L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Campaign Settings and DM Strictures, the POLL
delericho
Legend
I'm not entirely keen on the notion of "DM restrictions" - my preferred model would involve quite a bit of back-and-forth discussion between DM and potential players to arrive at something they're both happy with.
That said, someone has to be the final arbiter, and since the DM is going to be running the game, I guess that's who it falls to.
My position would be #4 - pretty much any restrictions are fair game, but they really should be clearly stated ahead of time.
That said, someone has to be the final arbiter, and since the DM is going to be running the game, I guess that's who it falls to.
My position would be #4 - pretty much any restrictions are fair game, but they really should be clearly stated ahead of time.
Baldurs_Underdark
Hero
I voted 3. Could have voted 4.
Best is when players restrict themselves to make a character that fits, and the DM just sketches the world and explains some boundary conditions in a session zero.
Best is when players restrict themselves to make a character that fits, and the DM just sketches the world and explains some boundary conditions in a session zero.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
I fully agree with the the DM being able to put on some restriction if they feel necessary (I don't allow evil PCs, either) or to enforce setting parameters (I don't want kender in my Eberron games, for instance). I do think it's good form to not only to make sure players know about these restrictions before hand, but to run things by the players before making concete plans.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
Voted for three, though I’d be fine with 4, save for the lack of “so long as they are known ahead of time” language. Communication is key.
Really, a DM can do whatever they want – and I can choose not to play at that table or not. And the same goes for players. A player can just make a string of disruptive CE murderhobos, but eventually, they’re not going to get invited back to my table.
Really, a DM can do whatever they want – and I can choose not to play at that table or not. And the same goes for players. A player can just make a string of disruptive CE murderhobos, but eventually, they’re not going to get invited back to my table.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
hawkeyefan
Legend
This is a hard one to answer, as I can imagine examples for several of the poll options with which I would agree. And ultimately, it does all come down to communication, so for my group at least, these things ever rarely become a problem in play. If there are any such concerns, it's usually caught prior to play.
For example, if you're playing with a group where it can lead to disruptive play, or if you're playing in a public game and not all players are well known to you, then I can imagine restricting evil aligned characters. However, in my personal gaming group, I'd be annoyed if that's what I was told before beginning play. I'm perfectly capable of making an evil character who won't be disruptive to the group. An evil character need not be a slavering maniac who kills everyone he comes across. I suppose I see this as a training wheels type of thing....at some point, if a group remains together long enough, this restriction can be lifted.
Or if one of my group decided they wanted to run a campaign in Ebberon or Greyhawk, I don't have a problem with adhering to the races and classes that would be appropriate for those settings. However, if I had some kind of awesome take on a Dragonborn in Greyhawk, then I would likewise hope that the DM would be willing to discuss it with me, and not simply dismiss it out of hand.
I think the big question in this regard is for homebrew settings. Without the "support" of the publisher, a DM making a setting who decides to remove a class or a race can be seen as doing it to thwart player choice. And of course there may be many other reasons for the choice. A low magic campaign my remove some of the full caster classes. A gritty military campaign may remove healing magic and may include lingering wound rules. And so on. I think that sometimes, the goals of such restrictions are clear. The ones I just gave seem pretty straightforward. But what about ones that are less clear? When a DM decides no drow in his Greyhawk game...but drow exist in the setting. Is this more of an attempt to restrict alignment? What if I made a good drow?
I think that in those instances, it's best to have the discussion to understand the reasoning behind the decision, and to consider the possibility of changing it.
In the original thread [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] sited above, I questioned DMs removing racial options from campaigns. Now, I certainly have no problem playing in a game and adhering to whatever is decided for that, BUT having said that, I do like to understand the reasons for such decisions. I rarely think such racial restrictions are justified. Most seem arbitrary, and are a matter of preference. Most don't really seem to impact the setting as much as they are said to; "Dark Sun has no gnomes because they were all killed off because Athas is a really harsh world" just doesn't seem to really matter. I know it's a harsh world based on just about every other setting element. The lack of gnomes does little to reinforce that, and their presence would do little to detract from it.
