Let me start by saying that this topic might be somewhat divisive and that I really don't want to start an argument. It's just something I'm really curious about and that I hope we can discuss in a civilized fashion, alright? Good, I knew you guys were awesome^^

So, a bit of a personal issue, and I'm sorry, if I'm somewhat abusing this forum as my own personal therapy session, but I'm really curious about this:
What do you think is the role of a DM in your game and more importantly, how much power should they have?

To explain the circumstances off my question real quick, I've just been kicked out of a game I have been playing in for a little over a year now.
Honestly, I already was somewhat on the fences about it for some time now, since for a couple months now our DM has just been adding or changing rules however he saw fit without talking to us about it first, but it was nothing that majorly impacted the game or something I couldn't simply overlook.
That was until a couple days ago, when he announced he would drop a race from the game, which coincidentally just so happened to be one of my favorites and one I had plans for since I was planing on retiring my current character, which, as one might suspect, I wasn't too much of a fan off. So I asked him, what his reason for it was and his answer was simply "because I want to". Since that wasn't really a satisfactory answer, I kept asking him to which he replied with "it's my game, I can do whatever I want". Again, not a satisfactory answer, so I kept asking him to please give me a proper explanation for his decision. Five minutes later I got kicked for "disrespecting the DM".

Thing is, this is actually somewhat of an issue that got me in trouble with a couple DMs before. The idea that the title of DM means you have some god given special right or something, that means you don't have to respect your players in any way and can just order them to do whatever you want, because "that's what I decided" and your players just have to obey you without question no matter what.
It's a mindset I really despise, but that a frighteningly large amount of DMs seem to poses.

With that being said, I'm curious, what's your take on it? Am I wrong? Is the DM this super special entity, that can do whatever they want and the player just has to take it no matter what?
Or should a DM be held accountable to their players and should a player be able to call out and discuss things with the DM, if they make a decision they don't agree with?

I'm really curious about all of your take on this, especially since I'm DMing myself and the effects this may have on my DMing style, so this is a topic I'm rather invested in. So thanks for reading, I hope you all have an awesome day^^

I'm a little torn on my opinion here.

Firstly, I do think the DM has the right to say "because I said so." The DM is another player at the table, and they're playing ALL the NPCs, enemies, the entire setting, everything else besides the PCs, while the players are only playing the PCs. It's a LOT. So sometimes, "because I said so" is the quick and dirty answer. That said, if they want to suddenly ban something that someone had expressed playing, they should give a reason - unless it would be a spoiler for the game in some way, in which case they should explain that it's a spoiler so they can't and won't give you details.

Additionally, I do think it's wrong to pester your DM. In this case you feel justified to do so because of "not a satisfactory answer" but after the second answer of "because I said so" you probably should get the hint that you're not getting an answer and further questioning would be unwelcome.

Ultimately, my opinion is this: The DM has the right to say "Because I said so" but that does not mean the player "just has to take it no matter what" - they can ask the DM about it, but if they get an "unsatisfactory" answer, especially twice in a row, they should stop pushing the matter and decide what they want to do from there. If it's something that ruins their fun, they should elect to leave; if it's tolerable, they should stop harassing the DM about it and let it go.

He is the DM, if he wants to drop a race, that's his/her choice. He didn't force you to quit your character, he only said you wouldn't be able to create the new one - that's what a DM might do. If you've had this issue several times, I would have considered if it's you and not the DM.

And actually, when it comes to which races etc I allow in my games, I think "it's my game" is actually a decent answer. If you didn't accept that - well, I can understand the DM who then says: "well, not in my game".

What I did when I started a campaign was I told the players up front which rule books I was using and which ones I wasn’t. The rule books don’t all fit together seamlessly so using all of them in one campaign results in some weirdness. I’m not allowing anything from the Eberron or Ravnica rule books in my current campaign for my players because to me those two clash with the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide. My next campaign is probably going to be based on Eberron so I’ll be completely switching up which books my players can use when they’re creating their characters.

