Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Campaign Settings and DM Strictures, the POLL
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7531250" data-attributes="member: 6785785"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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". </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7531250, member: 6785785"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Campaign Settings and DM Strictures, the POLL
Top