My DM philosophy is that I create a world for my players to inhabit, and to create the adventures that they want to have.

I also believe I am the Final Word. But only because someone has to be, and I use that power lightly, and to further facilitate the above.

Your old DM sounds like a bit of a tool. Maybe it's just the way you describe them. But if they're using published material and they wish to preclude some of it, I feel they owe you an explanation as to why. But you also owe them an explanation about why you care. Nowhere in the OP did you mention that you told the DM that that race happened to be your favourite and that you planned on retiring your character and playing a new one. It doesn't sound like the kind of DM that would be happy with you dumping a character and just starting another. But thats another story. If you hadn't made it clear why you cared, then it's easy to see how you may have just come across as annoying. But why? Because. But why? I said so. But Whyyyyyyyy? If you had made it clear, then the DM 100% should have furnished you with a more detailed reason as to why they don't want that race in their game.

If the world is Homebrew though, all bets are off and the DM has free reign. Ao help you all.

First off, it is never just the DM's game, sure the DM has an important part to play in the game and does a large amount of work building stories and running scenarios within the game but without players, it is all for naught.  It is a cooperative effort, the DM and the players should be working together to build their story or adventure, the players have just as much right and responsibility to see the game move forward as the DM.

Second, "because I said so" is never a valid response.  He has a reason, most likely he considers it an immature or vengeful reason and wants to save himself the embarrassment of explaining himself.  There are reasons to limit things within a campaign, be it races, spells, items so forth.  They may not fall within the scope of the world,  the don't logically belong,  story-wise, it would put undue hardship on the players and so forth.  I have limited races in the past, mostly due to how the world would react to that race, or perhaps I never built that race into my world.  I usually don't allow monstrous races, (orcs, goblins, gnolls, Drow so forth) due to how prevalent those races tend to raid communities, those races are seen with open hostility and I want to save the player from being killed on sight in some communities and not limit their play opportunities because they decided to camp in the woods outside the city as the rest of the party entered.  If the player is up for the challenge though, I will allow it, but the world won't miraculously change their demeanor at the start, it will take lots of hard work and effort on the player to change their(NPC) minds and one slip could ruin all the work she/he has done, some are up for the challenge, some aren't.

The DM does have the final say in issues that arise at the table, he/she is the referee/moderator.  Doesn't give them the right to be a (dic)tator though, I have seen DM's act like they are god incarnate reborn as a DM and flippantly change rules mid-session/mid-combat round to favor their NPC's or story, screw over players, take things away from one player and give to another, show favoritism and all around be an ass to someone who outsmarted them.  I have also seen those very same DM's lose their collective shit when they realized they were being replaced because they thought they were irreplaceable.  No DM is irreplaceable.

If you have things you as the DM want to change, fine.  I like to talk it over with the players first to see what their thoughts are and make sure I am not overlooking something that could screw with their class further down the road. This usually happens before the game starts, or at the end of a session where something wonky happened with the rules and I want to talk it out with the players to see how they feel about it and their thoughts to change it.  Anyway, those are my thoughts, you can run the game however you see fit, just be prepared for the consequences.

Like most things in life, balance is where we find the best answers.

As a DM for me my goal is to make sure everyone has fun. And I like to rely as heavily as possible on Rules as Written, because it is not my decision, it's in the book. There is no questioning the book. And just have fun.

The DM seemed dictatorial. The problem for dictators is that their power (and all political power) stems from the consent of the governed. D&D has no mechanism to coerce players to keep playing. We live in Rousseau's prehistorical allegory: there is always more woods to leave to.

The role of the DM is definitely to keep the game running. He's the captain. Generally, authority ultimately rests in them. That said, irrationally saying "because I said so" is dissatisfying and smacks of arbitrary rule. Persons who conduct themselves like that do not have long before they are alone. Unless they can provide an excellent game, their trespasses will annoy their audience before long.

This is to say, I wouldn't worry about being ejected from this game. Your former DM is going to run it into the ground and would still had you not left. Some persons simply do not have the character for leadership.

