"Shinies!" "Didn't we ban kender?"

[Rechan]

I'm big on collaborative gaming. Where everyone (not just the DM) has a say about the setting; the players choose the campaign they want, the players make their characters together (with intertwined histories), and even offer to flesh some things out in the setting.

So that brings me to the Ban List.

Many here have mentioned how they despise Dragonborn or Tieflings, or the traditional races like Elves. Others speak about how "X race should never be played by a PC, because X is evil/breaks suspension of belief/whatnot".

Here is where I ask: How would you feel if your group got together and decided to make a list of "Things that we agree not to bring into the game."

The Ban List is when you say, "I don't want X in the game," and everyone agrees not to bring it in.

Banning certain things is common for some things: No Evil Characters, No Psionics. But the Ban List may go as far as concepts. "No Drizzt 'Persecution complex good guy of an evil race'." This can apply to the DM, too. A player could say "I ban dream-sequence adventures." A banned race might even apply to the DM, as well. If everyone agrees "No Freaking Elves, ever," the DM doesn't include elves in his campaign.

Do you think The Ban List is a good idea for a group or a setting/campaign?

 

[Wormwood]

Here is where I ask: How would you feel if your group got together and decided to make a list of "Things that we agree not to bring into the game."

That's what my group does every game (regardless of system or GM)

So far, nothing in 4e has made the cut with the exception of evil PCs.

 

[Cadfan]

I think you're phrasing it poorly. You're making it sound like, "lets all create a hate-list!" I don't think that's a good idea when one of the things on the chopping block is your player's character concepts.

I do believe its a good idea to talk amongst the group to decide what genre of game they'd like. Usually this requires the DM to ask leading questions, because a lot of players will just answer, "I dunno, something cool?"

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm fine with that. Most groups have unofficial ban lists anyway, imo. Like if you say you want to play a spiked chain wielding half-dragon and everyone throws d4s at you.

 

[Rechan]

I think you're phrasing it poorly. You're making it sound like, "lets all create a hate-list!" I don't think that's a good idea when one of the things on the chopping block is your player's character concepts.

Except that some times, I think that it's best to kill some concepts if you just do not want to see them at the table.

I reference the Kender here. The "I steal anything that moves and otherwise act like an idiot." Some people really enjoy playing that type of character. Others want to murder people who do. For the sake of not causing continual frustration every game, I think it's fair to say "Can everyone agree not to play a damn kender-type thief?"

I have a great example of this. The type of character that is, "Charisma is my dump stat, and every time I open my mouth, I'm going to make sure you you KNOW it." I played in a game where the player, in character, constantly interrupted other players, was belligerent, offensive, and ... really played that Charisma of 6 well. So well in fact that it was one of the reasons I left the group.

Remember: Everyone Has To Agree. So if you have the guy who LOVES that type in the same group, then he and the Hater have to come to some sort of agreement.

 

[williamhm]

the only time Im okay with outright banning something is if their is a setting specific reason, like my groups current 4e game Eladrin are unheard of thus no eladrin pcs at the moment. Banning something simply because someone does not like it is really limiting.

 

[MrApothecary]

As a DM, the only thing I ever recall banning is Evil characters, especially if they are in a party with good characters. While some interparty drama is good for the roleplaying experience, some is too much. They make the other players want to punish them, and they are to hard to make adventure hooks for. My games usually have strong themes of heroic altruism in them, and evil characters make that hard.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Nothing is "outright banned." Everything is done on a case by case basis.

Banning evil characters is horrifying in my eyes.

 

[Hussar]

The guys at Fear the Boot often refer to a social contract, called a Group Template, made at the table before you start playing. It's a concept I whole heartedly endorse. You sit down, before character creation, heck before you even decide what game you're going to play and you lay out in clear terms what is expected in the next game.

And then you hash out, as a group what elements are acceptable to everyone.

I love this idea. I often play with people that are not people that I associate with outside of gaming. They're people I've met through gaming, in other words. So, I don't have years of friendship to base ideas and compromises around. Getting everything out there, out front, right off the bat, saves SO many headaches later on.

If the group decides, for example, that they want to role play everything, meeting the greengrocer, random street urchin #23, whatever, and you hate this idea, GET OUT OF THE GAME. Life is too short for bad gaming. So, find a group with a group template that fits your style and go from there.

As in all group activities, communication is key.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, there's no ban list, this is all about the "social contract". As a group who have played together for a long time, we have certain expectations, and certain shared likes and dislikes.

I mean, you never saw, say, ninja and samurai, nor spiked chains, in our AD&D and D&D games (except specifically OA ones). It's not that they were banned, indeed, we set things in the FR, which has it's own China and Japan analogues and evidence of travel from them. It's just that none of the players would want to do that.