The hobby is facing a DM crisis. There aren't enough of us.
I've a few theories about why that is but one concerns how the game has seen a shift in orientation. Some are left not really wanting to run games because it's getting harder and harder to find players willing to put aside all those choices now available to them, give up some of the autonomy typically afforded them during the character creation process, and conceptualize something that instead fits the campaign's setting.
With periodically released playtest material presenting players with new options and new feats, players are spoiled for choice. But shouldn't players, as I said elsewhere, accept that the setting revolves around the sun particular to it? Not them? D&D is not a role-playing video game made to simulate one vast world. It is a game made to simulate many.
It really depends on the reasoning and how restrictive they're being.
If they're wanting to ban Artificers because they want to run a LotR-esque game, it probably wouldn't phase me.
If they're wanting to ban all caster classes and subclasses because they have a bee in their bonnet about casters and for no other reason...then I'm probably out. Even if I were looking to be a Fighter, a DM who is trying to use their power to enforce their personal tastes on others is unlikely to provide a positive experience.
It's really about the level of restriction and the motive. Even the previous example, if it was about doing a campaign specifically about being no-magic, as a spin on the game for the tone and story, I could well be persuaded. The issue comes when the DM starts saying "I personally don't like X, it doesn't match my tastes, therefore I'm banning X from my table and if you don't like it, you don't get to play D&D with us". That's going to be a bad campaign and it's not going to just be about X. If you want to tell a story where the Elves have mysteriously disappeared and so it wouldn't be thematically appropriate for me to be an Elf, that's fine. If you just hate Elves and telling me I can't play an Elf because you don't like playing as Elves, then I'm not interested in having you as a DM.
The poll seems to assume that any problem with restrictions are about the restrictions themselves rather than the fact that they can be setting the tone of the DM/player relationship. For me, that's not the case - how a DM approaches the game is very important because it is the largest factor in whether the game will be fun and worthwhile. The motivations behind imposing restrictions and choices upon the players are vital in that dynamic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If they're wanting to ban all caster classes and subclasses because they have a bee in their bonnet about casters and for no other reason...then I'm probably out. Even if I were looking to be a Fighter, a DM who is trying to use their power to enforce their personal tastes on others is unlikely to provide a positive experience.
This is one way of looking at it. Another is that someone wants to run a particular kind of game and not have other people's tastes forced on them. It doesn't mean it will necessarily be a bad campaign, but you're right in that it will definitely not be a good match for all players.
As for me, I would much prefer the reason something is banned be "I have a thing about divine casters and don't want them in my game" than "clerics and paladins are overpowered and I don't know how to balance a party that has them." One reason is borne of preference; the other is borne of inexperience. As far as red flags go, a DM using their power to curate a world they enjoy doesn't immediately raise a concern for me, but a DM using their power to try to compensate for their lack of skill rather than learn how to run the game better does.
When I offered the other night to run, one would be player asked me to tell them what the adventure would be about so they can tell if they would be interested or not, but refused to tell me what kind of adventure they would like to play.
To be honest, I'm not surprised. The problem is that the DM has a lot of the power in the game dynamics. If a DM lacks the right skills or mentalities for a style of game, or they are just half-hearted about it because it's not their preferred genre or whatever, the game goes downhill very quickly. It can have half-hearted playerbandbsrill be fun, not a half-hearted DM. Unfortunately, people will still offer the DM, either because they don't have the spine to say no or because they just want to play or whatever, and that leads to a less than ideal game.
Instead, if the DM offers a particular game (or even a list of options), they've already expressed interest and shown that they're unlikely to be half-hearted about it. I can then commit myself too and say "yeah, that sounds fun" to it. Whenever a key participant in an activity is required to show enthusiasm and commitment but shows little of either, I'm generally looking for the door. This a bit OT, but I think offering specific options will help you get more engagement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The DM is allowed to have their fair say in the game the players are requiring that DM to run. The idea that restrictions should only be put in place to Build A World and any DM who declines to allow something in their game simply because of personal taste or choice is onerous and unfair to DMs. So what if a DM hates elves and wants to ban them just because they don't want to run a game for elf PCs? So long as that's discussed and made clear before the game starts and chargen is done, it's up to the players to see if that restriction is worth tolerating for them.
