Campaign Settings and DM Strictures, the POLL

[Laurefindel]

I voted 4, but I hesitated to go 5. I think I will change it to 5 actually. Vote changed to option 5

Personally, I think communication should be as clear as possible before the game, but it it shouldn’t stop there. Most groups and DMs don’t have encountered every situations or heard of all of them on the web; at one point or another, an issue with the rules or content of he game will occur far into the campaign.

Whether this issue is real or imagined, it’s the DM’s job to adjust. Being a DM does not mean being a tyrant, there is usually a fair deal of back-and-forth discussion to come to a concensus. But I don’t think it’s fair to expect a DM to anticipates EVERY possible issue with the style, genre and tone of a campaign before it starts.

So yes, in an ideal world everything is said and set at session 0, but a good DM should be able to say « because of x and y, we gonna do z differently from now on ». This may include ban and restrictions, especially if the issue is diruptive to the enjoyment of the game.

‘findel

 

[Mort]

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.

I actually agree with you, but I voted #5.

1. It's the DM's world and game. While, ideally, there should be, conversation, collaboration and other input from players - the DM ultimately makes the decision on what to include, exclude and modify.

2. #5 is the only one, within the context of the poll, that seems to allow for course corrections. If the DM allows a race, feat, alternative rule and it ends up causing problems - the player shouldn't be going "haha no take backs!." It's part of the DMs job to be able to course correct in the interest of a more fun game.

 

[FXR]

#5 can cover two different things:

A) a restriction the DM wishes to enforce after he concludes a previously allowed feature proved to be overpowered, broken or otherwise inappropriate ;

B) a restriction the DM wishes to enforce on a feature which didn't exist when the game started, such as archetype featured in the book which was published after the campaign started.

 

[Blue]

I'm a big fan of making the rules support the settings and the feel, so adding, removing, and modifying are on the table. That covers both #3 and #4. I'd rather tell the players about them ahead of time. Unless there's something that emerges during play -- I've seen (more in some earlier editions) broken combos and talked to players and removed them, so #5 really is a better fit.

Character advancement still has aspects of character creation, so any rules that apply to character creation de facto apply after as well. Which also supports #5 for me.

"Hey, a new book is out. I'm not using the new warlock subclass in it nor the weapon feats."

 

[Ath-kethin]

I am totally a caveman, and the world frightens me greatly, but I voted 5 because if the DM can't lay out how their game world works to their own liking, what's the point of having a DM?

 

[MarkB]

As a DM I'm happy with making restrictions to a campaign in advance based upon what sort of campaign I want to run, and so long as I know what I'm getting into before I sign up, I'm happy with a DM doing it in a game I play.

If I'm planning to run for a regular set of players, rather than at a club, I'll welcome discussion beforehand - there's no point in creating exactly the world I want to run if the people I want to run it for don't want to play it.

When it comes to making changes or restrictions after play begins, I don't feel like that should be a unilateral decision. At the very least, it merits reasonable discussion, especially if it affects the way a player is trying to play or advance their character.

I also think there should be some provision for players to restrict options or content they don't feel comfortable with - not unilaterally, but any player should feel free to ask that something they don't feel comfortable with should be avoided, and those wishes should be respected unless they're going to seriously impact others' enjoyment.

 

[MNblockhead]

Here is my approach as DM for 5e.

I start with the premise that I will endeavor to stick to RAW unless the exceptions are explicitly stated and communicated with the players.

I have an idea for a campaign. I e-mail potential players giving a synopsis of the campaign, and race/class limitations, what rule variants or home-brew I'll be using, and ask if they would be interested in playing such a campaign.

After a period of back and forth, I create a short campaign guide that memorializes what we agreed upon.

Next, I schedule a session zero where we make our characters together (sometimes party creation is done before the first game, but I enjoy doing this in person), go over any rule variants or home-brew one more time to make sure nobody has issues with them.

During play, I run my game with a "judge" style of play. I expect players to know the rules. If I forget a rule one of the players will usually know it or can easily pull it up on D&D Beyond. If players disagree with how I run something, they are free to question it or correct me and cite the rule. But, ultimately, I have the final say. When rules are unclear or there is no rule that covers a situation or there is a disagreement over how to interpret a rule, or if I just want to save time where looking up a rule would break the action, I make a ruling and we move on.

After the sessions, I will discuss certain rule interpretations with players and after having more time to consider it, I may decide to run things differently going forward, but I almost never ret con.

 

[Henry]

I voted #3, but I include elements of 4 as well -- a DM should be able to make any restriction, BUT with the caveat that it should be known in advance of character creation, and should work really hard to work with the players for anything that they feel need to be altered mid-campaign, rather than against them.

That said, I rarely make restrictions purely on flavor -- most any restrictions I make are mechanics-based. If you want to play an escaped Lawful Good Pit Fiend who just so happens to have the stats of a Tiefling Warlock because he lost Hell's favor and suffered catastrophic wing damage that won't heal till much later in levels? Works for me.

 

[guachi]

I voted #4. I actually do ban evil PCs from my game. I don't like evil PCs but more importantly, and it's what I tell my players, I'd be a bad DM for evil players and they likely wouldn't enjoy it.

Might as well tell them upfront so they can save their time and not be disappointed.

 

[Old One Eye]

As a general rule of thumb, I do not see how a DM can run a campaign of significant length without 5. So many possible interactions that it is well nigh impossible to know everything up front, and failure to reign in problems can collapse the campaign. I am a huge believer in, "your cool idea works here, but do not use it again as common practice or the game will implode".

The key is being reasonable in the DM ruling.