I also don’t allow any Unearthed Arcana or home brew content when my players are creating their PCs either because reviewing them to make sure that they fit into my world vision is a lot of work and I don’t always have the time to do that and make sure that they will fit cleanly into my world/campaign. There’s nothing wrong with them for other campaigns, they just don’t work for me.

I do pick and choose a couple of items out of those books to use as the DM, and I also home brew things that I use. But that’s me as the DM and I’m able to evaluate every thing that I use to make sure that it fits. 

I have two answers for you. First, I tell my players what I’m doing, what options I’m using in my campaign and why. Second, my role as the DM is to create the start of a story that the players in my campaign will enjoy finishing and that I will have fun running while they write the rest of the story. It’s a game and everyone should have fun. Creating scenarios and a story line that everyone at the table will enjoy is what my role is.

One thing that I AM unreasonable on is I refuse to run a campaign that isn’t heroic. I’ve had enough experiences with players who play characters who are evil or chaotic neutral in a manner that creates strife and makes the game so that it’s not fun for everyone else at the table that I outright ban evil PCs and if a player can’t play a chaotic neutral PC in a manner that makes the game fun for everyone I won’t allow chaotic neutral either. I’m not flexible on that because the goal is for everyone to have fun, not one or two people. 

The role of the DM is to define the world, run the world, and run the game. Deciding that a race doesn't fit his view of the setting is entirely within his purview. That said, an RPG is a collaborative thing; it's important for the DM to run a game he wants to run, but it's also important to have a game the players want to play in.

When it comes to world elements, the GM has the final say. For instance, I don't allow Aarakocra or Tieflings in my game. Why? Because I said so. 

You can't show up at a GMs table and say I'm this race because I want it. There are reasons for the choices we make.  The world just might not have that race, the race hasn't been discovered yet, there might be religious reasons, the GM just doesn't want it. A player shouldn't just bully their view into the campaign.

That doesn't mean you can't discuss and negotiate, but if a GM says no, then it's no. 

Okay, first off, I'm sorry you got kicked out of the campaign. I don't know you, but that always sucks.

Sometimes, I have annoying players that pester me, but it never ever gets to the point where I have to kick them out. If they're trouble players, they try to initiate PvP at any moment possible, they argue on literally everything I say, or they refuse to pay attention, sometimes I have to kick them out, but I never would kick someone out for asking a question. I can see your side of the story, I've had bad DMs before, but I don't know you or your DM, so this is what I have to say:

The DM is the world. Like the DM, the world that he creates (it doesn't matter if it is homebrew or published by Wizards of the Coast, the DM makes every world his) is living. The D&D world is changing. As new products come out, their mood changes, or they watch videos by youtubers explaining why something in the game is dumb (I'm looking at you XP to level 3) the DM's world changes. This means, occasionally, as a DM you have to limit the players' options for races, backgrounds, or even classes (*cough, blood hunter, artificer, *cough).

It wasn''t wrong of your DM to remove a race that you liked. It wasn't wrong of you being curious why that happened and asking him, but it was wrong of you to question the DM's authority by asking multiple times. He clearly didn't want to give you an answer, so drop it. As long as it isn't something super extreme, like "I decided that I'm removing gold from the world, because you have too much of it" or they suddenly decide flumphs are racist and can't exist anymore, the DM is within his or her rights to change whatever they want to change at any moments notice.

If I were to remove a race, I wouldn't go about it the way he did, where it just straight up doesn't exist anymore without any explanation. If I was going to remove Firbolg or some other race from my game, I would make it fit into the story, and either make it a mystery, or straight up tell them why I was removing through a plot event.

The DM is the world, and the world is as living and changing as the DM. Things change for reasons not apparent to players, but that doesn't make it right to just kick someone out because they were asking questions.

As a DM I encourage good questions. These make the players more imaginative, and better at critical thinking. But, if they become too annoying, or push on a subject that I don't want to give a straight answer on for whatever reason, I personally would let them know that I wouldn't be revealing that for the time being, so there's no point in asking.

Like others have said, the DM is a player too, but the players are also supposed to be a part of the world, not some disposable thing you just need to discover the things you make, they have rights too. 

You're asking a bunch of DMs what the extent of the powers of DMs are, and expect balanced answers? OK ...