So to the OP:

I find it a bit unusual that a DM would alter what races exist in his world after the campaign has been in progress for a while. I disallowed some races in my Roman Empire campaign, and altered others slightly to fit my world, but I gave the players a digital hand-out that told them all about the races and their relationships to each other in my world, before hand. Now that they have that list in hand, I wouldn't suddenly come along and ban, say, Centaurs.... unless something happened in the game world to warrant it. For example, the Centaurs all hail from one island. So if during the campaign, let's say some disaster wiped out that island and all the Centaurs, then yes, I'd say going forward you can't play a Centaur (though even then I'd likely make an exception, saying that this individual Centaur was not on the island when it sank or what have you). But otherwise I would not come along now that the campaign is going and start disallowing previously allowed races.

The OP also mentioned this issue which a few people have discussed as well on this thread -- the "because I said so" explanation. I don't like this one as a general explanation -- however, there are times when, as a DM, you may have to use it. For example, one of the races in my campaign is not playable for reasons that have to do with the history of the world, but which none of the PCs know right now. Telling them why would be spoilers. So instead I have just said, "Well there aren't any of these races in this world as far as you know." If someone had pressed me on this (no one did) I would have said, "I can't say anymore, but you will find out why at some point." This is usually enough for players to realize there's a story going on and, in my experience, since players want to participate in a cool story, they will usually go with it.

However, the DM is responsible fro creating the world, and if the DM decides something doesn't fit into his or her world, then that's just how it's going to be. I do not agree with the sentiment someone posted that, if it's in the published rules, it should be allowed, and if aren't going to allow everything then you shouldn't DM. No DM should be expected to include "everything" in the world. Especially given that tons of the sourcebooks (Wildemount, Eberron, Sword Coast) are very, highly, world-specific and the things for those worlds may not fit into a homebrew setting. Heck, they don't fit into each other's settings, as many things from Eberron would simply not be appropriate in Faerun and vice-versa. In expansion books like XGE it clearly states that everything in there is optional and at the DM's discretion to include or not. So saying that all DMs should include everything is tantamount to saying that DMs are not allowed to have discretion. This is not only incorrect, it is actually a violation of RAW, which clearly state in multiple places that nearly everything in the rules is at the DM's discretion. And that includes what races are allowed in his or her world.

In the end, the OP's story makes me think there is something deeply personal going on here. Why would the OP's DM suddenly, out of the blue, disallow (for no sated reason) a race that just so happens to be the chosen race for the OP's next character? I would not be at all surprised to find out that the OP had mentioned this race to the DM, and the DM, perhaps wanting this player gone or otherwise having a problem with the player, disallowed it because the player wanted it. Which would also explain why the DM gave no real reason. And then the player argued a little (to believe the OP) and was booted from the campaign. It sounds to me like the DM and player were already not getting along, perhaps more so than the player realized, and the DM just wanted the problem gone, and used this means to do it.

Quote from BioWizard >>

So to the OP:

I find it a bit unusual that a DM would alter what races exist in his world after the campaign has been in progress for a while.

 To be fair, it could be "this has not previously come up so there are no prior rulings to contradict".

Yes... the OP hasn't come back to clarify and the wording is ambiguous. "That was until a couple days ago, when he announced he would drop a race from the game..." could be read two ways. One way is that the race has been actively in the campaign and is now being dropped. The other is as you say, it has not come up before, no one has asked about the Eladrin (or whatever) and there have never been any references to them or any Eladrin NPCs, so the DM never had to rule on it, and now when asked, he has said, "I dropped them from the campaign." 

Is it wrong to railroad your players i ran king killers recently  and in the hideout they triggered the fight and used alcimist fire to kill everyone but the person they were supposed to bribe  but they didn't want to go by her terms and failed the persuasion check soooooo they drew there wepons and when I told them it was set up so they would die they used alcimist fire to burn the building and escaped with their target so should I have steped in?

To put the role of DM simply it is to make sure everyone at the table has fun, including themselves. Now in this scenario it sounds like you're in the right, however, with you mentioning that you've been kicked from multiple tables I must question if you're excluding something. How many times did you ask? If you asked a few times there's no harm and it's the DM's fault, but if you asked 5+ times you probably should've dropped it. The DM definitely seems wrong here, though. Randomly dropping a race doesn't make much sense, so, if we have been presented all the facts then it is the DM's fault.

