let you play Pun-Pun".

I don't see why we even really have an argument here anymore. If you don't like the flavor of a class because it doesn't fit into your world, I am perfectly happy writing a relatively in depth new batch of flavor text that does mesh. If you think some aspects of a class are too powered, I would gladly work on nerfing those character's abilitites. Even the Pro-DMs here seem to agree with that. In my opinion, any DM who would still reject a concept despite my fixing any mechanics and flavor problems is an unreasonable DM. If the flavor doesn't mess up your world, and the class isn't overpewoered, and it makes me happy, then saying no is pointless.
As for the learining a new system argument, I have one point. You know what is a really hard system to learn? Regular magic. I've been playing D&D for many years, and the intricacies of the thousands of spells published by WotC is lost on me, while the ToB system, which I've only been familiar with for a few months, I am quite familiar with. Yet everyone here would think banning wizards, clerics, sorcerers, druids, etc. is crazy, despite being more broken than ToB, and far more complex to truly understand.

Well because.
1. I remeber that post and the the way he "banned" that character was foul.
Killing his woodelf swordsage while he was away from the table. Then saying present a new build but it can't be ToB seemed like a out of hand ruling.

2. People give the Elvis response to the Tob. Elvis first appeared form the Ed Sullivan show filmed from the waist up to not show his hips gyrating. People fight against new things. that was just a "bad Dm" move. Instead of talking to the player he just acted an A-hole. Based on the info that player presented.


for the learining a new system argument, I have one point. You know what is a really hard system to learn? Regular magic. I've been playing D&D for many years, and the intricacies of the thousands of spells published by WotC is lost on me, while the ToB system, which I've only been familiar with for a few months, I am quite familiar with. Yet everyone here would think banning wizards, clerics, sorcerers, druids, etc. is crazy, despite being more broken than ToB, and far more complex to truly understand So very true...
...must... sleep...
more in dreams...

No offense, I forgot the origin of the thread because the argument held no weight whatsoever. No offense intended. :)

Nice. Since it's obvious you actually agree with me (lower down in your response) then perhaps the argument had some weight after all. But as respect is a two way street .. or were you forgetting that part..?

If I did not trust them, why would I buy the book?

And if you don't trust your DM, why do you play in his game?
The answer to both questions is that your alternative is, often, not to play D&D at all. There are other RPG systems, and there are other DMs, but maybe you think D&D, while far from perfect, is the one you like most - and the same goes for your DM.


As for the second comment, I would trust the guy if he gave me a little more respect than the old "I am the DM hear me roar" diatribe. I would be surprised though if the DM would not actually let in an elf character in disguise to further his plot strings in the end. To each his own. I am just saying that in general, people (read: DMs) who arbitrarily ban things with no explanation are not exactly exacting any form of respect.


Undoubtedly - and neither are the players who scream "But it's in this book I just bought, so you *have* to let me play it! <whine>"


In Caelic's case, since he would probably explain the reasoning to me, I would accept his terms. See, that is because he actually gave a sh*t about explaining it to me.

Or perhaps he gives you a knowing wink, taps his forehead and says "Not in this campaign.. I have plans. If you trust your DM, that ought to be enough. If you don't trust your DM.. well there's always next campaign.

For someone who accuses me of not reading your posts, it shows you have not read mine. I said that I would allow the player to bring something in as long as they cleared it with me first. I even gave the example of my online campaign ~ where the player wanted to create a Ghaele character.

Oh yes.. I was using a method of taking your own words and showing how they contradict themselves : See you said earlier that you were very permissive, and implied that was different from conservative DMs. Then you went on to say that you have a veto power - your final say-so. I'm merely trying to show how those things - in practice - are contradictory

"So you have the final say in your game, but allow your players to include any old material without even consulting you ?"

You see - you're admitting that you don't in fact allow players to include any old material without consulting you... your "permissiveness" is merely one of degree. Hence disparaging those who are "conservative" seems silly to me, because both of you end up with a "restricted" set of source material in your games, you just approach the way in which you restrict it somewhat differently.


I *could* veto their requests, but it has never happened in all the years that I have DMed. The difference? I find a way for it to work in the game.

So in a game setting where you'd had (real-life) years of there being no elves (and for good in-game reasons - such as all elves being ancient, maniacal, evil near-godlike and rare), if a player wanted to play an elf you'd try and work that in, just because they asked ? No qualms? No Veto?

Or perhaps you just have players who don't ask to play stupid game-wrecking characters because they already respect your ground-rules? You know, that does happen. But we're not talking about groups that work well. We're talking about the assumption that a DM who says "no" to untested new material is automatically less competent than one who says "yes", for whatever reason. The fact you've never had to do it, doesn't mean others have had that luxury.

I guess it all depends on your idea of fun. If your idea of fun is to screw your players, withhold thier treasure, make it almost impossible to get what they desire to play, and it is working for your players, then cool. Go with that. I just do not see what is wrong with the guy wanting to play his reach chain fighting freak. THere is a role to fill there, and I enjoy challenging that player.

Kalmarjan
So Pun Pun is in then? Or would you veto that?
Straw man : You're equating conservatism with player-hating egotism. They're not the same thing. Sounds like you've had a few experiences with egotistical DM's you can't trust to do a good job.. who didn't trust you not to break their game (to which you -rightfully- took offense).
And I guess some DMs have had to deal with players they really couldn't trust not to break their game .. which it sounds like you've never had to deal with when you're in control.

I'm with T_G. There's no "one true way" to DM. You do what is right for the group you're in, and that includes barring material if your players are nuts, or opening the door to monty haul if that's what turns everybody's crank.

Egotistical and/or incompetent DMs can just as easily let in everything and the kitchen sink and still produce a crappy game you can't wait to leave.

A lot of new material ends up (for me) having that "tacked on feeling." Suddenly it is like, the PCs' party contains the only people (person?) that uses that source material.

Rich Burlew (http://www.giantitp.com/index.html) was writing a series of articles going over the creation of a campaign world. In part of it he talks about the rarity of magic. Particularly how he doesn't want something to be rare, EXCEPT for in adventuring parties.

Woah, where have all these initiators (using the ToB example) been? They are supposed to be the best martial artists alive, how could no one have heard of them? How could none of them be employed?

There is a time for adding new material to a game, unfortunately that time seems to be during the campaign design phase. That is part of what makes Eberron great, it doesn't have the (real time) history that Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance has. It was written after the Expanded Psionic Handbook, and takes advantage of it.

So now character optimization boards handle optimization of moral and social character :confused:

Okay.

As my group's almost exclusive DM for about 7 years, I have learned that the MOST important balance is NOT player v DM; but player v player. My group always has players of varied interest and knowledge of the supplemental rules. We play to have fun, and generally help each other toward that goal.

If a less rules-savvy player has a character concept, I and the other players will happily guide him to an appropriate class or build that fits best. Conversely, if a rules-guru lays down a monstrousity that I feel will make the rest of the party feel useless, he and I will talk it out, and possibly place restrictions.

As in caelic's example, campaign-based 'bannings' certainly don't mean a DM is inept. DM's should always exercise control over their campaign, but remember the game is about having fun with friends, and most players don't have fun if they feel unnecessarily restricted. The players aren't there to stroke the DM's ego, and the DM doesn't exist to cater to the players.
However, if you do place such bannings, it is important to communicate with your players why and provide them with alternatives to be successful at their desired role if their ideal character build doesn't fit in your setting.

Communication is the key to social character optimization.

Don't forget to put max ranks in Listen and Skillfocus. :P

Nice. Since it's obvious you actually agree with me (lower down in your response) then perhaps the argument had some weight after all. But as respect is a two way street .. or were you forgetting that part..?
Not forgotten. ;)
And if you don't trust your DM, why do you play in his game?
The answer to both questions is that your alternative is, often, not to play D&D at all. There are other RPG systems, and there are other DMs, but maybe you think D&D, while far from perfect, is the one you like most - and the same goes for your DM.
Sometimes you do not have that luxury. Say you play in a small town. You would not really have a choice in DMs then, would you.