I'll give you my take, which is going to differ from most here, even people in this thread with whom I tradiationally agree ...

Start: OPINION or INTERPRETATION

The DM isn't a God. They don't have unlimited arbitrary authority. They don't own the game. If your depection is accurate, then your DM was/is a petty uncreative *******: uncreative because they couldn't come up with a creative in-game/in-world reason to exclude the race ( even if they answer they gave you was, "it's tied to a secret aspect of the campaign which I can't tell you - but there's a reason" ), and petty ******* because they kicked you for  "disrespecting the DM". Any DM that far up their own butt in their petty power fantasies ( "it's my game, I can do whatever I want" ), you're better off not playing under.

However, the DM - being a member of a larger social gaming group ( some DMs get prickly if you call them a Player, so let's just call them a "gaming group member" ) - does have vastly more responsibilities than other people at the table, therefore they have commensurately more rights.

The DM is responsible for running every other person, group, or creature in the world who is not a Character controlled by the Players. Thus they have the right to decide how those NPCs act - tempered by the fact that a good DM doesn't give the NPCs out of character knowledge about the Characters.

The DM has the responsibility to fairly and consistently adjudicate the rules, especially in the gritty gray areas which 5e has so many of; thus they have the right to determine how those rules are interpreted and applied - tempered by the fact that Players cannot make meaningful game choices if the rules are arbitrary, inconsistent, or secret, so the DM needs to clearly and concisely communicate those rules, and discuss changes with the rest of the group. If they change the rules around too much, or too often, or too arbitrarily, Players get lost and get frustrated. Rule changes should be implemented only to change the style of play to one that best suits the group ( of which the DM is a member, so their stylistic preferences count ), and what style best suits the group will change drastically with the members of that group ( which is why I think DM/Player compatibility from the very beginning of the campaign is a critical critical critical  thing to evaluate and work on right from Session Zero ).

The DM has the responsibility to create the adventure ( whatever you interpret that to mean; there are multiple styles and approaches ) and the aspects of the world that support that adventure, so - yes - they do have the right to determine what the elements of the world are included/excluded - tempered by the fact that the Players have the right to creative expression and input as well. You'll hear a lot of DMs complain that their Players just won't engage with their material, or won't create detailed and nuanced Characters - and you'll see a lot of DMs who don't incorporate Player creativity into their settings; seldom leverage Character backgrounds, personalities, or histories into the world and campaign design choices except when it's a convenient lever for the DM; and complain when Players come up with solutions which short-circuit the flow of an Encounter in a direction that the DM didn't envision ( and thus isn't prepared for, and thus doesn't want) . I'm willing to lay down a substantial amount of money that there's a large overlap between those two camps.

There are two major camps of "DM Power" approaches that I've seen, which I've dubbed The Commander and The Creative Editor. Spoiler: I'm firmly in The Creative Editor camp.

Disclaimer: I'm exaggerating wildly here. No one is 100% one way or the other. We're humans. It's a spectrum.

The Commander says "this is my game, I can do what I want". The Players are there to play through the adventure, as the DM has envisioned it. Player creativity is incorporated only when it's useful as a support tool for the adventure/narrative that the DM has pictured. The DM can - and often does - arbitrarily change the rules around, usually as an attempt to curtail Player options and choices into very narrow paths, which further facilitate the DM's "creative vision". Since humans are typically bad at large scale systems thinking, the rule changes seldom have the precise effects they wanted, so they keep shifting the rules around constantly trying to get things "right". The DM being surprised by the actions of the Players is a bad thing, since it takes the DM out of their comfort zone, and derails how the DM had envisioned the flow of the game ( this is why techniques like the Quantum Ogre get developed ), so the DM does what they can to channel Player choices towards the "correct" one.