It's a complicated question I think. I've always been of the opinion that any DM holds the power to do anything in the world that he/she builds for the players. 

However, a GOOD DM listens to the players, and asks them to give feedback and to help find new ways to improve. I think a DM or GM should use their power in game to service the players and provide the best possible experience for everyone. 

That being said, I do have a rule that arguments happen OUTSIDE THE GAME. If I make a decision you don't agree with, argue for it afterwards, but not while the game is happening, it slows the game down, and is annoying to everyone else. Outside the game, however, argue away!

Hope this helps

I agree with all of the above.  The DM can do whatever he wants in the world but a good DM should build a world for the pleasure of the players.

Now, sometimes, you have to hold the line because you know that it will make your world more interesting and enjoyable, and you see the whole picture and the players may not. But your goal is for people to have fun and you don't want to build a world that will make them miserable.

For example, in my current Roman Empire based world, "use of magic in the public square" (i.e. out on the city streets) is against the law. It won't get you executed but it could get you fined or flogged, depending on whether you are a citizen or not. I came up with it as a complement to the law (in real world Rome) that you could not walk around armed on the streets of the major cities. I judged that the Romans in a world of magic would consider magic equivalent to a "weapon" and apply the same rules to it. So I warned my players about this at the start of the first session.

Now, I did not do this to make them miserable. I did it to make the world feel more "Roman" and convey the impression that within its boundaries this is a nation with strict laws. But also, when I came up with it, my main thought was of all the awesome RP opportunities it would create. Knowing D&D, knowing my players, and especially, knowing the one who's playing a Sorcerer, they will be tempted to use magic on the streets just in general, and you can rest assured that I am going to tempt them on purpose even more. And the point is not to necessarily even arrest them or fine them but to get them RPing about trying to cast magic clandestinely. And it already happened the first session -- after a battle with Zombies (and they knew that using magic in self defense is exempt from this law) in which one of the characters was covered in bits of exploded zombie from a chaos bolt, the sorcerer tried to stealthily use Prestidigitation to clean his friend up. He had to make a deception check, and he succeeded. But the key is, the player was grinning as he did it. He had fun having his character try to sneak breaking the law right under the nose of the town prefect who was standing maybe 60 feet away.

This is the point -- if you make house rules, they should be to make the world a better place to RP in. Not to just be a dictator about "your world."

My first issue with this and probably my biggest one is the DM stating that this is his game and he could do whatever he wants with it. Yes, the DM has basically total control as to what happens within reason. This is still every bit the players game as well as the DMs. The players should very well have the ability to guide the DM in his decision making as well as the way he does with them to some extent. For a DM to simply make changes to the game without consulting the entirety of the group in my eyes is just being a bad game master. A good DM would come up with a reason story-wise within the game as to why erase will no longer be in it. Not just simply because they want to remove a race because they feel like it. Again this is just simply being a bad game master and from what it sounds like his overall attitude was rather poor anyway. In the end a dungeons & dragons game is a story told by the whole group not just one person.

It really depends on what the party says about it. If they don't like the DM either, you can force him to change or kick him out. This same idea is the only reason public schools stay running. If the entire student body disagrees with the rules, the school would be overrun in minutes.

But as the DM, he does have powers to change the rules, even if it's for no reason. But being a DM, as you may know, is complicated. You have to balance the PCs, the monsters they fight, you have to roleplay the most, its difficult, and your DM may have removed it for ease of him, because some races are just... Difficult. However, your DM was kinda mean to kick you out. 

The DM has the power to control your perceptions. He decides where the traps are, what races are and aren't, everything. He controls what gods exist, if any. The DM doesn't exist in game, the DM is the game. It's up to him/her to keep the rules fair. Such as, if the party wades through combat easily, he might add a rule, such as lingering damage (DMG).

However, it is also the DM's job to ensure you're having fun, and if you aren't, he/she's a failure, and should figure it out. By being the dictator type of DM, there really isn't much you can do without the entire party's agreement. So here's what I would do:

Talk to the party, convince them that your DM needs to change. Then show up to the next session despite being banished, and talk to the DM as a group. And if he doesn't change, drop the campaign, and start a new one without him with a new DM.