Undoubtedly - and neither are the players who scream "But it's in this book I just bought, so you *have* to let me play it! <whine>"
I see your point. Thing is, I am pretty open to new concepts. (See below as to why)

Or perhaps he gives you a knowing wink, taps his forehead and says "Not in this campaign.. I have plans. If you trust your DM, that ought to be enough. If you don't trust your DM.. well there's always next campaign.
See, that I would not mind. There is enough suspense there to cause me to go ~ Woah! What's he got planned. :)
Oh yes.. I was using a method of taking your own words and showing how they contradict themselves : See you said earlier that you were very permissive, and implied that was different from conservative DMs. Then you went on to say that you have a veto power - your final say-so. I'm merely trying to show how those things - in practice - are contradictory
Okay, but in doing so, you left logic at the door. I never said I was a permissive DM. Others said that about me. I am neither case. I simply try to let my players play what they want. See, it is all about that. What I want, and what the players want. And the balance of the two. I am advocating that balance ~ not either extreme.

"So you have the final say in your game, but allow your players to include any old material without even consulting you ?"

You see - you're admitting that you don't in fact allow players to include any old material without consulting you... your "permissiveness" is merely one of degree. Hence disparaging those who are "conservative" seems silly to me, because both of you end up with a "restricted" set of source material in your games, you just approach the way in which you restrict it somewhat differently.
Again, I never said I was permissive. That was a label put on me by others. I am just saying it is usually good to back up your decision with a consistent answer that would instill respect to your players. There is a big difference.

So in a game setting where you'd had (real-life) years of there being no elves (and for good in-game reasons - such as all elves being ancient, maniacal, evil near-godlike and rare), if a player wanted to play an elf you'd try and work that in, just because they asked ? No qualms? No Veto?

Or perhaps you just have players who don't ask to play stupid game-wrecking characters because they already respect your ground-rules? You know, that does happen. But we're not talking about groups that work well. We're talking about the assumption that a DM who says "no" to untested new material is automatically less competent than one who says "yes", for whatever reason. The fact you've never had to do it, doesn't mean others have had that luxury.

Back in 2e, I hated elves. I had a running campaign which I forbid elves, even with the whole "elves do not exist ~ there is a curse, as there are also no trees. Guess what, every new player out there automatically wanted to play an elf. It was the darndest thing. In reality, it was because hated elves.

Today, if I was to run that same campaign, I would allow the player to run an elf. I learned something back then. I cannot control what the players would want. All I could control was how much I gave to make the experience fun. That includes letting them have what they want ~ eventually. (With some work on their part.)

So Pun Pun is in then? Or would you veto that?
Straw man : You're equating conservatism with player-hating egotism. They're not the same thing. Sounds like you've had a few experiences with egotistical DM's you can't trust to do a good job.. who didn't trust you not to break their game (to which you -rightfully- took offense).
And I guess some DMs have had to deal with players they really couldn't trust not to break their game .. which it sounds like you've never had to deal with when you're in control.

LOL. If someone asked me to bring in Pun Pun. (Which would take some balls I bet), then the answer would be no. I could explain it in the whole campaign wise ~ or I could just ask the player to actually create something other than something he read off the optimisation boards. Hey, Pun Pun can be defeated you know. Without Deux ex machina.

As for players trying to break the game, that has never happened with me. There is always a way to counter something that is getting out of control. The answer to me is to let the player have their cake, and eat it as well. In the example of the chain fighter, I knew exactly what the guy was going to do with the character. I did not ban it, I did not house rule it, and I did not suddenly make the NPCs invulnerable to it.

Instead, I let the player have what they wanted. They got their low level baddies to smash, and the rest of the party took care of the bigger things. It is called tailoring the encounter to the party. Why have a dungeon when there are no traps for the rogue to disarm? Why have an encounter where the chain weilding fighter would dominate and ruin the fun for everyone else?

This is not necessarily a permissive style. I am letting the player have what they want, but they are not going to walk all over the campiagn either. I win, they win, we all win. That is what is all about.

I'm with T_G. There's no "one true way" to DM. You do what is right for the group you're in, and that includes barring material if your players are nuts, or opening the door to monty haul if that's what turns everybody's crank.

Egotistical and/or incompetent DMs can just as easily let in everything and the kitchen sink and still produce a crappy game you can't wait to leave.

All very true points. The same goes for players. There is no real *right* way to play. The point is, are you having fun. If you game with Munchkiners, then Munchkin you must.

Kind of like the whole "when in Rome" theory.

You may have the moral high ground, but in the end, where does that leave you?

Kalmarjan

In spite of how heated this thread gets in parts, it seems like most people are making good points on every side of the argument.

I'm not currently running a game, but if I were, someone who came to my table thinking that they have a right to any specific race or class, just because they found it published in a book - any book, including the PHB - is going to be sorely disappointed. ("So, you want to play a Monk, do you? In my world, that's called Fighter-With-Unarmed-Fighting-Feats.") Especially, if someone who comes in with a book that I'm not familiar with and wants to play something from it, I reserve the right to withhold judgement. If the whole concept just doesn't fit, mechanics and flavor, I'll toss it out and not feel bad about it one bit. If the mechanics are alright but the flavor has issues, I'll point out what doesn't belong and allow it - I'll be working with the player to create a feasible backstory for the character anyway. (For instance, I've always viewed classes as a skill set, not a straightjacket for character history, so "reflavoring" a class is just fine in my book.) If it's close, but I have some issues with it, I'm not shy about working with the player to patch it with homerules, homebrew an appropriate replacement, or just dig up something from the existing rules that might work just as well.

I have very definite ideas about what belongs in a campaign of mine and what doesn't. My setting and its atmosphere and flavor are very important to me. However, within that scope, I love new rules and the new possibilities they bring, and will work to incorporate them as seemlessly as possible into my world, if they fit at all. And if they don't fit - can I give a solid reason why not? I find that this broadens and fills out a campaign world in new and exciting ways, and it can be done without ever once betraying the spirit of the setting.


As an aside, I find the combination of the world with a few mad, corrupt elves and the idea of the single, amnesiac elf from the past fascinating. It would certainly have a big impact on the campaign world, but one that would be incredibly fun, in my opinion, to play out. The researcher character would have an opportunity for lots of roleplaying, as the elf character pursued information about his past, while the researcher's own dream-come-true - a veritable treasure trove of information on the subject of his study, right there in one readily available person - is frustrated by the elf's inability to remember anything. Now, the DM and the players might know that the elf will never recover anything, but it would be an incredible motivation for the characters. Not to mention what might happen if the corrupted elves learn of the character's existance. Not saying that it would necessarily be right for Caelic's campaign, of course, but to me, it seems like a good example of what can be done if you attempt to work things around to fit properly.

I have very definite ideas about what belongs in a campaign of mine and what doesn't. My setting and its atmosphere and flavor are very important to me. However, within that scope, I love new rules and the new possibilities they bring, and will work to incorporate them as seemlessly as possible into my world, if they fit at all. And if they don't fit - can I give a solid reason why not? I find that this broadens and fills out a campaign world in new and exciting ways, and it can be done without ever once betraying the spirit of the setting.

Exactly what I am trying to say. :D

As an aside, I find the combination of the world with a few mad, corrupt elves and the idea of the single, amnesiac elf from the past fascinating. It would certainly have a big impact on the campaign world, but one that would be incredibly fun, in my opinion, to play out. The researcher character would have an opportunity for lots of roleplaying, as the elf character pursued information about his past, while the researcher's own dream-come-true - a veritable treasure trove of information on the subject of his study, right there in one readily available person - is frustrated by the elf's inability to remember anything. Now, the DM and the players might know that the elf will never recover anything, but it would be an incredible motivation for the characters. Not to mention what might happen if the corrupted elves learn of the character's existance. Not saying that it would necessarily be right for Caelic's campaign, of course, but to me, it seems like a good example of what can be done if you attempt to work things around to fit properly.

You bet! That would be something to see. Or even better, it is revealed mid campaign that the character is actually an elf, but memories were erased. That opens up a whole new set of questions as well, including for the character.

See, what I take offense to is the whole *egotistical* DM thing about "this is my campaign world, and nothing is going to ruin it!" Here we have the opportunity for a great epic role-playing moment denied by the DM, because they could not be bothered to put it into the campaign.

Kalmarjan

Just when I think you are about to get it, you go and say something like that. There is no ego involved with "every elf in the whole multiverse is on this sheet and you aren't one of them". It is just campaign fact. There are OTHER directions to go in, OTHER epic tales to tell, we don't NEED the elf party member to fuel plot/story/background.

To be fair, Caelic does have a pretty good grasp of the rules, but this is just egotistical.


Well, yes, admittedly. I don't think it's entirely unjustified, though. I don't commit to churning out new material on a monthly basis; as such, I have the luxury of time for extensive tinkering and playtesting before I introduce a new prestige class/spell/race/subsystem.