Personal example: I detest loxodon. I cannot stand them. They actively piss me off every time I come across them, and I can't even properly explain why. Something about their design, both visual and mechanical, completely throws me out of any story involving the big dumb elephant critters. I cannot take loxodon seriously, nor any story that involves loxodon. Were I to run a game and say "Loxodon are off the table, I cannot tolerate them and they have no place in my stories", is that me being a bad DM? Or is that simply me setting a reasonable boundary on something that makes the game actively worse for me instead of allowing my players to ruin my game for me before we even start it? My tastes and preferences are just as important as anyone else's at the table, just because I'm running the thing doesn't mean my own desires are moot and must be discarded. I'd argue that a player so inflexible that they absolutely cannot bend their character building to meet reasonable pre-set restrictions for worldbuilding and preference from the DM is the one with the problem, not the DM.
The DM puts a game in front of players, pitches what they want to run. The players decide if they're gonna buy that pitch. That's simply how it goes. The players cannot force a pitch the DM doesn't want to run any more than the DM can force the players to buy in on a game they don't want to play. Either side can negotiate, certainly, but this idea that the DM simply cannot have a say in their own game is super dumb.
If you don't like a certain species or race, the reasonable solution is simple: don't play as one.
When you're telling someone else how to play, then you're not only being obnoxious (which in this instance isn't necessarily that onerous) but telling people that you see nothing wrong in telling people who and what their character is and how they should be played. I'm not investing hundreds of hours into your story if what I can look forward to is you telling me how my character should be. If you have such antipathy towards a race, that's up to you...but you can't complain when people decide they'd rather have a DM that is using their role and power to try and make the game fun for everyone, rather than trying to remake the game in their own image.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you don't like a certain species or race, the reasonable solution is simple: don't play as one.
When you're telling someone else how to play, then you're not only being obnoxious (which in this instance isn't necessarily that onerous) but telling people that you see nothing wrong in telling people who and what their character is and how they should be played. I'm not investing hundreds of hours into your story if what I can look forward to is you telling me how my character should be. If you have such antipathy towards a race, that's up to you...but you can't complain when people decide they'd rather have a DM that is using their role and power to try and make the game fun for everyone, rather than trying to remake the game in their own image.
I think the OP is more asking if you limit species or classes. Not telling you what you can play, but what you cannot. As a DM I don't have antipathy towards a race, but I do have it towards species that are overbalanced. Such as Gem Dragonborn.
If they're wanting to ban all caster classes and subclasses because they have a bee in their bonnet about casters and for no other reason...then I'm probably out. Even if I were looking to be a Fighter, a DM who is trying to use their power to enforce their personal tastes on others is unlikely to provide a positive experience.
This is one way of looking at it. Another is that someone wants to run a particular kind of game and not have other people's tastes forced on them. It doesn't mean it will necessarily be a bad campaign, but you're right in that it will definitely not be a good match for all players.
As for me, I would much prefer the reason something is banned be "I have a thing about divine casters and don't want them in my game" than "clerics and paladins are overpowered and I don't know how to balance a party that has them." One reason is borne of preference; the other is borne of inexperience. As far as red flags go, a DM using their power to curate a world they enjoy doesn't immediately raise a concern for me, but a DM using their power to try to compensate for their lack of skill rather than learn how to run the game better does.
To me, inexperience can be cured. I have no problem helping and aiding a DM that is inexperienced or otherwise struggles. Ironically, I've heard a lot more on these boards about banning because of balance than because of taste, whether that's universally true is anyone's guess.