Best of luck, player.

I absolutely would not recommend just showing up at a session after being excised from the group. This could lead to some unnecessary hostility. You won't solve anything by ganging up on the DM either. If the DM is being like this, I wouldn't even want back in the game, to be honest. But if you do, then I'd suggest yes, talking with the other players, but seeing if you can get a calm one to intercede on your behalf with the DM. Maybe the DM's favorite player or girlfriend or what have you can talk to him and see if he will be willing, now that he's calmed down, to let you back in. And then when you come back in you can ask for the ground rules -- maybe the DM can provide a written list of what is and is not allowed so you know. Try to e as non-adversarial as possible. If you want to go back, you want to defuse the situation not light it on fire, which is what "just showing up" and having the other players gang up on the DM would do.

Well, perhaps that might work, however with the information we've been given, I believe that talking to his girlfriend is a bad idea, and if he has a favorite player, then he's in the wrong.

I see your point, you don't want any unnecessary hostility. However, he initiated the hostility, and you want him to fix it. Singlehandedly, you won't be able to convince him, and last time he tried, he was exiled. So really the only way to fix it is to have at least one other person talk to him, like BioWizard had stated. Whether being present or absent during that conference is up to you, but I reccommend being present during it so if and when this DM makes up an excuse for something, you can counter it. What do you think BioWizard?

Also, I'm not angry. Many think my posts sound angry. I'm not, I promise.

Okay, the game technically is the DMs, the setting they've made and own, the world is theirs to do whatever they want with, and they play EVERY NPC. They can also change literally any rule they want whenever they want (not saying that they should), and they have final say on anything that happens.

The game is the DMs, but D&D is a team experience, the DM is involved in this. The game is the DM's to share with the players. They don't make the story, they loan the world out to the players to make the story. They can make plots and adventures and quests, but the people who have the final say on what happens in the situation you've designed should be the players, if it isn't, you are likely a bad DM. 

Well, it appears we know who both the player AND the DM are.

From my point of view it is the DMs game.  DMs have the authority to do pretty much anything.  And as a player, you have the right to stop playing in the campaign at any time.

But, the actions of players and DMs have consequences.  If either of them goes too crazy then the other players are going to think, "I'm never going to play with this dude again.  I may even pull out of this group NOW."

The DM had a reason to exclude a race.  He doesn't have to share it with you, not now, not ever.  But if your reconstruction of the conversation is accurate then the DM handled it poorly.  I might have said, "We'll talk about it offline."  My son has said he'll never let a Monk play in his game.  I don't know anything about Monks, but if I play in a game he DMs, I'll have to play something besides a Monk.  Heck, he could decide, "Dad, I don't want you to play a bard again.  Pick something else."  And then he could let the player beside me play … a Bard.  It is his game.

I wasn't there so I'm not going to say, "Well this guy or that guy was a phallus."  Based on your recounting I'd simply say, "Fine, I'll find a better group", and move on.

Quote from MusicScout >>

 

The DM had a reason to exclude a race.  He doesn't have to share it with you, not now, not ever. 

He doesn't have to. But unless it's going to be a spoiler for a campaign plot point or something, he should share the reason.

I've excluded a few races as playable in my world. I have NOT shared the reason with the players because there is a world-building reason and it is a secret. But I did tell them that there was a reason and they'd likely find it out sooner or later.

Of course it helps that they trust me not to be just acting like a vindictive jerk excluding races for the heck of it... clearly the OP and the DM do not have that kind of trust between them.

The DM isn't a jerk for pulling a race. The way he handles the questions this act leads to determines whether he was a jerk or not.

I'd admit that being unwilling to share the reason for dropping the race to even a minor extent is a bit odd (story reasons, aesthetic, whatever), but it should be remembered this thread was basically started off of one persons interpretation of events.  It could be that the DM and the player have an ongoing issue that led to frustration on the DM's part for being questioned or interrupted or who knows what every time they turned around.  Maybe that's not the perfect DM, getting frustrated like that, but it's certainly a very human DM.  Which is not to say anything negative against the OP, either, as it's incredibly unfair to ask one person to perfectly represent their own views in addition to what is apparently the diametric POV.