DMs: Why do you ban specific sources?

[GawainBS]

While psionics tends to be more balanced than vancian magic, I think hes concerned about how it fits into a campaign. I know one guy who loves the mechanics, but absolutely refuses to have the stuff anywhere near a fantasy campaign.

I won't discuss tastes, but I don't see the problem. Then again, my idea of a fantasy campaign is something Planescape-esque, so pretty much anything goes.
Another take: Eberron: integrated Psionics out of the box...
Barring all that: reflavour it, if you like it.

[ChristopherGroves]

I'm nearly completely sold on the "everything but core" game.  That's awesome for one of our big weekend events.

[SorO_Lost]

Because I can! 
Ok, srlsy.

Originally I banned by based on books I don't have access to. you wanted to run around as a dread necromancer? Bring the book with you. The DM runs the game, and he can't do that if he is completely clueless to how the things his players are doing are done. Otherwise, just play a diceless RPG or something. Officially I consider ToM banned for the same reasons. I'm to lazy to read up on the system since no know I know has really tried to use it.

Now I just go with no psionics. It's a choice. Like the one I made to run a D&D game instead of Star Wars. I've made some exceptions along the way of course, but by default it's considered off limits.

Everything else is by build. Like I really wouldn't allow a 5th level bard adding +12d6 sonic damage on every blow the party uses. But words of creation its self is not banned.

[skydragonknight]

The only thing I consistently ban is campaign-specific material when using another campaign setting (like banning everything FR when running Eberron).
Probably my second highest is alternate magic systems, for which I give a -tentative- ban until the player lets me burrow the book and give it a good look over-especially the mechanics(like how chakra binds and soul melds work). Letting a player run a character from a system you're unfamiliar with is a bad idea, since you can't tell when they're making a mistake, even unintentionally.

[Ryu Hayabusa]

1. Not having access to a source. This is a no brainer.

2. Not wanting to deal with what a book brings to the table. This is rare, but I use it in certain cases when a material isn't suitable. BoED in a Neutral/Evil game is a good example.

3. Being BoNS. I don't like it and I refuse to deal with DMing it.

[Orion]

I haven't actually run 3.5, now that I think of it (I play it, but I run d20M/Phoenix). I have, in the past, not "banned" anything, but I maintain a friendly "check with me first" attitude towards non-Core material. Not because I think it's all shite, but because there are hidden nuggets of shite out there, and I'd like to have right of first refusal. I maintain this policy as a player, and I think it helps create a collaborative relationship with the GM. I'm not trying to "put one over" on her. I'm checking to make sure that an option I like won't mess with her game.

[GawainBS]

3. Being BoNS. I don't like it and I refuse to deal with DMing it.

Isn't that rather selfish? It's as much the player's game as it is yours.

[katans]

Thing I don't accept:
- Complex stuff I don't have access to (such as ToM). Short excerpts from books, like a feat, a prestige class, or a spell, can be accepted on a case-by-case basis.
- Potentially broken stuff (Wraithstrike, Assume Supernatural Ability, Divine Metamagic...) will be given a chance. If the player grossly abuses it, it's out.
- Stuff that doesn't fit within the setting. I can accept Warforged in the Forgotten Realms - after all, it's only a lesser type of construct - but not Dragonmarks. I can accept Shadow Weave Magic in Greyhawk, but not specific prestige classes tied to a FR deity. And so on.

[j0lt]

First and foremost: does it fit with the setting/party/story I'm running?
This means no Paladins in Dark Sun, no psionics in a regular fantasy setting, no ninjas in a non-asian-themed setting, no Jedi during the Rebellion Era, etc...

Aside from that, anything outside of core+complete is subject to approval (though usually yes).

[Ryu Hayabusa]

3. Being BoNS. I don't like it and I refuse to deal with DMing it.

Isn't that rather selfish? It's as much the player's game as it is yours.

Not at all. I'm doing the work of DMing; if I don't want to deal with something that's the end of the discussion.

[GawainBS]

3. Being BoNS. I don't like it and I refuse to deal with DMing it.

Isn't that rather selfish? It's as much the player's game as it is yours.

Not at all. I'm doing the work of DMing; if I don't want to deal with something that's the end of the discussion.

Well, if a player doesn't want to play with such a DM, he might end up DM'ing for himself and imaginary friends.
It's not all about "I DM, I make the biggest effort, I rule." It's a team game, even on this level. Sure, players have to respect you, but players deserve to get some respect as well.

[Ryu Hayabusa]

3. Being BoNS. I don't like it and I refuse to deal with DMing it.

Isn't that rather selfish? It's as much the player's game as it is yours.

Not at all. I'm doing the work of DMing; if I don't want to deal with something that's the end of the discussion.