That kills the fluff but as is according to this objection, I don't see an objection to the crunch. BAB 3/4 skill 8+int etc or a human subrace with drow abilities (and weaknesses). other than of course.... you could do it better, but then again, what you could theoretically build may not be what the players are interested in. If players are interested in the crunch, why not give it to them so long as it doesn't interrupt anyone else's enjoyment of the game.



Let's turn it around: why is that particular bit of crunch so crucial to the player's enjoyment that I must take the time to rewrite the class to fit in my campaign world? Why is it so crucial that the player have a character with exactly the same mechanical abilities as a Drow...particularly if I have other races already in the game with similar, but not identical, abilities?



Even in the case of mix-matched fluff, in my experience dming is that it's effects are hardly worth all the fuss so long as a player is older than 12. It grows less apparent with each passing session, even if it's a bit inconsistant


I'd suggest that that's the short-term view. I take a longer term view. D&D 3.5 is designed for those whose preferred campaigns are measured in weeks and months; my preferred campaign length is measured in years and decades.

Consequently, some of my priorities are different. Consistency becomes much more important; instant gratification becomes less so.



Whats wrong with a player playing a character of notable background? It's really not that shocking. It just goes back to that twelve year old player thing. For most players who aren't trying to manipulate it mechanically, it quickly becomes secondary to the actual story arc. Besides, for every frodo protagonist, there is a prince of Rohan; for every Luke Skywalker there's a Beowulf. So long as that fluff doesn't grant tremendous mechanic value that might be outside the story arc why complain.


Most commonly, because the character with such a background claims more than his share of the limelight. Let's take the "time-travelling elf" example. Such a character would be the focus of tremendous attention and interest in my gameworld. Some would fear him, some would seek him out for answers, some would seek to destroy him. Invariably, the campaign would come to revolve around him, at the expense of the players without "notable backgrounds." (Incidentally, I must take minor issue with your use of the word. I have seen many, many notable backgrounds that didn't rely on the wildly exotic to make them notable.)

This is compounded by the fact that, frequently, the player seeking such an exotic background is doing it precisely because he wants to be the center of attention, rather than an equal participant.

I consider having one player dominate the game--mechanically or thematically--a bad thing. Consequently, I seek to avoid it.

The heroes of optimization, all of who I considered a pantheon in its own right, disagreeing?

If this were a war, I'd be striking here and now.

Don't take it personally, I'm a fan of optimization, but I'm also a fan of taking advantage of weak spots, be they those of friend or foe.

Flat-out banning things and being totally inflexible doesn't make you a good DM. It doesn't necessarily make you a bad DM, either. It does, however, make you a bit of a mean-old-crankypants.

If you don't mind, I think I'm going to adopt the title "Mean-Old-Crankypants." I wonder if I can get a t-shirt made?

Just when I think you are about to get it, you go and say something like that. There is no ego involved with "every elf in the whole multiverse is on this sheet and you aren't one of them". It is just campaign fact. There are OTHER directions to go in, OTHER epic tales to tell, we don't NEED the elf party member to fuel plot/story/background.

Oh, I get it. Explained like that, there is no ego. Explained like this:

this is my campaign world, and nothing is going to ruin it!

It is.

Kalmarjan

If you don't mind, I think I'm going to adopt the title "Mean-Old-Crankypants." I wonder if I can get a t-shirt made?

LOL. I like it. I would like one as well. :)

Kalmarjan

The Dm is not the "boss" because somethings you can do will just get you unseated as a DM. Anyone sitting at the table can do the job so don't act an high and mighty when its your turn.


"Can do the job" and "Will do the job" are two very different things. "Can do the job" and "Can do the job well" are, again, two very different things.

Personally, I'd be thrilled if someone else wanted to DM more often. I like to play now and then, too!



Now there are a lot of things that I feel are Dm's perogative. In the end however, I want to play D&D not your idea of what d&d should be.


Small revision for accuracy: You want to play YOUR idea of what D&D should be, not MY idea of what D&D should be. Your idea of what D&D should be is no more objective or absolute than mine.




Core only, for a brief time, I would not agree too. I decided the "core" 3.5 books were unbalanced (then I found the Co boards and it confirmed it) I try to explain it to people some get it some don't. Those that dont' understand that get the CoDzilla. Not because I'm a jerk but moreso to say let me show you what I mean okay? I give them the premise and show them what I mean. I realized that overall I end up dm'ing alot because I have a firm understanding and respect for the rules and a knack for storytelling.




Even in Caelic's game there could be a player who want to play an elven traitor... or a half-elven torn in between. If the party would agree to it then it should be allowed, but it shouldn't be the Dm who says. I DON"T WANT!


So the DM shouldn't have any say? Never mind the fact that I've already established the campaign and run it for years, I should completely undo the basic premise--that all of the elves left are utterly alien and insane, and have been for milennia--because a player wants to be able to say "Hi, I'm Ralph the Elf, can I join your party?"

Why, yes, sir. Would you like fries with that?


Then maybe its you being selfish. I think.



I disagree; I simply believe it's possible to look at the bigger picture and realize that instant player gratification may not be the best thing for a campaign.

I never said I was a permissive DM. Others said that about me. I am neither case. I simply try to let my players play what they want. See, it is all about that. What I want, and what the players want. And the balance of the two. I am advocating that balance ~ not either extreme.

So why all the hate? ;)

Seriously, if a DM says "Nope, that's not going to work" why presume that he's less competent or more egotistical than one who says "Sure, I can fit that in!" , especially if it's only a matter of degree or style ?

You say you're not "permissive", and yet you describe a more permissive attitude, and also seem to feel that "conservative" is something to abhor. Sounds like someone who sees themselves as "permissive" to me :) If you didn't, you wouldn't be in this topic, surely?

Anyways, I also advocate balance - balance of power, balance of "screen time" and the balance of new material with existing setting history (i.e. going for consistency).

As Caelic points out : in reality most of the time a player suggests something that's completely out of whack, it's to suck up more attention .. entire world-spanning plots have to be spun out of nothing to satisfy their own egotistical need to play a particular character. That's not balanced to me.

<spock>The needs of the many .. (gasp) outweigh the needs of the few .. (gasp) or the one. </spock>

Back in 2e, I hated elves. I had a running campaign which I forbid elves, even with the whole "elves do not exist ~ there is a curse, as there are also no trees. Guess what, every new player out there automatically wanted to play an elf. It was the darndest thing. In reality, it was because hated elves.
I suggest, rather, it was because every player out there wants to be "special". And being teenagers, the best way to be special is to be "unique" to the setting, and buck authority. :)
But we're all grown up now. I bet you could run that campaign now, and not a single one of your much older friends would bother with an elf.

Let's turn it around: why is that particular bit of crunch so crucial to the player's enjoyment that I must take the time to rewrite the class to fit in my campaign world? Why is it so crucial that the player have a character with exactly the same mechanical abilities as a Drow...particularly if I have other races already in the game with similar, but not identical, abilities?
Caelic you're trying too hard. This is how I would handle the adaptation of mechanics to a campaign setting (be it homebrew or canned):
1. Tell the player what you campaign world is like, describe the flavor, the history etc... anything that the player might need to know to get a feeling for what is and is not compatible with your world.
2. Then let the player fit the mechanic in question to the campaign world as you described it.
3. Check over the player's adaptation, comment on what, if anything, needs more revision.
4. Finalize adaptation with your seal of approval. Request a copy of the adaptation in writing for future reference. Of course, you retain the right to refuse the adaptation...

End result:
1. Player gets an insider feel for the campaign setting, which helps the player bond with the setting more. This is rarely a bad thing in my experience. If your players are really truely invested and interested in the campaign setting they're likely to role play much better.
2. You don't actually have to do any writing or creative thinking, you just review.


Of course, it all depends on what piece of mechanics were talking about, as to whether the above would work or not. If the player just wants to tweak the ranger class to better fit a certain mechanical goal, this has little to no impact on the campaign world at large and should be painless to integrate. Likewise tweaks to racial attributes are fairly painless and can be explained away with genetic variation or whatever you like. A character asking to use psionics in a world without it is more drastic, and may not be possible to work in. But players can be clever. If they're really keen on psionics, let them have a go trying to explain how to fit it into the campaign. If they actually do come up with something good, hooray. If not, it's no skin off your back, and they'll either have to be more creative or fit in the box.

