D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Maxperson]

The ones who think they know best about what kind of characters the Players get to have bother me.

It's not so much what you get to have, as just eliminating a few. I have dozens of character ideas I want to play. More than I'll ever be able to, especially since I run more than I play these days. If I hit a limitation like no wizards, I'm just going to grab one of my other ideas and have a blast. The DM isn't making me play a specific character.

There is not really any valid excuse in a DnD campaign, just lazy DMing.

How is wanting to have fun lazy DMing?

 

[Shasarak]

It's not so much what you get to have, as just eliminating a few. I have dozens of character ideas I want to play. More than I'll ever be able to, especially since I run more than I play these days. If I hit a limitation like no wizards, I'm just going to grab one of my other ideas and have a blast. The DM isn't making me play a specific character.

Great, you have lots of ideas good for you. What about the guy next to you, does he have lots of other ideas? Why is it OK for you to tell him what he can or cant play just because you have lots of ideas?

How is wanting to have fun lazy DMing?

Sounds like you are just interested in your fun, so which adjective would you prefer?

Someone else playing a Dragonborn Monk suddenly makes the game un-fun?

 

[Maxperson]

Great, you have lots of ideas good for you. What about the guy next to you, does he have lots of other ideas? Why is it OK for you to tell him what he can or cant play just because you have lots of ideas?

Why do you think it's okay to ruin the DM's fun? This game is not all about the player.

Sounds like you are just interested in your fun, so which adjective would you prefer?

Fair. It's just as wrong for you to insist that the DM's fun be ruined, as it is for him to insist that you not ruin his fun.

Someone else playing a Dragonborn Monk suddenly makes the game un-fun?

Yes. I find it to be a stupid race and it bothers the hell out of me. I also don't like to eat liver. It tastes horrible to me.

 

[Sadras]

The ones who think they know best about what kind of characters the Players get to have bother me.
There is not really any valid excuse in a DnD campaign, just lazy DMing.

Let me get your position on this correct because currently what you've said sounds absolutely ludicrous from where I'm sitting.

The DM HAS to allow every race, class, feat and spell (basically everything in the PHB and supplements) at the table otherwise he is a lazy DM?
Thank goodness we're talking about 5e and not 3.x, cause that would make it an awful lot of lazy DMs according to that definition

EDIT: Just to add that you should probably stay away from the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread as it might make your head explode. I'm not even going to provide a link for it for safety reasons of course.

 

[I'm A Banana]

FWIW, I think the DM's free to limit the game to whatever races and classes fit their vision for the campaign (and most of the strongest campaigns have those limitations), but there's always a kind of "advice and consent of the players" thing. If a campaign needs to get rid of cantrip-users to hit the vibe they're going for, that sounds fine to me. But maybe not every group would be on board with that. So, y'know, the DM needs to ask everyone if they're on board and if not, that should be OK, too. Everyone's got their arbitrary deal-breakers.

For similar reasons, I'm cool with a campaign setting making that decision for itself. If Dark Sun says no fey like gnomes and pixies, that's A-OK. That's part of what creates an emergent feel. Creativity is born from limitations, and such.

 

[Lanliss]

The ones who think they know best about what kind of characters the Players get to have bother me.
There is not really any valid excuse in a DnD campaign, just lazy DMing.

So, by your definition, any DM that does not allow 100% of everything the players want is Lazy? I am not allowed to not have Dragon born in my world, because some future hypothetical player might want to play them? I am required, by the universal laws against Laziness, to find a way to shoehorn them in, or I have to eat your insults? If that is what you're saying, I am afraid I disagree on every possible spectrum.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I also don't like to eat liver. It tastes horrible to me.

Using your analogy, and attempting to explain what appears to be [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]'s view that you just don't seem to be getting:

Not eating liver because you don't like the taste makes perfect sense. I don't eat liver either, interestingly enough.

But when you say "No dragonborn at my table." it doesn't sound like you are saying "No liver for me, thanks." so much as it sounds like "No liver for anyone eating at the same table as me."

 

[Shasarak]

So, by your definition, any DM that does not allow 100% of everything the players want is Lazy? I am not allowed to not have Dragon born in my world, because some future hypothetical player might want to play them? I am required, by the universal laws against Laziness, to find a way to shoehorn them in, or I have to eat your insults? If that is what you're saying, I am afraid I disagree on every possible spectrum.

No, I am saying that if you as a DM have a player that wants to play a Dragonborn and you can not (or will not!) fit one into your world then you are a Lazy DM.

How would you describe this "hypothetical" DM?

 

[billd91]

No, I am saying that if you as a DM have a player that wants to play a Dragonborn and you can not (or will not!) fit one into your world then you are a Lazy DM.

How would you describe this "hypothetical" DM?

If the DM doesn't believe dragonborn fit in with the feel of the world he's running, a good DM.

 

[Shasarak]

Creativity is born from limitations, and such.

Creativity is also born from being creative.

You get a lot more creative if you start with the question "How am I going to get this to work" then you do from the question "No, you cant do that".