So ultimately, I voted 3 because I think that as long as it's all discussed beforehand and everyone is cool with it, then pretty much anything is fine. I do tend to lean toward restrictions being campaign based rather then player-behavior based, though. "No evil PCs" seems one step removed from "no wizards because I'm tired of Matt taking forever on his turns to pick a spell".
I used to be much more in favor of having such restrictions in place, in order to help give a setting a specific feel. But as time has passed, I prefer to leave things open and let the players choose just about anything they want, and then we can discuss it and make it work for the game in mind. I just don't think these restrictions accomplish their stated goal nearly as much as other setting elements do, and I think DMs and players would be well served to examine the reasons for restrictions.
For example, if you're playing with a group where it can lead to disruptive play, or if you're playing in a public game and not all players are well known to you, then I can imagine restricting evil aligned characters. However, in my personal gaming group, I'd be annoyed if that's what I was told before beginning play. I'm perfectly capable of making an evil character who won't be disruptive to the group. An evil character need not be a slavering maniac who kills everyone he comes across. I suppose I see this as a training wheels type of thing....at some point, if a group remains together long enough, this restriction can be lifted.
Or if one of my group decided they wanted to run a campaign in Ebberon or Greyhawk, I don't have a problem with adhering to the races and classes that would be appropriate for those settings. However, if I had some kind of awesome take on a Dragonborn in Greyhawk, then I would likewise hope that the DM would be willing to discuss it with me, and not simply dismiss it out of hand.
I think the big question in this regard is for homebrew settings. Without the "support" of the publisher, a DM making a setting who decides to remove a class or a race can be seen as doing it to thwart player choice. And of course there may be many other reasons for the choice. A low magic campaign my remove some of the full caster classes. A gritty military campaign may remove healing magic and may include lingering wound rules. And so on. I think that sometimes, the goals of such restrictions are clear. The ones I just gave seem pretty straightforward. But what about ones that are less clear? When a DM decides no drow in his Greyhawk game...but drow exist in the setting. Is this more of an attempt to restrict alignment? What if I made a good drow?
I think that in those instances, it's best to have the discussion to understand the reasoning behind the decision, and to consider the possibility of changing it.
In the original thread [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] sited above, I questioned DMs removing racial options from campaigns. Now, I certainly have no problem playing in a game and adhering to whatever is decided for that, BUT having said that, I do like to understand the reasons for such decisions. I rarely think such racial restrictions are justified. Most seem arbitrary, and are a matter of preference. Most don't really seem to impact the setting as much as they are said to; "Dark Sun has no gnomes because they were all killed off because Athas is a really harsh world" just doesn't seem to really matter. I know it's a harsh world based on just about every other setting element. The lack of gnomes does little to reinforce that, and their presence would do little to detract from it.
So ultimately, I voted 3 because I think that as long as it's all discussed beforehand and everyone is cool with it, then pretty much anything is fine. I do tend to lean toward restrictions being campaign based rather then player-behavior based, though. "No evil PCs" seems one step removed from "no wizards because I'm tired of Matt taking forever on his turns to pick a spell".
I used to be much more in favor of having such restrictions in place, in order to help give a setting a specific feel. But as time has passed, I prefer to leave things open and let the players choose just about anything they want, and then we can discuss it and make it work for the game in mind. I just don't think these restrictions accomplish their stated goal nearly as much as other setting elements do, and I think DMs and players would be well served to examine the reasons for restrictions.
André Soares
First Post
I believe any non RAW choice made by the DM, being it restrictions, house rules, theme changes should be made clear ahead of time. The game is open to whatever the group feels confortable doing, but for all participants to know what they are confortable using or playing there should always be a conversation first.
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Poll