See, what I take offense to is the whole *egotistical* DM thing about "this is my campaign world, and nothing is going to ruin it!" Here we have the opportunity for a great epic role-playing moment denied by the DM, because they could not be bothered to put it into the campaign.

Kalmarjan


A DM without an ego is not going to do a good job as DM. It takes a pretty strong personality to juggle a world full of personalities, and do it well, on a weekly basis.

Now, personally, I don't see "Oh, I'm an amnesiac with great powers!" as an "epic role-playing moment." I see it as an overused cliche. And, again, I take the long-term view. If I permit one elf, then what am I to say to the second player who wants one? "Sorry, Player A can have one but you can't?" That hardly smacks of the fairness and consistency that all here seem to agree is the hallmark of a good DM.

I have a group to entertain--not one player. I have a campaign to run, and ideally, I'll still be running it ten years from now. I have to consider whether the changes I make today will leave the campaign viable.

Letting one player play an elf--for no other reason than that the dozen-plus races already in the game aren't good enough for him, and he needs to play something nobody else gets to play--is unlikely to facilitate those goals. Allowing elves as players erodes the central assumption of the game--that elves are an alien, incomprehensible, and phenomenally dangerous force.

If the player can't be bothered to make changes to his character concept to make it fit the campaign, why in the world should I change the campaign to fit the character concept?

<No. I refuse to post. I will not be drawn in!>

Caelic you're trying too hard. This is how I would handle the adaptation of mechanics to a campaign setting (be it homebrew or canned):
1. Tell the player what you campaign world is like, describe the flavor, the history etc... anything that the player might need to know to get a feeling for what is and is not compatible with your world.
2. Then let the player fit the mechanic in question to the campaign world as you described it.
3. Check over the player's adaptation, comment on what, if anything, needs more revision.
4. Finalize adaptation with your seal of approval. Request a copy of the adaptation in writing for future reference.


Ordinarily I'd say that's good advice, TG, but there are reasons I don't do it that way. As I see it, such requests break down into one of two categories:

1. "I want to play a Ninja, not a Rogue!" The mechanics issue is a minor one. I'm a fan of simplicity. If there's a mechanic in the world already that does the job, I don't feel like introducing five more because it doesn't do the job in exactly the way a given player wants. I do expect a player to exert a certain amount of effort to work within the rules as they stand...and to me, things like, "But I don't WANT to use Rogue and Monk levels, I want to use Ninja levels!" or "But I want a Minotaur Greathammer, not a Goliath Greathammer!" aren't evidence of that effort.

2. "What I'd really like to make is a character who absorbs the powers of those around him..." The mechanics issue is a significant one--the player wants to do something that isn't covered, even reasonably closely, by any rules mechanism I currently have in place. In this case, I'm still reluctant to let the player do the design work, simply because of the sheer number of houserules I employ. I don't expect players to memorize all of them, and it's entirely possible that I'd forget some relevant ones when telling a player what he needed to know to design a new mechanic. It's also a whole lot more likely that I'd remember those rules than the player...so it makes more sense for me to handle the design of new rules, if such rules make sense and would fit the campaign world as a whole.

You may have 1000 house rules, but there may only be 5 which are relevant to the mechanic in question. Once you identify the relevant rules, the design process is a piece of cake... well at least as far as rules integration. For example, if I want to adapt a new mechanic for sneak attack I would care about the house rule you have on swift action spells or whatever. I'd only care about your house rules on: flanking, critical hit immunity, dex denial, and sneak attack.

So I guess in your situation you would also need to notify the player of the relevant rules surrounding the mechanic in question, but that still is not a lot of work, provided you know your own rules well.

Interesting. I would counter that the PCs are in fact an anomoly, or they would not be intersting enough to be PCs. Otherwise, every Tom Dick and Harry would be a hero.



Because, you know, Frodo was really the mutant alien son of a god. Robin Hood wasn't just a guy who was good with a bow; that wouldn't be interesting enough. He was a Terminator sent back in time to protect Maid Marian.

"Interesting" does not have to equal "wildly exotic." In fact, more often than not, they're mutually exclusive.



I say that if Caelic wants the game "his" way, going solo is about all he can do.


I keep hearing this--along with "Your players will abandon you!" and "Nobody will play under a DM like you!"

And yet, I still have players. How would you reconcile that?




Why is it so hard to comprehend? Pun Pun can be countered. Give the munchkin what he wants. It is like this: Give a 2 year old brat a cookie to stop them from whining. There you go.



You do realize that that's phenomenally bad parenting advice, right? That rewarding bad behavior only encourages the child to repeat it?

My DMing style adheres more closely to what most parenting experts say: "Set clearly-communicated limits and stick to them. Be firm, but fair. Don't make exceptions "just this once.""

Maybe "Give the brat a cookie so he'll shut up" works, but I'll stick with my way.





Why is it so hard for some DM's to work with their players? What are they afraid of? Their players having fun?




Why is it so hard for some DMs to say "No" to their players once in a while? What are they afraid of? Their players not liking them anymore?

You may have 1000 house rules, but there may only be 5 which are relevant to the mechanic in question.


There may, or there may not. Or there may be rules/classes/mechanisms which are not immediately obvious as being relevant to the proposed new rule, but which interact with it in an unexpected way to produce a wildly disproportionate result.

C'mon, TG--interactions like that are what this whole board revolves around!



So I guess in your situation you would also need to notify the player of the relevant rules surrounding the mechanic in question, but that still is not a lot of work, provided you know your own rules well.


By the time I've stopped to consider every possibly relevant rule, listed them out, and set my parameters for what will and will not fly with the player, it's usually less work just to do it myself.

I am beginning to suspect that this argument is as much about setting as about game mastering style. Consider:
If you were playing Wheel of Time D20, and a player wanted to play a Spellscale character, would it be appropriate?
If you were playing The Black Company D20 and a player wanted to play the Jester class from The Dragon, would it be appropriate?
If you were playing Call of Cthulhu and a player wanted to play an Elf, would it be appropriate?

While if you were playing a wild and crazy casual game of any of the above, you might say yes, but if you're really trying to get into the setting, likely not.

However, the default D&D setting (and yes, despite occasional attempts at being vaguely generic, there is one -- look at actual generic systems like GURPS or True20) is such a mishmash zillions of intelligent species and dozens of class that not only can anything fit in, but nothing looks any more out of place than anything else. This can be fun, and is fine, if you like that sort of thing. However, some game masters like to try to create their own, coherent worlds, where everything hangs together in fairly reasonable manner. If a GM is running such as world, then an arbitrary character a player designs without regard to the nature of the world could be as out of place as the examples above.

This partly comes down to taste, of course, but Caelic's game sounds a lot more interesting to me than kalmarjan's. I don't mind limitations, and I love good world building.

Nail. Head. Good job Xylem.

This partly comes down to taste, of course, but Caelic's game sounds a lot more interesting to me than kalmarjan's. I don't mind limitations, and I love good world building.

Ouch. I suppose it would be more interesting, if you actually compared our campaigns side by side. I can see how limiting the possibilities in character creation makes for a much more interesting campaign than one that "goes with the flow".

No one style is correct. I am not saying that Caelic *should* let a player play an elf in his campaign. I simply stated to the masses here that when it comes down to it, my style is to work with the player and see if it will fit.

I do not rely on the tried and true method of "it's my game, like it or leave it."

As for ego ~ I would counter that your game would become a lot better if you would lose the ego. That is what this whole thread seems centered on. I try to put the ego aside when I am behind the screen. If the players total the BBEG, so what? I actually would cheer them on for it. If I see they are having fun, to me that is a lot better than running my game with an iron fist.

As for comparing campaigns ~ Right now I am running the RttToEE campaign, but with a few twists of my own. Anyone who has read the module knows how it goes. I have completely replaced the Thazradun theme with the whole Tiamat - but I have made her bound to the earth in terms of the elements. Magic is different in my campaign, as all casters are now spontaneous. (You heard right ALL of them)

Coupled with that is now the CRM is in fact placed inside of a city, like Ptolus, whereas instead of being smack in the middle of a dungeon, it is incorporated into a large, living city, complete with corruption, cults, and a whole slew of other agendas going on. I managed to garner interest in my campaign without limiting anything. People come back because they want to see what happens next. I also happen to run the game based on what the characters do. I call it the reactive style. The PC's sneak in through the back way of the dungeon? Cool. Makes for some interesting times. Did the PC's rob the merchant who is actually a lieutenant in the thieve's guild. Hmm. They may have to contend with the assassins of said merchant.