The Creative Editor says "let's see what we can build as a group". There's a Session Zero at the beginning of the campaign, so the DM knows what the Players are looking for out of the game: what is their preferred style, what elements do they like, what creative ideas do they have for the setting, and for their Character. The DM doesn't have an obligation to incorporate any of it, and the Players don't have a right to demand that the DM use any of it. The DM has creative control of the game, and strives to create a coherent game, so not everything from every Player can be shoved into the same box. However,  a good editor takes multiple creative streams - including their own - and weaves them into a coherent and creative setting and series of adventures. A wise editor knows that the Player will engage with elements of the story that they recognize as being connected to their own creative inputs, and wanting Player engagement, will use that - although they shouldn't ever go down the path of just pandering to Players' wish lists. Rules can be changed, but for reasons I outlined above ( to make the game mechanics better suit the groups' overall style ), but rule changes - and the reasons for them - need to be clearly communicated to the Players so they can make meaningful choices in the game ( and if the rule changes are large, a good editor may allow some retroactive editing of Characters to accommodate this new reality ).

The funny thing is that both approaches can be implemented, even if the DM does have complete arbitrary authority. It's not about  what level of control the DM has - it's about how the DM approaches the Players, and views the Players & Player creativity. One approach views the Players as subordinate to the DM, their creative inputs inherently of a lesser importance, and what they want out of the game as secondary to the DM's design of the adventure; the other views the Players as creative co-contributors to the overall game whose creative inputs and desires should be considered and incorporated at least part of the time - even though the DMs responsibility to maintain an overall coherence to the game/world/adventure means that they cannot incorporate every idea, from every Player, all the time.

DMs are managers of their game and their table. You can either try and create subordinate staff members, or you can try and build and manage a team. I know which one I'd rather play under - both as a DM, and as a Player.

End: OPINION or INTERPRETATION

It's really hard to give any sensible answer besides ask him for feedback why you got kicked from the game. I'm guessing this is an online game because when you're meeting face to face these things normally get a good explanation with it. I think you're hidden question is if you're doing something wrong. When I read your post, it could be that developping a new character because you got 'bored' with the other one is also bothering the DM. I wouldn't stop you from rolling a new character if it's really needed, but I would also reflect on my own DM'ing - what could I have done better to keep you more involved. And again, I don't know your story, or your DM, but I like to develop the characters, I develop their backgrounds meaning I incorporate relations into the game by creating them as NPC's and giving them a role in the storyline. Now, that being said, it can be really disappointing to see all that work go to waste when someone wants to roll another character. However, if you are really bored and need to build a new one, I will work with you to get it right this time!

This might as well not be the case, but then, probably something else is bothering the DM. It is quite obvious that when these things happen, there is a reason to it that is not being told in this case. It might be that you are 'over-developping' your characters, meaning you are focussed on building the ultimate character, with the best stats, the best spells and racial features. And your DM might be out to set a roleplaying heavy game, or just a balanced party, or challenging encounters and he's not succeeding to do so because of you're "annoying desire for optimization and constant change". 

Allright, now this also might not be the case, but the point is - something is - and the only way to find out is to ask him.

And yes, the DM can decide whatever he wants as he's the one putting a lot of effort in, however, if he doesn't learn to improve his DM'ing to avoid these kind of frustrations it will be harder to run a long, fun game with happy faces and people smiling. The same goes for you by the way. So talk to each other and find out what happened and how to improve it, for this game or the next. 

Everything should be possible. With the exeption of UA,  its a balanced game. If you can't cope with that, don't DM. Plenty of rules to steer an unwanted character/alignment in your direction.

It's not the DM's GAME it's the DM's world.  It is the GROUP"s CAMPAIGN or game.  Without the group, there is no campaign.

Overall there should be a campaign "pitch" to the group by the potential or elected DM.  Once that happens the premises of the campaign should be done, this is where character creation guidelines come in.  If through the course of the campaign, something is found to "not fit" or "too complicated" then the DM has the right to tell the group what they feel needs to be changed and why, usually the group will agree, even after some lively discussion of pros and cons.  The DM then has to come up with an in world reason of why the change happened IF there has been any interaction with the mechanic/race/class/item etc.  If no character direct knowledge exists, then it is a hand wave of "those rumours of fish-men are just that rumours" if there are to be no Kuo-Toa in the world.