However, I'd probably still walk if they were intransigent in banning due to balance. In both cases, the problem is that the DM is seeking to control rather than to help people have fun. I had no idea how to balance at the beginning, but I learned through study and practice. Rather than telling my players that they couldn't play parts of the game, I learnt to make it work. If a DM feels they can't handle it, I'm happy to give guidance and help out. The answer isn't to ban, but to learn and adapt. If a DM is green really feels that they just want to get used to certain classes...maybe I'll do one-shots with them.
When people are forcing tastes on to players, then it's just control. Do I, as a player, or DM have to like Dwarves? Nope. I can easily choose not to be one. If I were a player and turned round and said, right I don't like Dwarves so Bob isn't allowed to play Dwarves, I'd be looked at weirdly and told I'm being silly, I don't get to tell players what their character is.
A DM should never tell a player what they must do unless the decision is for the good of the table and game. My preferences about Dwarves are not for the good of the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I am curious about the OP’s premise. Where are you getting the information that people don’t want to DM because players don’t want to be restricted. Seems like it’s got to be anecdotal at best. Personally, I’ve never encountered that attitude, and find even the newest players expect there to be some restrictions placed on character generation. Moreover the lack of people wanting to DM is hardly a “crisis.” It’s been around as long as the game, and yet here we are, 49 years later, still playing.
If you don't like a certain species or race, the reasonable solution is simple: don't play as one.
When you're telling someone else how to play, then you're not only being obnoxious (which in this instance isn't necessarily that onerous) but telling people that you see nothing wrong in telling people who and what their character is and how they should be played. I'm not investing hundreds of hours into your story if what I can look forward to is you telling me how my character should be. If you have such antipathy towards a race, that's up to you...but you can't complain when people decide they'd rather have a DM that is using their role and power to try and make the game fun for everyone, rather than trying to remake the game in their own image.
I think the OP is more asking if you limit species or classes. Not telling you what you can play, but what you cannot. As a DM I don't have antipathy towards a race, but I do have it towards species that are overbalanced. Such as Gem Dragonborn.
I know, but the poll assumes that people are reacting to the act of restriction itself, rather than why it's restricted. If a DM wants to pitch a campaign based around the Hobbit, then I have no problem with the restriction being that we can only be Dwarves. If they're just doing generic FR campaign and makes the same restriction because they love Dwarves, I'm probably going to back out. Not because I hate Dwarves, but because that's a prelude to a campaign where a DM thinks it reasonable to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy.
So how do I answer? I can't, because my aversion to restrictions is not accounted for - for me, the issue isn't the degree of restriction per se, but the motivation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why are the players allowed to force their tastes on the DM? If the DM has absolutely no say in what sort of game they get to run and has to be nothing but a shackled delivery vessel for whatever inane tomfoolery the players want, why should anyone ever DM? Why should I have to tolerate some dickhead playing a loxodon one-mand-band bard in my game and completely disrespecting the tone of the adventure I'm trying to build with banal cartoon idiocy when that's not the game I want to run?
The DM gets exactly as much say as any player, at a minimum. If they don't want certain species or classes in their game because they're trying to build a specific adventure, or even simply because they don't care for those species or classes? That's their decision to make. The players have the decision of whether to play within those strictures or to not play within those strictures. They can ask for relief from those strictures, certainly. They can negotiate. But players have no more right to impose their desires on the DM than the DM has to impose their desires on the players.
The DM is not a menial servant whose objective is to deliver what the players want regardless of their own wishes. The DM is a player too, and they deserve to enjoy the game they're running as much as the players.
Then I, a player can dictate who other players can or can't play as?
Coolio.
Oh, wait no I can't. So yeah, a DM has the same right to dictate what players can dictate to each other when it comes to their characters, unless it's a central conceit or theme intended to improve the game for everyone. Which is...none. Otherwise, leave their choices be. The player who wants to play a loxodon and let others live and let live is a lot less obnoxious than the player that comes in and demands that every plays humans he wants them to play because...he doesn't like non-humans.