Perhaps Caelic's campaign is a lot more interesting based on his limitations of class/race selection. It is what it is. The fact that I have kept the same group together for over a year with internet play is a feat in itself.

My style differs from Caelic's, but it is not to say that I do not respect him. In fact, I have stated before that if I played in his game, I would abide by what he says. I had to take exception to some of the comments regarding people equating the players to children.

(BTW: The give a cookie to the whining child was completely tongue in cheek. :D)

Kalmarjan

If you've so many houserules, it's clear you're not afraid to make them. What, then, is one more? House rules are patches to a system that has too many interactions to consider at once. When the problem arises, you patch it with a house rule and move on. The same can be said of house-rules interacting with house rules. Sure it adds more complexity, but after a while the increase of one rule only minimally increases the complexity.

Besides, any application of rules must go through the DM. So even if your player manages to infiltrate your network of house rules and finds a loop-hole, you can always just say no. No complex rules set is air-tight. I'd wager you've figured that out by now, which is probably why you've made so many house rules.

If you sent me your house rules, I feel fairly confident that I could come back with something that would severely disrupt any semblence of a functional campaign. The point I'm trying to make is: The possibility of an out of control rules interaction is almost ensured, but the probability of such a rules interaction coming into play is extremely low given the DM's veto ability.

Is it possible within the core D&D rules to destroy a campaign with a 20th level character? Why yes, it's with a little spell called gate. Will we ever need to worry about that in a campaign? Not unless the DM is a vegetable.


So to apply this to the previous question of whether or not it would be prudent for a player to design a mechanic in a system complicated with many, many house rules...

There should be no problems, as long as when out of hand rule interactions crop up they are either avoided or house-ruled out.

I simply stated to the masses here that when it comes down to it, my style is to work with the player and see if it will fit.

You imply that Caelic doesn't work with his players, which is obviously incorrect. He just doesn't always say yes where you always do it.

<No. I refuse to post. I will not be drawn in!>

I love trolls! They die when you set them on fire, though.

And come ON, Nine Inch Nall, you KNOW you like trolls too!

Caelic sure likes trolls . . . and so do so many regulars here. Let's be honest:

EVERYBODY LOVES TROLLS!

Just look at how much attention they get!

Now for something completely different:

:gel:

A guy who failed his spot check to notice a gelatinous cube.

Enjoy!

You also create a false comparison between your robust and flavored campaign, in which you and your long time players have vast experience with various player/DM options and power levels, and a DM who just bans everything.


You see the trees, but miss the forest. Yes, my campaign bears very little resemblance to that of the cookie-cutter "Bad DM Who Bans Everything Because He Hates His Players."

Y'know what? I'd be willing to bet that if you examined ten of the campaigns that involve players coming here and saying "My DM doesn't allow X," you'd find that at least nine of them bore very little resemblance to the BDMWBEBHHHP.

That being the case, I think it's extremely presumptuous for people to make judgements on the DMing ability of those who ban things based on stereotypes which don't apply the vast majority of the time.

You imply that Caelic doesn't work with his players, which is obviously incorrect. He just doesn't always say yes where you always do it.

Not implying about Caelic. He has already proven he works with his players. I am speaking about the others saying that as the DM, they are the law. Please note, I do not always say yes. I said that I try to work something out with the player.

Kalmarjan

I love trolls! They die when you set them on fire, though.

And come ON, Nine Inch Nall, you KNOW you like trolls too!

Caelic sure likes trolls . . . and so do so many regulars here. Let's be honest:

EVERYBODY LOVES TROLLS!

Just look at how much attention they get!

Now for something completely different:

:gel:

A guy who failed his spot check to notice a gelatinous cube.

Enjoy!

LOL.

Not trolls, this is a conversation/debate.

A troll is someone who says something like:

<censored>

Kalmarjan

There is no right or wrong way to DM in general, there exists an optimal way to DM a specific group of players. If Caelic's players all need to be ruled with an iron fist to keep things running smoothly, then that's his bag.



They don't.


If you happen to be in a group where the players take a vested interest in constructing the world/plot, then a hard-line DM would stifle that and would not be "optimal".


The world and plot are two completely different things. I created the world; the players create the plot through their actions in exploring that world.



Personally, I prefer the players to be very involved in the creation of the plot. As a DM I like to just create an environment and simulate the consequences of the players' plot.



As do I. It's just that the environment I have created is somewhat more elaborate, detailed, and enduring than is perhaps typical.



I put a big stress on group interaction, group back-story, and group planning to help things go smoothly. Why? If your players are genuinely interested and genuinely creative, then the DM's job becomes interesting.




I find it all together too exhausting to write up an entire plot, only to have it screwed up by the PCs. The worlds I create are only as complex as the players demand.



Again: these are two different things. Setting and plot are related, but distinct.



But again, it's all dependant on the group. If the group is full of conniving munchkins, then limiting source material is probably a good idea. Some people like to have a firm DM, it's like a security blanket. Some people crave freedom. You gotta figure all this in when you pick your DMing style.



Alternatively, you could say that players who absolutely must be allowed to use that nifty new rulebook are the ones with the security blanket, and note that a group need not have any munchkins at all to have a modicum of respect for the parameters the DM has set for the campaign.

As for ego ~ I would counter that your game would become a lot better if you would lose the ego. That is what this whole thread seems centered on. I try to put the ego aside when I am behind the screen.



I disagree. Without an ego, I never would have attempted the creation of a campaign like the one I run. There's a difference between "having an ego," and "Letting your ego get wrapped up in a given NPC."



Perhaps Caelic's campaign is a lot more interesting based on his limitations of class/race selection. It is what it is. The fact that I have kept the same group together for over a year with internet play is a feat in itself.



That's precisely it: it is what it is. I have certain goals for my campaign which are not commonly shared. One of those is to keep it going for many years. "Anything goes!" can be fun, but I have not seen such a campaign last for more than a year or two at the outside.



My style differs from Caelic's, but it is not to say that I do not respect him. In fact, I have stated before that if I played in his game, I would abide by what he says. I had to take exception to some of the comments regarding people equating the players to children.

(BTW: The give a cookie to the whining child was completely tongue in cheek. :D)




...and yet a lot more condescending than any of the other "children" comments. Seriously--for all the talk of respecting players, I've seen some pretty derogatory language directed at players in this thread, language I would never use to describe my players. If you're going to take issue when other people cross a line, it's probably wise not to cross it yourself--even if you mean it jokingly.

Wow. I really didn't expect this to snowball quite so big so fast. That was probably naive of me.

At any rate, let me just offer a few final thoughts, starting by turning the tables and describing my philosophy as a player.

When I play, the first thing I do is ask what the rules of the campaign are: what's allowed, what's not allowed. Any material the DM gives me is devoured, because I want to get as thoroughly familiar with the setting as possible.

Next I ask what's already in the group, and what the group needs.

Based on those two factors, I create my character. Making it a point to create something the group needs isn't totally selfless; it means I know I won't be a fifth wheel, and I'll have an important role within the party.

I do not go outside the DM's rules; I do not ask him to include new rules sources outside of those listed.

I do, however, have one firm line in the sand. My character, once created according to the DM's rules, is mine. He is not the DM's; I make the decisions about how he acts, thinks, and reacts.

I accept that the world is the DM's purview, and I expect him to accept that my character is mine. This is one of the few points which will prompt me to leave a game; if I find a DM who can't accept the notion of player autonomy over PC actions, then I know that it's best for me to seek my gaming elsewhere, because we will not work well together.

When I play, the first thing I do is ask what the rules of the campaign are: what's allowed, what's not allowed. Any material the DM gives me is devoured, because I want to get as thoroughly familiar with the setting as possible.

Next I ask what's already in the group, and what the group needs. Interesting how this thread parallels some of my comments in the kender beguiler thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=803971). My DM would agree with your first point above, but not the second. He prohibits players from revealing their character's race and class to other players. He wants players to build characters that interest them without regard to "rounding out" the party.

I think this is an interesting approach, and a new one to me. The resulting party will have holes or weaknesses, and the party must get creative in overcoming them. This has worked so far; the party has advanced 5 or 6 levels (not without mishaps and painful losses), the players are playing characters they wanted to play, and it requires players to figure out what their characters will say or reveal to others, adding a bit of mystery.

Try it out some time. -A

It's an interesting approach, amatulic, but keep in mind: I'm talking about coming into an existing campaign with an existing adventuring party. Simple logic indicates that, when looking for a new member, they would look for someone with skills useful to the group; consequently, that is what I attempt to make.

