|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly
I don't ever do this. First, from personal experience, it can lead to players questioning the legitimacy of the DM, which can cheapen the experience (in either direction, depending on the level of "PC-friendliness" of your DM). It also heightens the tension - the players know that I don't know the outcome either. All die rolls are made out in the open, unless what's happening is actually secret (Stealth checks for unseen creatures, for instance).
This is a trick. It makes the players believe that the game's outcome is truly in the hands of their decisions and the outcome of die rolls. That's an illusion. I still retain control of the game, and have a chest of tools I can use to alter the game's outcome without needing the dice to turn out in my favor (or against my favor).
Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs
GMPCs? No, not unless I have no other option. I'm not there to get my jollies off in my own world. I'm there to see how players react to it and to make their experience a good one.
The players and their characters are the most important thing in the game world.
Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters
Never. This is the sort of thing I can only see being conscionable if the DM is truly a novice, and doesn't feel comfortable dealing with the mild curveballs that full casters sometimes throw.
Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion
Alignment is descriptive. Not prescriptive. Always. There is nothing to "enforce".
Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic
Objective morality is uninteresting, and leads to intra-party conflict. Intra-party conflict is the game-killer.
Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule
If the game's mechanics are predicated on a loose adherence to a set of progression guidelines, I will follow those guidelines. Your DM freedom is not being constrained by this. If you feel it is, you need to find a different way to flex your creativity. Hint: It probably shouldn't involve you making your players feel like they're being deprived, or being punished.
Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide
This I absolutely agree with, though my experience is that this is more a "new school" trait than just about anything on this list.
Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs
I discourage evil PCs, and any players who do run evil PCs need to agree (out of game) to make a special effort to find a way to align their goals with the party's goals.
Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone
There is no such thing. You can figure out a way to find a place for that class or race in your campaign. I have faith in you.
Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming
I'm not sure what "hard" means here, but in my experience the idea of "abusive" metagaming is much overplayed.
Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics
It isn't my job as DM to dictate to my players how they enjoy their character and their place in the game. If they don't want to participate heavily in character-based social interaction, that's fine.
Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.
This doesn't seem like something anyone would object to, or that anyone would term particularly "old school". I mean, what's the alternative? Let the player act like their character is unaffected? Does anyone allow that? Ever?
Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolons, etc.
Yeah, because that's what DMs need. More control over the game world. Unrestrained power to shape the world and story, but you'll be damned if you let one of your players control his own pony's action! Heck, I take it a step further - I retain control of all PCs' right arms; you know, just in case.