Well, if a player doesn't want to play with such a DM, he might end up DM'ing for himself and imaginary friends.
It's not all about "I DM, I make the biggest effort, I rule." It's a team game, even on this level. Sure, players have to respect you, but players deserve to get some respect as well.

That's their choice. *Shrugs*

If they can't respect my decision not to deal with certain materials, screw 'em. They're free to sit out or go DM their own game, or find someone who runs a game more to their tastes. This being a team effort doesn't mean you bend over and let your players run rampant over you. Players get plenty of respect from me, if banning a book isn't respect? Oh well, go find a DM who fits you more.

[GawainBS]

3. Being BoNS. I don't like it and I refuse to deal with DMing it.

Isn't that rather selfish? It's as much the player's game as it is yours.

Not at all. I'm doing the work of DMing; if I don't want to deal with something that's the end of the discussion.

Well, if a player doesn't want to play with such a DM, he might end up DM'ing for himself and imaginary friends.
It's not all about "I DM, I make the biggest effort, I rule." It's a team game, even on this level. Sure, players have to respect you, but players deserve to get some respect as well.

That's their choice. *Shrugs*

If they can't respect my decision not to deal with certain materials, screw 'em. They're free to sit out or go DM their own game, or find someone who runs a game more to their tastes. This being a team effort doesn't mean you bend over and let your players run rampant over you. Players get plenty of respect from me, if banning a book isn't respect? Oh well, go find a DM who fits you more.

"My way or the highway", which is what I read in this, doesn't sound overly respectful.

[Ryu Hayabusa]

If that's what you want to take from it, knock yourself out.

Okay, okay, away from the bravado a moment. What I'm really getting at here is that if I make a call like that, it's final. I feel it's within my fiat as a DM to choose materials that I don't want to deal with. If that bothers you, it's for the best that you find another DM, since I don't think we're gonna work out so well. It's not a challenge as much as a simple indicator that you're not going to get along well with my style. I have no patience for people trying to argue that it's not fair that x or y isn't in a campaign. Been there, analyzed it, decided that it wasn't happening.

[BowenSilverclaw]

I only outright ban stuff I don't have access to. If a player can grant me access to it it will be allowed.

Aside from that, I always make sure they understand that whatever they use, I can use as well

[Akalsaris]

in the last game I started (about a week ago), I allowed all 3.5 books, and specifically banned Savage Species, BoED, and BoVD. 

Savage Species was banned because the material in the book is largely 3.0 and I dislike the vast majority of the book's contents as poorly thought out.  BoED and BoVD were banned because they too are mostly 3.0, and because it was intended to be a neutral-aligned game, though I greatly dislike both books anyhow as I believe they were sloppily written and balanced. 

I allow MoI, ToB, etc in my games, since I like the alternate systems (more than the base classes actually).  I don't mind setting-based feats as long as the flavor can be reasonably changed.   

[EjoThims]

So much hate for Super Species.

It's one of my favorite books, and while I agree that a lot of it is useless or outdated, there's still so many options (mechanically and for flavor) in it that aren't replicated anywhere else, and it's a wonderful base for adapting/updating material for non-standard races.

[BowenSilverclaw]

+1

[GawainBS]

in the last game I started (about a week ago), I allowed all 3.5 books, and specifically banned Savage Species, BoED, and BoVD. 

Savage Species was banned because the material in the book is largely 3.0 and I dislike the vast majority of the book's contents as poorly thought out.  BoED and BoVD were banned because they too are mostly 3.0, and because it was intended to be a neutral-aligned game, though I greatly dislike both books anyhow as I believe they were sloppily written and balanced. 

I allow MoI, ToB, etc in my games, since I like the alternate systems (more than the base classes actually).  I don't mind setting-based feats as long as the flavor can be reasonably changed.   

Probably going overboard, but BoED is NOT, NOT, NOT 3.0. I've seen people say this so many times...

[Vidar]

in the last game I started (about a week ago), I allowed all 3.5 books, and specifically banned Savage Species, BoED, and BoVD. 

Savage Species was banned because the material in the book is largely 3.0 and I dislike the vast majority of the book's contents as poorly thought out.  BoED and BoVD were banned because they too are mostly 3.0, and because it was intended to be a neutral-aligned game, though I greatly dislike both books anyhow as I believe they were sloppily written and balanced. 

I allow MoI, ToB, etc in my games, since I like the alternate systems (more than the base classes actually).  I don't mind setting-based feats as long as the flavor can be reasonably changed.   

Probably going overboard, but BoED is NOT, NOT, NOT 3.0. I've seen people say this so many times...

Nor does it give a 3.0 feeling...