I have never been much for the "You have to accept me, I'm wearing a t-shirt that says "Player Character!" approach, so I try not to put other players in that position. ;)

I could see the "Random group" approach working with a new party, if the campaign setup was such that they were thrown together with little say in the matter, or if they were a group of individuals responding to a "Help Wanted" sign, or something similar.

I can see why you draw a distinction between plot and world. I guess you're more exclusive when it comes to who develops the setting. I also let players have a hand in building the world. I generally operate under the infinite material plane idea, so alterations to past games are generally explained by moving to a different are of the material plane. Having stuff come from way far away on the same plane is also a fun means of employing a deus ex machina.

Greater teleport is like No Ships in Dune. One could imagine that on an infinite material plane, humanity would be dispersed far and wide such that a wide diversity of cultures, technologies and belief systems could develop all on one plane. This view allows for the players to pretty much select the setting in addition to selecting the plot.

And that approach works fine for most campaigns. As I've noted before, I'm very aware that my goals are atypical. Most DMs aren't looking to make sure that their campaign hits the twenty-year mark, and most DMs are not in the position of having a large, active local gaming community from which to recruit players.

The longer you want to keep a campaign going, I find, the more conservative you must be. If your PCs are saving the universe within six months, chances are the campaign's not going to go much further; there's not a lot to do for an encore.

And that approach works fine for most campaigns. As I've noted before, I'm very aware that my goals are atypical. Most DMs aren't looking to make sure that their campaign hits the twenty-year mark, and most DMs are not in the position of having a large, active local gaming community from which to recruit players.

The longer you want to keep a campaign going, I find, the more conservative you must be. If your PCs are saving the universe within six months, chances are the campaign's not going to go much further; there's not a lot to do for an encore.
You are probably right if you don't employ strange plot methods. You may have noticed I'm kinda into Dune and time-manipulation. So, if I want to keep something going, even after the characters appear to have finished their task in the world, I use time travel and ultimately powerful beings. Illithids happen to be one of my favorite monsters, and they're often at the root of bizarre time manipulations.

Merging planes with the temporal plane via Precipitate Planar Breach and introducing a temporal maelstrom to a small segment of the prime material plane sounds like fun. The result? Who knows. I'd adjudicate it as a temporal pinch, allowing characters to cross time in spatial coordinates. Aaaannndddd... we're back in business. Do it ofen enough and it becomes the party's "thing". Have a reoccurring Doctor Crazy NPC to warp the PCs to the next location in a mad, unending journey to rectify some horrible thing known only to the Doctor. Along the way you discover that the illithids are in on this stuff too, and the good Doctor turns out to have tentacles on his face.

Something like that. You just gotta be creative/careful how you end the quests.

Magic is different in my campaign, as all casters are now spontaneous. (You heard right ALL of them)
Kalmarjan

But, I want to play a wizard who prepares spells for the day.

I have two points to make. One, this DM-player time thing is annoying me. There are 8 players in my current game, so in our typical 5 hour seesion, we put in 40 hours. I know the DM does not put in 35 hours prepping that game. The players as a unit put in more time. Whatever makes the group of players happy seems most important.
Secondly, this I don't have time to learn a new system argument ticks me off. I know Caelic is likely familiar with everything WotC puts out't, so this statement doesn't appy to him, but I'm sure that his 300 page setting probably took a long time to write. I also know that it is hard to memorize the exact dates of virtually every important event in dragonlance continuity, which several of my friends have. When I see people who devote that much time to their games tell me "you can't play psionics because I don't have time to learn the system", I will cry foul.

I'd have no problem kicking your ass to the curb in my group then.

I'd rather have adult, mature players than spoiled children in my game but thats just me.

But, I want to play a wizard who prepares spells for the day.

As opposed to the wizard that casts spontaneously? Sure ~ your call. I would chose my way though. :D

Kalmarjan

Coming from someone who has DMed far more than he has played, I am in agreement with those who dislike the "ban first" DMs. This is probably an issue of personal experience, but I find that DMs who ban something because it's not core, "overpowered", or whatever generally use that as an excuse to control their players and pigeonhole them into the DM's preconcieved character archetypes. It is one thing to ban a race or a class because it doesn't exist in the campaign world for whatever reason (indeed, I replaced the Gnome with an LA +0 Lizardfolk as a base race for my current game), but it is something else entirely to ban for what I would call a metagame reason.

A DM should ban character concepts if they don't fit his campaign world, not classes. If a player makes a cool character concept and Swordsage is the best class that fits that concept, Swordsages are not a debalancing factor in an average game and they should be allowed. I even think it's part of a DM's role in running a game to work with the player to change classes that would conflict with some part of the game, or create hybrid variants to allow a character concept to work. Only recently I changed the Paladin of Slaughter's Code of Conduct because myself and the player both agreed that while a Chaotic Evil character is not inherently a problem in the group, that Code of Conduct forces said character to be a problem. A class is a tool to make a character, not a definition of a character.

The worst kind of banners are those who ban, for example, Tome of Battle because its "anime inspired" or "final fantasy material". Those DMs generally use their ban powers to make their players into scratching posts for their roleplaying elitism. And they do it in other ways too, of course.

I once played in a group that the DM dissallowed any AoO. I found out because it was too confusing for him to remember the rules for AoO. So, he nerfed the abilities of almost half of the core classes, because he did not understand/like a rule?
I've actually played without AoOs - and without using the battlemat/grid too. It plays much more like 1E/2E and is much quicker. Sure, some of the tricks (spiked chain trip monsters, etc.) don't work as well, but play speed can be vastly improved for everyone.

I have never been much for the "You have to accept me, I'm wearing a t-shirt that says "Player Character!" approach, so I try not to put other players in that position.
The T-shirts are unnecessary. Appraise skill checks can quickly tell you who has more wealth than the rest of the town combined - these are invariably PCs (or DMPC imposters!).

The worst kind of banners are those who ban, for example, Tome of Battle because its "anime inspired" or "final fantasy material". Those DMs generally use their ban powers to make their players into scratching posts for their roleplaying elitism. And they do it in other ways too, of course.
Banning based upon flavor that is contrary to setting is a bad thing? If I don't want wushu in my 'western' fantasy world, that makes me elitist?:confused:

Banning based upon flavor that is contrary to setting is a bad thing? If I don't want wushu in my 'western' fantasy world, that makes me elitist?
No, they ban it because it offends their personal senses, not that it might necessarily disrupt the flavour of a game.;)

For example, just because you think that monkey gripping a huge weapon is dumb as you dislike FF cloud fanboys, you extend that dislike to players who wish to play such a character.

Would that include extending dislike to players that make constant WoW references in-game (sometimes in-character)? I'd love to know how many inhabitants of Faerun, Oerth, Eberron, etc. use 'go aggro', 'train', and 'buff' in their conversations...:rolleyes:

I have two points to make. One, this DM-player time thing is annoying me. There are 8 players in my current game, so in our typical 5 hour seesion, we put in 40 hours. I know the DM does not put in 35 hours prepping that game. The players as a unit put in more time. Whatever makes the group of players happy seems most important.
Secondly, this I don't have time to learn a new system argument ticks me off. I know Caelic is likely familiar with everything WotC puts out't, so this statement doesn't appy to him, but I'm sure that his 300 page setting probably took a long time to write. I also know that it is hard to memorize the exact dates of virtually every important event in dragonlance continuity, which several of my friends have. When I see people who devote that much time to their games tell me "you can't play psionics because I don't have time to learn the system", I will cry foul.

And you can cry foul in someone elses game.

And yes, it is MY game, if I've spent hours creating it, polishing it and giving it life. As a DM, I will NOT PERMIT you to vandalise all that I have worked to achieve over the years.

It is clearly apparent that many of the people here haven't DMed, or if they have they haven't put the sort of effort into it as DMs such as Caelic have. The creation of an ongoing game universe is a labour of love, in which the DM uses his imagination to achieve a creative vision that often spans multiple editions of a game system.

Much of the joy of DMing comes presicely from the creation of the universe, ts habitants society and politics, but many of the posters here seem to think that the player's whims should override the DMs motivaton and enjoyment for the game.

The DM is not some buttboy, there to answer the players every whim and is not required to introduce every frootloopy, inconsistant rule Wizards ever published, particularly when these add zero to the game itself.

From the sounds of it, demanding to play an elf in Caelic's universe would be the roleplaying equivalent of drawing a beard on the Mona Lisa.