Players are there to have fun, not to give the DM delusions of grandeur.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If the DM has the control of the world, and the players have full control of the character, then how does it follow that there's no point if the DM can't dictate player choices in character?
In my games, I don't hand characters to players. I create the world, and the players bring their characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
... Players are there to have fun, not to give the DM delusions of grandeur.
The DM is also there to have fun. According to your logic the DM is not allowed to exert any control over the game whatsoever and must instead act as nothing but a blank canvas for whatever the players feel like. if they want to play as the Justice League trying to take down Team Rocket in the city of San Andreas, the DM has to run exactly that because It's What The Players Want and the DM's own desires are to be ignored as completely and thoroughly as possible.
Does that sound like a recipe for stable, long-term successful DMing to you?
I think the question misses the point that this whole endeavor is a collaborative hobby. The sweet spot is when a group comes together to collectively build the setting expectations together. Whatever setting considerations there are should all have buy in from everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
... Players are there to have fun, not to give the DM delusions of grandeur.
The DM is also there to have fun. According to your logic the DM is not allowed to exert any control over the game whatsoever and must instead act as nothing but a blank canvas for whatever the players feel like. if they want to play as the Justice League trying to take down Team Rocket in the city of San Andreas, the DM has to run exactly that because It's What The Players Want and the DM's own desires are to be ignored as completely and thoroughly as possible.
Does that sound like a recipe for stable, long-term successful DMing to you?
Where did I say that? I said that denying someone else the ability to choose their own character based solely on your preferences is wrong. I've given several examples where restricting that choice can be valid, namely when it doesn't suit the story or world. Doing it because you can't control your antipathy for a race.is.you trying to control their choices. There's a difference.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why are the players allowed to force their tastes on the DM? If the DM has absolutely no say in what sort of game they get to run and has to be nothing but a shackled delivery vessel for whatever inane tomfoolery the players want, why should anyone ever DM? Why should I have to tolerate some dickhead playing a loxodon one-mand-band bard in my game and completely disrespecting the tone of the adventure I'm trying to build with banal cartoon idiocy when that's not the game I want to run?
The DM gets exactly as much say as any player, at a minimum. If they don't want certain species or classes in their game because they're trying to build a specific adventure, or even simply because they don't care for those species or classes? That's their decision to make. The players have the decision of whether to play within those strictures or to not play within those strictures. They can ask for relief from those strictures, certainly. They can negotiate. But players have no more right to impose their desires on the DM than the DM has to impose their desires on the players.
The DM is not a menial servant whose objective is to deliver what the players want regardless of their own wishes. The DM is a player too, and they deserve to enjoy the game they're running as much as the players.
Precisely this. If I don't want something in my game because I don't enjoy it, why must I be forced to grit my teeth and deal with it? D&D is not and should not be the DM providing fun for players at the expense of their own.
If there's a way for the players and the DM to meet in the middle and have a good time, by all means go for it. The whole game is about collaboration. At the end of the day, though, the DM is going to be the player spending the most time in the campaign world. They have the right to like and dictate what's in it. If the DM isn't having fun, eventually no one will.
If the DM has the control of the world, and the players have full control of the character, then how does it follow that there's no point if the DM can't dictate player choices in character?
In my games, I don't hand characters to players. I create the world, and the players bring their characters.
The DM isn’t “dictating” player choices by saying there’s no Species X in their world, they’re just restricting one thing as it fits into their world. I restrict certain species all the time, usually based on geography as certain species don’t live in certain areas of my world or only live in other areas. The way I look at it, if you travel more than a certain distance then you’re no longer a 1st level character. Therefore there’s no 1st level characters of Species X in certain kingdoms. There’s nothing wrong with that. I also ruled that there are absolutely none of some species in my world, there’s nothing wrong with that either.