The DM does not have the "power" to kick a player from the group.  The group has the power to self-determine its own make-up.  Whether the DM or a player wants to have another person join or leave the group, they need the group's permission.  Whoever is hosting the game does have the "right" to not allow people into their residence/place of business.  But, without a "vote", the players need to support one another.  Discuss with them on the fairness, and if they want to choose to associate with a DM who is running the DM's game and not participating in the group's game.  Just be aware, you may find that you, and not the DM, is the root of the problem, and the group put it on the DM to "get rid of you". instead of having the "it's not you, it's us" discussion uninviting you from the group.

Remember, no DnD is better than bad DnD, and it sounds from your point of view, it was bad DnD.

I'm going to offer my own opinion that just because something is balanced within the game rules as written doesn't mean it's necessarily fun for everyone.  By example, I know a lot of players and DM's that refuse to have anything to do with Warforged as player character races, and I share that feeling.  Some of the other races don't fit my view of D&D either, such as the Loxodon and a few others that are of the Isle of Dr. Moreau variety.  Not everyone likes a D&D game that feels like Star Wars with relation to the hyper cosmopolitan nature.  Simultaneously, I feel it's better to get all that stuff out there upfront with a sort of Player's Guide to the type of game that's being run (Themes, Tone, etc.) along with all the house rules currently in place and others that may crop up or are under consideration.  I feel like the DM is 40% plus of the World, with veto power on top.  But it is a cooperative game as well.

@SergeTroy - you've hit upon an excellent and valid point: not everyone likes every aspect of the game as written, and that's perfectly OK. IMHO, the problem in the OP isn't that elements got veto'd out of the game world by the DM. I think that's a valid thing to do to make the game fit the style of the table. I think the problem in the OP is the unilateral application of a veto power, without consultation or consideration of Player preferences, by the DM. The operative phrase was "style of the table", not "style of the DM" - although the DM absolutely is a member of that table.

I think the core issue that plagues many groups is compatibility. If you as a DM hate Warforged, and I as a Player love them, neither of us is wrong, we're just incompatible ( in that regards ). Likewise, if you want to run a high fantasy, story and character driven campaign, with streamlined and light combat rules to shift the focus to more RP elements, and I get the most fun out of being a crunchy tactical "count all the squares, get all the tactical bonuses, kill all the monsters, win" style Player ( or vice versa ), we're incompatible ( to the point where we probably shouldn't be at the same gaming table ).

In a compatible group, it doesn't matter if the DM has 100% of the power and creative control: everyone will be happy with the results. A benevolent dictatorship is often a pretty good form of government ( so long as it can stay benevolent ).

Group compatibility, how to gauge it, and how to promote it, when to recognize you don't have it, and when you should just cut your losses and start with a different group - that's is something that's been occupying my thoughts of late. It's tough. It's not like I can say "I'm a A37X-4 style Player" and the DM can go "Well, my preferences are A98Y-4, which means we have a compatibility index of 9.2 .... want to join the group?" :p

@Vedexent - Oh, for sure.  I was going over a Looking For Group posting I'd gotten to post draft status, and it started out 5 pages long because I was trying my best to both sell the game (and myself) as well as establish "perfect" expectations for the group.  But even if I posted a novella length brochure, that still wouldn't cover all the ways that two people may just not get along.  You do what you can, but there's always that chance of two people butting heads over something 90% of the population would say is silly and dumb.  

I'd definitely say it's the DM's right to add or drop races as playable whenever, especially if it's a homebrew setting. For me personally, I don't want to deal with centaur shenanigans so  that's a no. Then there are some that don't make sense for my setting, like changelings or kalashtar from Eberron.

It's another thing if you had expressed interest in this new character and he had previously OK'd it.

Quote from DaddyFrito >>

I'd definitely say it's the DM's right to add or drop races as playable whenever, especially if it's a homebrew setting. For me personally, I don't want to deal with centaur shenanigans so  that's a no. Then there are some that don't make sense for my setting, like changelings or kalashtar from Eberron.

It's another thing if you had expressed interest in this new character and he had previously OK'd it.

Agreed, I'd say that it's still within the DM's wheelhouse but it should be a learning experience for them and the sort of thing that shouldn't be repeated unless the DM is just trying to piss their players off.

To the OP, it sounds like you're better off to not be in that group. 