Also, if the DM simply doesn't have time, just what exacly are you going to do? Cry? Sulk? Throw a tanty?

Or perhaps act a little bit more maturely and be thankful that you have someone who is putting in countless hours of work behind the scenes each week, so that you and the other players can enjoy a fresh set of challenges, in a coherent well balanced universe?

Well, well, well. It looks like I created quite the stir. RealMad was spot on way back in post 4;

I don't think you would fall into Xanadu's generalization. Your campaign setting is very homebrewed and any player joining would have to understand from the get-go that none of the standard D&D conventions can be assumed.

In fairness to Xanadu though, I know exactly the DM he's talking about and there are a lot of them. Unimaginative and orthodox DMs are usually "ban first and ask questions later" types. Some DMs I've seen just seem to get a kick out of saying "no" to players.

I understand Caelic you feel obliged to respond to players whom you believe create an adversarial relationship with their DMs and level the charge of “inferior” if player options are disallowed BUT you are wrong for characterizing me this way and you are also wrong in stating

your defense above is semantics games. Your choice of words may be different, but the condescension they carry is not.

Those are no mere semantics. I tend to choose my words carefully. In fact in the very quote that prompted you to start this thread

I would not say inept, but for those who operate on a ban-first-ask-questions-later attitude feel free to use unimaginative, uninnovative, dyed-in-the wool-orthodox, dogmatic, uncompromising, and mulish.

you will see I specifically said not to level the very charge you take exception to (i.e. ‘inferior’). The other words are most certainly negative and yes, I fully admit they are very much intended to connote the contempt they explicitly say. The arrogant and close-minded attitude that comes with “ban-first-ask-questions-later” is something I analogize to the oh so common human failing of judging without knowing. Still, the quote does not seem to apply to you since your setting is very homebrewed, something quite different.

You are probably right though in that I would not enjoy my experience if you were my DM. This does not mean that I think your campaign is incoherent, unfair, overly restrictive, inconsistent, etc. – in fact I would bet money your campaign is more fluid, steady, thought-out, and better executed than the ones I participate in or the ones I DM.

What troubles me is your attitude toward power. It is possible some people may think I am inferring too much from the words you use, but I believe words are very powerful: they are chosen for a reason.

You without fail say “my” table. You have no trouble remarking, “I don’t care.” Or things like, “I Know that…” and “I refuse to compromise that for anyone.”

And:
The players--collective--are more important. One individual player is not. The word for one individual player who absolutely must have the setting altered to suit his preferences is "selfish."

My responsibility is to the campaign as a whole--not to any one player.

So it would not be “our table,” it is “yours.” How is negotiation possible with such a scenario or mindset?

Because you “don’t care,” and “refuse to compromise,” this suggests to me the power you wield is outside any sort of social contract and beyond any sort of regulation.

As you deem it “my” rather than “our” responsibility to ensure the collective good is followed. To me we have a demonstration of the classic problem with Rousseau’s notion of freedom or the “general will” (just a fancy phrase for collective good). Some authority must interpret what this ‘general will’ is (i.e. the DM takes it upon herself) and those who do not follow are “forced to be free” (i.e. follow the DM’s interpretation or find themselves outside the group).

I believe you when you say you have/had a group/system that has worked for 20 years. I believe your players genuinely enjoy your campaigns. I believe you probably run a fair, coherent, stable, and perhaps an enjoyable game. None of my beliefs about DMs make Caelic the DM “inferior”. I am simply uncomfortable at the unrestrained power you seem to yield and unwavering tendencies in which you more than imply in your posts about not sharing that power. Note, that is an opinion, and perhaps the minority one considering the overall tone of the "What's a DM suppose to do?" boards.

From hereafter I am speaking generally...

Perhaps I operate by the naïve assumption that the PC is every bit the same player as the DM. We are both playing the game and both should have legitimate input in how we are going to spend 6 months, 1 year, 2 years or whatever of our life in how we will together play this game. Let me indulge in a little hyperbole. If I am intrigued about playing something from Tome of Battle, in speaking to the DM I should not have to feel like:


I am asking my boss for a raise
I am in a medieval court in which I must bow before humbly presenting my case
I will probably be rejected
I have to understate my case as if buying a used car
I am trespassing on the DM’s hallowed campaign
The almighty Lord is bequeathing me a favor


You DMs know who you are that make your players feel like this. Even if you don’t admit it and convince yourselves that Johnny from Small Town, USA really enjoys playing a Fighter 11 in your campaign and is looking forward to taking the “dodge” feat next level.

This is a medieval European setting so there are no ninjas. I guess we wont be seeing any devils, teleportation magic, mindflayers, fireballs, manticores, and potions of cure light wounds either then. Give me a break.

I don’t have ToB and don’t want to learn a whole new system. I don’t consider myself particularly adept at understanding new things, but after the second night of perusing ToB I had a comfort level with the material and actually used some swordsages as bad guys. Growth is a wonderful thing, you know.

I saw Spell Compendium and its rewrites of broken splat-book material. I won’t be using it in my campaign. Should I bring some rose petals to throw before your feet next time I come over All-High-And-Mighty-Exalted-One-Who-Knows-All? Yes, ray of stupidity is an aptly named spell. Because I wish to have fun in our game I promise not to be a prick and memorize it if the NPCs do not as well.

Really, what is the fascination with power that compels DMs to impose their wills upon PCs? Does it make DMs feel good? Are DMs that bothered by perceived inconsistencies of a story they are sharing with the PCs? Why do they get upset and whine to the boards that melee class X wiped out their BBEG in two rounds?

Why do DMs feel compelled to cheat (note: not fudge) dice rolls so the action fits their conception of how the story should unfold – yeah, you DMs that intentionally drag out the “climatic” fight, I hate you. Please do me the courtesy and tell me beforehand not to bother memorizing the spells you deem so non-dramatic that your precious BBEGs will roll a 1 behind the DM screen and save anyway. Perhaps we dispense with the actual die-rolling and I watch you determine on your whims whether or not my fighter hits and how much damage she does...that's what happens anyways behind that screen.

So I tend to have a rather low opinion of DMs who feel the need to fanatically clutch onto the reigns of power in a game they are ostensibly sharing with others. And I don't see how DMs who begrudgingly 'inconvenience' themselves by throwing the PCs a bone in sanctioning the Dungeon Delver PrC once in a while are any different. Dispersal of power is a good thing, trust me. It works in real life. It tends to make the game more enjoyable for all involved.

Kalmarjan – if you need a player for an online game, please PM me.

Regarding the DM forbidding players to reveal their race and class to one another: It's an interesting approach, amatulic, but keep in mind: I'm talking about coming into an existing campaign with an existing adventuring party. So am I. I'm joining this game already in progress. I know roughly what a couple friends are playing from talking to them before deciding to join, but I don't know the other three. I think it's a good approach. The other players have never played this way either, and they like the approach too. It's more "real life" somehow. Sort of like the saying, "you can't pick your family..." - likewise, in this game you can't pick who plays what role in the party.

Simple logic indicates that, when looking for a new member, they would look for someone with skills useful to the group; consequently, that is what I attempt to make. That's what I tried to do at first. We have a mailing list for our gaming group. The game started middle of last year. I wasn't playing because I had other projects to attend to. One player in the game dropped out (moved overseas), so I was invited to join this year. First thing I did was ask the group mailing list, "so, what do you guys need? Here are the possibilities I have in mind...." The players hemmed and hawed, saying I should just make a character I'd enjoy playing, and the DM told me about his rule. I think it'll be fun doing things this way.

This DM does have restrictions (he doesn't want any character larger than Medium in his game, and after experiencing ToB he has banned it). But he is open to suggestions from players, and even suggested to me the bizarre possibility of making a backup character using a kender plane-shifted from Dragonlance into Eberron. He and I are exploring how it might work.

I could see the "Random group" approach working with a new party, if the campaign setup was such that they were thrown together with little say in the matter, or if they were a group of individuals responding to a "Help Wanted" sign, or something similar. In some games the characters just find each other eventually. I wasn't there when the PCs met one another in this current campaign, but I have been in games where the DM had to work pretty hard to get all the different characters to meet, just so the campaign could start. -A

Amen! Praise Jesus, Allah, and the Flying Spagetti Monster. Xanadu, you're so on the money it hurts.

Perhaps I operate by the naïve assumption that the PC is every bit the same player as the DM. We are both playing the game and both should have legitimate input in how we are going to spend 6 months, 1 year, 2 years or whatever of our life in how we will together play this game.