The hobby is facing a DM crisis. There aren't enough of us.
I've a few theories about why that is but one concerns how the game has seen a shift in orientation. Some are left not really wanting to run games because it's getting harder and harder to find players willing to put aside all those choices now available to them, give up some of the autonomy typically afforded them during the character creation process, and conceptualize something that instead fits the campaign's setting.
With periodically released playtest material presenting players with new options and new feats, players are spoiled for choice. But shouldn't players, as I said elsewhere, accept that the setting revolves around the sun particular to it? Not them? D&D is not a role-playing video game made to simulate one vast world. It is a game made to simulate many.
It really depends on the reasoning and how restrictive they're being.
If they're wanting to ban Artificers because they want to run a LotR-esque game, it probably wouldn't phase me.
If they're wanting to ban all caster classes and subclasses because they have a bee in their bonnet about casters and for no other reason...then I'm probably out. Even if I were looking to be a Fighter, a DM who is trying to use their power to enforce their personal tastes on others is unlikely to provide a positive experience.
It's really about the level of restriction and the motive. Even the previous example, if it was about doing a campaign specifically about being no-magic, as a spin on the game for the tone and story, I could well be persuaded. The issue comes when the DM starts saying "I personally don't like X, it doesn't match my tastes, therefore I'm banning X from my table and if you don't like it, you don't get to play D&D with us". That's going to be a bad campaign and it's not going to just be about X. If you want to tell a story where the Elves have mysteriously disappeared and so it wouldn't be thematically appropriate for me to be an Elf, that's fine. If you just hate Elves and telling me I can't play an Elf because you don't like playing as Elves, then I'm not interested in having you as a DM.
The poll seems to assume that any problem with restrictions are about the restrictions themselves rather than the fact that they can be setting the tone of the DM/player relationship. For me, that's not the case - how a DM approaches the game is very important because it is the largest factor in whether the game will be fun and worthwhile. The motivations behind imposing restrictions and choices upon the players are vital in that dynamic.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is one way of looking at it. Another is that someone wants to run a particular kind of game and not have other people's tastes forced on them. It doesn't mean it will necessarily be a bad campaign, but you're right in that it will definitely not be a good match for all players.
As for me, I would much prefer the reason something is banned be "I have a thing about divine casters and don't want them in my game" than "clerics and paladins are overpowered and I don't know how to balance a party that has them." One reason is borne of preference; the other is borne of inexperience. As far as red flags go, a DM using their power to curate a world they enjoy doesn't immediately raise a concern for me, but a DM using their power to try to compensate for their lack of skill rather than learn how to run the game better does.
To be honest, I'm not surprised. The problem is that the DM has a lot of the power in the game dynamics. If a DM lacks the right skills or mentalities for a style of game, or they are just half-hearted about it because it's not their preferred genre or whatever, the game goes downhill very quickly. It can have half-hearted playerbandbsrill be fun, not a half-hearted DM. Unfortunately, people will still offer the DM, either because they don't have the spine to say no or because they just want to play or whatever, and that leads to a less than ideal game.
Instead, if the DM offers a particular game (or even a list of options), they've already expressed interest and shown that they're unlikely to be half-hearted about it. I can then commit myself too and say "yeah, that sounds fun" to it. Whenever a key participant in an activity is required to show enthusiasm and commitment but shows little of either, I'm generally looking for the door. This a bit OT, but I think offering specific options will help you get more engagement.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The DM is allowed to have their fair say in the game the players are requiring that DM to run. The idea that restrictions should only be put in place to Build A World and any DM who declines to allow something in their game simply because of personal taste or choice is onerous and unfair to DMs. So what if a DM hates elves and wants to ban them just because they don't want to run a game for elf PCs? So long as that's discussed and made clear before the game starts and chargen is done, it's up to the players to see if that restriction is worth tolerating for them.
