Kitchen Sink or Limits, Which for You?

[Greg K]

I agree, but I'd also like to know which you prefer.

Definitely, limited. As a player and DM, I have no interest in the following:

1. a game using Changelings, Dragonborn*, Drow, Elans*, Githzerai*, Illumians*, Genasi, Kalashtar (outside of Eberron), Revenants, Shades, Shardminds*, Vampires, Warforged (out of Eberron) Tieflings or a host of other things as PC races.
(edit *Not interested in a campaign that uses it as a PC or NPC)

2. a 3e game using WOTC's non 3e PHB classes (exception is the OA Shaman) (note: I am fine with certain third party classes and UA class variants);

3. a game using 4e Avengers, Barbarians (elementally powered), or 4e psionic classes

4. the official 4e Assassins and non-Fey Pact Warlocks as PCs.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

A small kitchen sink, more like a bathroom sink.

If there's demand for the non classic D&D races/ classes I'll include them. Dragonborn were so popular for 4e I kicked the gnomes out of Greyhawk's Kron Hills and installed them there. That's a big exception though. While my players love to make a lot of characters all sorts, when it comes time to actually play the game the classic races/ classes still dominate. The exotic ones don't even come into play as NPCs or villains at a common rate either.

My two big restrictions are a ban on evil PCs and psionics.

 

[jedavis]

If you like limited settings, feel free to answer any or all of these follow-ups:

Does it matter whether the restrictions stem from DM fiat (“I just don’t like sorcerers”), from setting themes (“The gods have abandoned Athas, so no divine PCs”), or from print origin (“Nothing from the Essentials books”)?

If you like strongly thematic settings, is such a setting any less acceptable if your favorite races or classes aren’t part of the theme?

What about strongly thematic settings that naturally foster a kitchen sink attitude, like Planescape?

Used to be a kitchen-sinker, now a limiter. Setting themes and print origin I'm both pretty OK with. And yeah, I don't really have a favorite race or class, so no problem there for almost any reasonable theme (restrictions of the form "No X" are ok, restrictions of the form "Only X" are less so if X is like... bard). A thematic kitchen sink might be acceptable, if players actually stuck to the theme in their sinking.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In my opinion, the DM should be able to limit available options for any reason that they choose whether personal dislike, theme, or campaign setting. Players can choose to walk if they don't like the omission(s)

I agree with that, but I still prefer limitations based on the campaign over ones based on personal dislikes.

 

[blargney the second]

In the Eberron game I haven't DMed for far too long, closer to the kitchen sink. In the Pathfinder E6 Dark Sun game I play in, it's quite restricted.

I'm fine with the full run of the spectrum. What I don't like is when the goalposts get moved around by changing what's allowed and what's not. I find that tends to happen more in games that have more limits.
-blarg

 

[The Human Target]

I agree with that, but I still prefer limitations based on the campaign over ones based on personal dislikes.

Player "I want to play a dragonborn fighter."

DM "Well a fighter is fine, but I don't allow dragonborn in my game."

Player "Why not, I really think they're cool?"

DM "Reptiles shouldn't have boobz!" or "It wasn't in the Hobbit!" or "Give me Draconians or give me death!"

Player "... yeah i think I'll go play WoW or something."

 

[Crothian]

If I don't limit the players I end up with an Elf Wizard, a Dwarven Fighter, a hobbit thief, and a Borg for a campaign that I told them was 1940's New York City Noir.

 

[korjik]

Player "I want to play a dragonborn fighter."

DM "Well a fighter is fine, but I don't allow dragonborn in my game."

Player "Why not, I really think they're cool?"

DM "Reptiles shouldn't have boobz!" or "It wasn't in the Hobbit!" or "Give me Draconians or give me death!"

Player "... yeah i think I'll go play WoW or something."

or it could be:

DM: I have a Middle Earth based game I want to run

Player: I want to play a dragonborn fighter

DM: This is a Middle-Earth based game.

Player: I want to play a dragonborn fighter!

DM: There are no dragonborn in Middle Earth!

Player: I want to play a dragonborn fighter

DM: Yeah, I think I will go play WoW or something....

In one of these situations, the game still happens, in the other, it dosent.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have mixed feelings on not allowing things in a player really wants.

On one hand I totally get wanting a theme for your game and certain classes don't fit that theme.

But I really dislike it when a DM doesn't allow something just because he does not like it. I think at that point the DM is being a little petty. I am not sure I would want to play with a DM who has nerd rage over something like say dragonborn boobs.

I also dislike players who won't accept that a certain thing is not available because it will not fit in the DMs world. And a player who would throw a tantrum of not being allowed to play something this one time is also someone I would not want to play with.

 

[SlyDoubt]

I like limitations. My group tends to also. Limitations on the world just helps define each campaign more for us. Because generally speaking it's pretty sandbox. So those big sweeping restrictions are one of the most fundamental differences between campaigns for us.

Also I don't see planescape as kitchen sink at all. It's not cramming things in. It's making specific space for it all. Which it can easily do because of the structure of the planes. Part of what makes it rather brilliant.