I disagree, the players are playing a game created by the DM. The DM has spent far more time developing a story he deems as fun and exciting. I think the DM is in a higher place than a player and a player should respect that.
(-Opinion)

I have recently come out of a game where I had a "No, because I said so DM." I can't stand it when I get an arbitrary "No" with no justification. I don't mind getting told "no" and I doubt any mature player minds either as long as it's justified. This justification may either be on mechanical basis or thematics. I personally really don't mind either reason as long as it makes sense. If the justification doesn't make sense to the player then they get frustrated. Then the game becomes not fun for the player and that usually leads to the DM not having fun either. Any DM that can't justify their decisions shouldn't be a DM.

Oh, by the way, I think if the Ninja was called the Medieval Shadow Sneaky Poison Guy then it would get allowed into more games. In a game primarily based around knights and dragons, when a DM hears "Ninja" they're more likely to deny it.

I disagree, the players are playing a game created by the DM. The DM has spent far more time developing a story he deems as fun and exciting. I think the DM is in a higher place than a player and a player should respect that.
(-Opinion)

I'd imagine you are not alone in that. Is amount of time invested really a function of how much power one should wield? I shudder to think of the implications.

For myself, I do not view power as the legitimate reward I should receive when I invest time as a DM. If I am unable or unwilling to adapt/compromise/find out what works for my PCs, perhaps I should spend my time writing fantasy novels rather than impress my fantasy ideals upon my players, no?

Respect is earned. The DM spending a lot of his time to dictate how I should have fun playing together is not necessarily something that qualifies on its own.

Of course, I am interpreting that by "higher place" you mean this to be by a significant amount that when there is a conflict, the DM trumps the player.

If by "higher place" you mean have the initiative - something quite different - than I would suggest you find another term.

Let me first say that I agree (at least as of the end of page 1) with Caelic, Tempest Stormwind, and Khan the Destroyer. This despite currently running a campaign that is anything goes. (And I do mean anything - even Frank and K's stuff). In the past I have run *no* spellcaster campaigns - and you can be sure that any player who asked to play a spellcaster was told no. (The first time I tried to run a low magic campaign but *didn't* insist on limiting party spellcasting resources, half the party was spellcasters - that doesn't work at all).

Lets face it, the DM is responsible for building the world. If that world is to be compelling, it must also be coherent. This necessitates the DM having control over the contents of the world to varying degrees. In fact, given that the published material for 3.5 is totally at odds with the standard assumption of a vaguely historical power structure system (to whit: feudalism), the DM either has to take control and re-arrange the world, or take control and re-arrange the abilities available to players.

This isn't to say that fun cannot be had by all by assuming things which lead to a totally incoherent world, and just ignoring the fact that its incoherent. However, that isn't the *only* way to play, and it certainly isn't the *right* way to play (its not the *wrong* way to play either). Narrativist and Simulationist paradigms are both perfectly valid in all their permutations.

Xanadu: The DM has to take control of aspects of the game world. Everyone cannot have control of everything. The very structure of the game (the players play PCs, the DM plays all the other characters) suggests that the DM is responsible for the world itself, and thus responsible for imposing limits on what can appear in the world. If you're playing a Pirates of the Caribbean style campaign, you don't want Knights in Platemail and Wandering Samurai. Their presence *ruins* the campaign experience for everyone.

Alternately - it is disrespectful of the player who breaks the theme, both to the DM and to the other players. You can only have a shared imaginary world if everyone is willing to agree on what that world is.

Your social contract reasoning is also nonsense - if a player doesn't like how a DM runs things, he can always find another game. The DM and the rest of the players shouldn't be forced to change the social contract for a single player. Its not about the player's desires vs the DM. Its the disruptive player vs the entire table.

Finally, the claim that every DM should have to read every splatbook that comes out is ridiculous. There are a lot of splatbooks. I can't even remember everything thats in the ones I own - and I've read them all at least once. But that's basically what your claim comes down to - any splatbook a player wants to use the DM is obligated to read. And this is also patently unfair to the other players, who are also likely to be unfamiliar with the book, and thus the player who can use it has access to things they do not. My usual policy is any book i don't own can't be used, because I can't provide it to the other players to look at. That strikes me as fair to all concerned.

So I have seen a lot of discussion on this topic. Both sides have so far presented their case. Very well on both sides.

The important thing here is that at least now we have an understanding on where some people are coming from, even if it is from a grossly egotistical point of view.

I used to be the *ban first, ask questions later* kind of DM. As I gamed more, I found that it was better to set aside the "traditional" player/DM arguments, and go with the flow. I have learned some things along the way doing this.

The end result? A system that everyone is happy with. By listening to my players, I know that they are somewhat happy with the play that they get. I am happy with the play that I give, because the encounters are tailored to the PCs.

Let me give you an example:

When I started up the british campaign (*I call it that, because we play at a god awful time in the morning for me. 6:00 AM EST hurts! LOL*), the party looked like this:

Giant Ritual Warrior
Human Warlock
Faen/Spryte Ice Witch
Human Champion of Justice

Okay ~ so all of those classes, I had NO idea about. Did I ban them? Nope. I *read* up on them. Then you know what I did? I tailored the encounters to them.

For instance, the Giant Ritual Warrior needs something to really sink her double bladed dire sword into. (Didn't ban the weapon either ~ even though I had never really heard about the dire property) So the encounters that I gave made sure that the character would get a chance to swing that baby, and use those neat rituals.

For the warlock? OMFG! You mean the eldrich blast is a touch attack! Unlimited times per day? Oh! That is sort of just an overpowered archer. No problem ~ there will be creatures for the Warlock to blast.

Hmm.... Ice witch. That's a tough one. It flies, is a small creature, and uses ice weapons. Check. Add some creatures to help with that. (Or have some of the NPCs realize, and compensate for it.)

Champion of Justice? What's that? Oh, he is just basically a palidan. Well, that is no problem. We will have some encounters where he will get to mete out his justice.

In all of those cases, I could have said no. I could have banned the choices. What a rag tag party there is there. I could have banned that and said, "All of you must choose something that is...."

I didn't though, and what a rich experience it has been.

One note: To further the concept of reactive play, the first rule I introduced is the "banning" of the concept of Memorization of Spells. The difference there is I actually asked the players first, and put it to a vote. Am I a push over DM? No. I actually respect my players, and did not want to add anything that would take away from their enjoyment of the game.

(For the record, they voted for the change, so now in our game, there is no memorization of spells. Every spell casting creature does so spontaneously, using the spell slots for the day. Oh! What about the wizard? He gets to use the spells that he "reads" from his book in the morning spontaneously. Thus, if he loses his spell book, he is hooped! Keep in mind that the same thing goes for the NPCs/Monsters in our campaign.)

Different styles work for different people. One style that does not work (in the long run ~ like in decades as Caelic is stating) is the whole *I am DM, and it's my word that is LAW* paradigm.

Hopefully, the people that you are playing with are your friends. I treat my friends a hell of a lot better than that. I have never in my years have been called a "pushover" DM. Quite the contrary. I have been known as a "killer" DM. And I keep my rolls open.

(What I mean is, during the game, I may have the rolls hidden, but the beauty of online play is I can post a log of all the rolls, so the players can see exactly what went down. I do not fudge anything, I let the dice fall where they may. Sometimes it can be deadly. That is the way things go. )

Kalmarjan

I disagree, the players are playing a game created by the DM. The DM has spent far more time developing a story he deems as fun and exciting. I think the DM is in a higher place than a player and a player should respect that.
(-Opinion)

This is exactly what I am talking about. The DM is in a higher place? Why would you think that? What is a DM, but a player, arbitrator? Other than that, he breathes just like the players, and when he takes a crap, it will stink too.

It is fine if the DM deems a story fun and exciting. Do the players? Isn't that what really matters? If the players are not having fun, then who cares if the DM "thinks" that the encounter is fun or not.

It's called balance. The DM is no better than the players, and it is THIS kind of ego that I take exception to.

Kalmarjan

If the players are not having fun, then who cares if the DM "thinks" that the encounter is fun or not ...



The DM, that's who. If the players are having fun and the DM is not having fun, that's not any good either. It is, as you say, balance.



The important thing here is that at least now we have an understanding on where some people are coming from, even if it is from a grossly egotistical point of view.


The fact that you continue to toss around insults at people who don't share your gaming style (they're egotistical, they're immature, etc.) suggests that you don't understand them at all, and don't want to.