Community

One thing I want to point out real quick, role-players and min/maxers are not mutually exclusive. I have three players at my table that are both and are well versed at putting together characters which are optimized within the concepts they come up with.  

As to the original post...well all I can say is that I have been with the same group for over 10 years now, rotating DMs whenever a campaign or story arc comes to a close, and we have never had any such problems at our table. We all have the understanding that if something is off limits then there is a reason, either mechanically, story-wise, or just because the DM isn't familiar with it yet. In other words we all assume 'DMs Discretion' on everything, even things out of the PHB (or other core book if we're playing a different RPG).

For example in the game I am running currently, I was not allowing Psionic classes of any sort, even though I have the PHB3 and Psionic Power on the shelf. I recently, due to story reasons, allowed one player to shift his character (after some trials he will have to complete) from a Swordmage to a Battlemind. 

I'm also not allowing Minotaurs, Gith, Wilden, Shardminds, Shifters, Devas, Drow, Tieflings, Revenants, Vryloka, Shades, and many of the other races from the recently released splatbooks (even though I do have them and have read up on everything), nor am I allowing Shadow classes, the Runepriest, or Dragon Sorcerers. I am also only allowing themes on a case by case basis right now. All for story reasons due to the way my homebrew setting is. My players know this, and are fine with it because they know that my reasons are grounded within the story of my setting. If I gave them my reasons it may ruin the story for them and that is the aspect they seem to enjoy the most. I will admit in some cases that it's actually because I have yet to figure out where and how these races and classes fit into my setting, but I would say that's only true for the Wilden, Shardminds, and Gith though.

As for magic items, well, my setting is low magic and again my players know this are are fine with it. I use inherent bonuses, and they know they can't just go to the corner market and buy a Longsword of Frost. Feats and Powers I'm pretty much hands off. I give certain feats for free so that the players have an easier time taking feats that match their concept. This happened after many complaints that they felt like they couldn't build towards concept because of feat taxes.

I am no different when one of the others at my table DMs/GMs/Storytells/etc. I always run everything I take for my character by the person running the game to ensure that it's okay. I hate having my game disrupted, so I do everything in my power to not disrupts other's games. I guess ultimately me and my group never feel 'entitled' to anything just because it's in a book. We are all in the mindset that you have to have approval to run something in someone's game and that everyone, even the DM (or whatever), is supposed to have fun. I was under the impression that most gaming groups were like this. Guess I was wrong.    

Oct 11, 2012 -- 12:19PM, Wick wrote:

I am not very active on the forums but I am sure this has been discussed. I have been playing D&D since the late 70's and every incarnation of the rules. In my experience there has been a major yet subtle shift in attitude toward the game as a whole. When I started there was very little printed material outside of the core books and modules.... The DM created the world and was the final judge on what was acceptable and what was not. However, as times have changed I have seen this attitude change, even among my old gaming friends. There is now a clear feeling by most players that if something is in a book he/she is “entitled” to have access to it.  What are your thoughts? 

I think there have been changes to the games, themselves, that have influenced this supposed sense of 'entitlement.'

I too remember when the DM's word was law, and the idea that you could expect a given race/class/spell/item/whatever to be available to your PC simply because it saw print somewhere was laughable.  But, games were very different back then.  They were, well, primitive.  The hobby was brand new and RPG design wasn't a science or an art, more just a shot in the dark.   The DM made the game, almost litterally, picking and choosing from among the stuff Gygax &Co threw at the wall, and deciding what would stick to his campaign world.  Great DMs made awesome games, and less-than-great DMs made awful ones (that were still fun in their sheer novelty). 

While a lot changed in the broader hobby as time marched on, not that much changed for D&D, until WotC, d20, and 3e.   3e may still be criticised for being poorly balanced and suffering from a lot of vague or abuseable rules and so foth, but, compared to classic D&D, it was more consistent and playable than ever.  A 3e DM following the CR guidelines might sometimes TPK with a 'filler' encounter or watch his players roll over a 'climactic' one, but at least he /had/ guidelines.  The rules were playable by "RAW," you didn't need the DM to go over them and 'fix' and mod them into something that could be played.  You still needed to be a pretty good DM to hold a campaign together for any length of time, but it was a much more accessible, much more playable-out-of-the-box game than it had been. 

Thus 3e DMs didn't keep such a tight rein on the rules or elements that were allowed into his games.  Players, OTOH, had a great many more customization options than before, and would be dissapointed if a 'build' was rendered impossible by a controlling DM banning a critical element of it.

Finally, 3e had built-in 'rewards for system mastery' - that is, it was "broken" or 'imbalanced,' but not by accident.  Part of it's appeal is that it was designed to allow players to make more powerful characters the better they got at the task of character-creation.  D&D had always tapped into a sort of 'reward' mechanism, with levels, treasure, and magic items rewarding you for continued successful play.  3e took it to another level by rewarding skillful chargen.  If any one thing drove the shift in attitude you're percieving, it was that. 


It seems at times as if 5e is trying to shift the attitude back to where it was.  And, yeah, that may not really be possible.  Making 5e like classic D&D - that is, making it primitive and unplayable without skillful DM intervention - doesn't seem like the greatest idea.  Making it DM-customizeable, which seems more likely, would certainly put some of the 'power' back in the DMs' hands.  It would also tend to dissapoint players who might feel the need to 'shop arround' for campaigns in which the characters they want to play 'work.'