Personal example: I detest loxodon. I cannot stand them. They actively piss me off every time I come across them, and I can't even properly explain why. Something about their design, both visual and mechanical, completely throws me out of any story involving the big dumb elephant critters. I cannot take loxodon seriously, nor any story that involves loxodon. Were I to run a game and say "Loxodon are off the table, I cannot tolerate them and they have no place in my stories", is that me being a bad DM? Or is that simply me setting a reasonable boundary on something that makes the game actively worse for me instead of allowing my players to ruin my game for me before we even start it? My tastes and preferences are just as important as anyone else's at the table, just because I'm running the thing doesn't mean my own desires are moot and must be discarded. I'd argue that a player so inflexible that they absolutely cannot bend their character building to meet reasonable pre-set restrictions for worldbuilding and preference from the DM is the one with the problem, not the DM.
The DM puts a game in front of players, pitches what they want to run. The players decide if they're gonna buy that pitch. That's simply how it goes. The players cannot force a pitch the DM doesn't want to run any more than the DM can force the players to buy in on a game they don't want to play. Either side can negotiate, certainly, but this idea that the DM simply cannot have a say in their own game is super dumb.
Please do not contact or message me.
In previous versions I didn't allow psionics.
Right now I am leaning towards not allowing Gem Dragonborn.
When I got back into playing and running a few years ago. I started out only allowing what was in the PHB or DMG
If you don't like a certain species or race, the reasonable solution is simple: don't play as one.
When you're telling someone else how to play, then you're not only being obnoxious (which in this instance isn't necessarily that onerous) but telling people that you see nothing wrong in telling people who and what their character is and how they should be played. I'm not investing hundreds of hours into your story if what I can look forward to is you telling me how my character should be. If you have such antipathy towards a race, that's up to you...but you can't complain when people decide they'd rather have a DM that is using their role and power to try and make the game fun for everyone, rather than trying to remake the game in their own image.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think the OP is more asking if you limit species or classes. Not telling you what you can play, but what you cannot. As a DM I don't have antipathy towards a race, but I do have it towards species that are overbalanced. Such as Gem Dragonborn.
To me, inexperience can be cured. I have no problem helping and aiding a DM that is inexperienced or otherwise struggles. Ironically, I've heard a lot more on these boards about banning because of balance than because of taste, whether that's universally true is anyone's guess.
However, I'd probably still walk if they were intransigent in banning due to balance. In both cases, the problem is that the DM is seeking to control rather than to help people have fun. I had no idea how to balance at the beginning, but I learned through study and practice. Rather than telling my players that they couldn't play parts of the game, I learnt to make it work. If a DM feels they can't handle it, I'm happy to give guidance and help out. The answer isn't to ban, but to learn and adapt. If a DM is green really feels that they just want to get used to certain classes...maybe I'll do one-shots with them.
When people are forcing tastes on to players, then it's just control. Do I, as a player, or DM have to like Dwarves? Nope. I can easily choose not to be one. If I were a player and turned round and said, right I don't like Dwarves so Bob isn't allowed to play Dwarves, I'd be looked at weirdly and told I'm being silly, I don't get to tell players what their character is.
A DM should never tell a player what they must do unless the decision is for the good of the table and game. My preferences about Dwarves are not for the good of the table.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I am curious about the OP’s premise.
Where are you getting the information that people don’t want to DM because players don’t want to be restricted. Seems like it’s got to be anecdotal at best. Personally, I’ve never encountered that attitude, and find even the newest players expect there to be some restrictions placed on character generation.
Moreover the lack of people wanting to DM is hardly a “crisis.” It’s been around as long as the game, and yet here we are, 49 years later, still playing.
I know, but the poll assumes that people are reacting to the act of restriction itself, rather than why it's restricted. If a DM wants to pitch a campaign based around the Hobbit, then I have no problem with the restriction being that we can only be Dwarves. If they're just doing generic FR campaign and makes the same restriction because they love Dwarves, I'm probably going to back out. Not because I hate Dwarves, but because that's a prelude to a campaign where a DM thinks it reasonable to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy.
