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 sho