Getting kicked for asking the same question twice... "ooh how dare you besmirch his magnificence with your puny pestering player questions!"... is indicative of a small insecure man: the worst kind of DM. "Because I said so!" is something an out of touch father from the 50s would tell their blossoming teenage daughter about not going to the school dance. I mean really, grow up and relinquish your power fantasy. Sigh. We're all here to have fun, not assuage anyone's vaunted egos.

Improv is about saying "Yes, and..." There is so much more to be had in collaborative storytelling when you build on others' ideas instead of saying "No." So there is always an argument for the DM to listen to their players and break their own totally made up World Rules so as to foster stronger and better collaboration and investment. That said I also respect a DM's vision; shared and worked out together in Session 0. "So you'll all be orcs, goblins and ogres; freshly cut from your gestation sacs (elves need not apply!) , created by some mad wizard intent on lichdom, ready for the huge war ahead. You're smarter than the rest of the cannon fodder and so have been given leadership roles in his army. No bards, and no druids. If you choose a martial class you'll start with a +1 weapon handed down its prior dead owner; the good guys are winning and the forces of this mage dwindle. Oh and no healing magic either unless its super dark and gross and requires blood sacrifice of some kind. It's a monstrous campaign where the ultimate goals are evil, but you're all in it together - you're sac brothers and sisters - a family! Who's in?"

That one player who had his heart set on a firbolg druid is crestfallen, and cannot see anything to like in the above and implores for druids to exist. A good DM brainstorms with the group to see if a druid could work, he still has final say. "Maybe he's like a swamp doctor. Only speaks to vermin and nasty kinds of prickly plants. His deity is something toxic , in fact keep the firbolg race, they're weird enough... but this one is mutated though, obviously sac grown. other firbolgs will be repulsed. You will be feared and mistrusted by the infantry due to your eerie magical aura." Inspired, someone else asks "Can I be a drow and not sac grown? I have an idea..." and so it continues. If it changes too much from the vision, perhaps the players don't like the vision - but if it inspires the DM... then that was a great Session 0, plus your players are now super keen to explore something new. 

It's a conversation meant to engage everyone at the table so that we all cannot wait to play. It's not a dictatorship.

DMs might limit race/class/spells combos because of how min-maxing would damage someone else's fun, or their fun. they might limit it because you arrived in the second month of the campaign and they already have a rogue. They might have a tonal discord with talking birds and turtles in their gritty low magic (mostly humans) world. There are legitimate reasons why a DM may ban a thing, but always with a sincere explanation, and followed up with a desire to help find something better together.

Quote from Torquemadaza >>

 

Getting kicked for asking the same question twice... "ooh how dare you besmirch his magnificence with your puny pestering player questions!"... is indicative of a small insecure man: the worst kind of DM. "Because I said so!"

 

 Getting kicked for asking questions is a real kick in the pants. A big clue that the player and GM aren't compatible.

My use of "I said so " wasn't a call back to the 50s. It's like a short cut reason that's quick and dirty. The dirty being that because the player sitting next to the questioner is a first time player and has some religious anxiety about demonic content (yes, that shit still exists in this day). I don't want to get into that at the table so I told the want-to-be tiefling, no. You can dress it up as much as you like, but singling out a player because they are new and have some uncomfortable feelings is NOT the way to introduce somebody to the game. 

I don't believe "because I said so" is acceptable, even as a quick-and-dirty answer - over the long term.

I agree 100% that sometimes "we'll just roll with my ruling for now, and we can discuss it outside of play if you want" has to be done because you can't go down the discussion rabbit hole right now, for whatever reason.

That might be just a politely worded "because I said so ... for now", but I believe that the "for now" part is important.

Quote from Vedexent >>

I don't believe "because I said so" is acceptable, even as a quick-and-dirty answer - over the long term.

 

 I did explain it to the player later but right at the moment I wasn't sure how to do so with both people sitting right there. It's not the easiest thing to shut down a conversation without piquing curiosity from others. I don't want to go anywhere near "I said no because of you and your silly religious beliefs."

And NO I don't think religious beliefs are silly but they can unnerve people when they don't have to.