So how do I answer? I can't, because my aversion to restrictions is not accounted for - for me, the issue isn't the degree of restriction per se, but the motivation.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why are the players allowed to force their tastes on the DM? If the DM has absolutely no say in what sort of game they get to run and has to be nothing but a shackled delivery vessel for whatever inane tomfoolery the players want, why should anyone ever DM? Why should I have to tolerate some dickhead playing a loxodon one-mand-band bard in my game and completely disrespecting the tone of the adventure I'm trying to build with banal cartoon idiocy when that's not the game I want to run?
The DM gets exactly as much say as any player, at a minimum. If they don't want certain species or classes in their game because they're trying to build a specific adventure, or even simply because they don't care for those species or classes? That's their decision to make. The players have the decision of whether to play within those strictures or to not play within those strictures. They can ask for relief from those strictures, certainly. They can negotiate. But players have no more right to impose their desires on the DM than the DM has to impose their desires on the players.
The DM is not a menial servant whose objective is to deliver what the players want regardless of their own wishes. The DM is a player too, and they deserve to enjoy the game they're running as much as the players.
Please do not contact or message me.
Then I, a player can dictate who other players can or can't play as?
Coolio.
Oh, wait no I can't. So yeah, a DM has the same right to dictate what players can dictate to each other when it comes to their characters, unless it's a central conceit or theme intended to improve the game for everyone. Which is...none. Otherwise, leave their choices be. The player who wants to play a loxodon and let others live and let live is a lot less obnoxious than the player that comes in and demands that every plays humans he wants them to play because...he doesn't like non-humans.
Players are there to have fun, not to give the DM delusions of grandeur.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Players have full control over their characters, DMs get the world. If a DM can’t make certain restrictions for their own world, what’s the point?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If the DM has the control of the world, and the players have full control of the character, then how does it follow that there's no point if the DM can't dictate player choices in character?
In my games, I don't hand characters to players. I create the world, and the players bring their characters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The DM is also there to have fun. According to your logic the DM is not allowed to exert any control over the game whatsoever and must instead act as nothing but a blank canvas for whatever the players feel like. if they want to play as the Justice League trying to take down Team Rocket in the city of San Andreas, the DM has to run exactly that because It's What The Players Want and the DM's own desires are to be ignored as completely and thoroughly as possible.
Does that sound like a recipe for stable, long-term successful DMing to you?
Please do not contact or message me.
I think the question misses the point that this whole endeavor is a collaborative hobby. The sweet spot is when a group comes together to collectively build the setting expectations together. Whatever setting considerations there are should all have buy in from everyone.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Where did I say that? I said that denying someone else the ability to choose their own character based solely on your preferences is wrong. I've given several examples where restricting that choice can be valid, namely when it doesn't suit the story or world. Doing it because you can't control your antipathy for a race.is.you trying to control their choices. There's a difference.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Precisely this. If I don't want something in my game because I don't enjoy it, why must I be forced to grit my teeth and deal with it? D&D is not and should not be the DM providing fun for players at the expense of their own.
If there's a way for the players and the DM to meet in the middle and have a good time, by all means go for it. The whole game is about collaboration. At the end of the day, though, the DM is going to be the player spending the most time in the campaign world. They have the right to like and dictate what's in it. If the DM isn't having fun, eventually no one will.
The DM isn’t “dictating” player choices by saying there’s no Species X in their world, they’re just restricting one thing as it fits into their world. I restrict certain species all the time, usually based on geography as certain species don’t live in certain areas of my world or only live in other areas. The way I look at it, if you travel more than a certain distance then you’re no longer a 1st level character. Therefore there’s no 1st level characters of Species X in certain kingdoms. There’s nothing wrong with that. I also ruled that there are absolutely none of some species in my world, there’s nothing wrong with that either.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting