The Power of "NO". Banned Races and Classes?

[Dungeoneer]

I wasn't the one suggesting that a monk could be a generic disciplined warrior. I'm merely suggesting that if one's objections to the monk are cosmetic or cultural, there are ways around it.

Also, people act like 'fighting monk' is strictly non-medieval archetype. Apparently they've never heard of Friar Tuck? Europe had monks (and friars and other 'godly' men) and yes, sometimes they fought. You don't have to play it as wuxia at all.

 

[Lalato]

Seems to me the issue is this: if you only "permit" the DM to ban things for "good" reasons, you then have the question of whether his stated reason for a ban is the actual reason. A player might accuse the DM of ignoring his "perfectly reasonable" argument for inclusion just because he secretly doesn't like them.

I'd suggest the best option is to (a) trust the DM and allow him to ban whatever or (b) grumble a lot and put up with it. (Assuming that "don't play with that DM isn't a desirable outcome.)

(c) Discuss it at the table with the group, and we can all decide what's fun for us to play.

 

[CM]

Races: I facetiously banned shardminds, just because I think they're so bizarre, but if somebody actually wanted to play one I'd figure out a way to reskin it and make it work. My FR campaigns don't allow Dark Sun or Eberron races, and the Dark Sun game uses only DS races (plus a few more I've fleshed out, such as minotaurs, jozhals, kenku, nikaal, ssurrans, and tareks).

Classes: Since I had a psionics-heavy Dark Sun game running concurrently with my FR Sundering campaign, I asked the players for that game not to make any psionic-classed PCs. That was a one-time thing though. My FR Neverwinter campaign had a gnome artificer reskinned as a priest of Gond. He was a lot of fun, though the player had to leave the campaign for IRL considerations.

Edit: Oh. Forgot to mention that the DS campaign has no divine classes, obviously. Great thing about 4e is that there's still plenty of other effective healer classes to choose from.

 

[Shiroiken]

(c) Discuss it at the table with the group, and we can all decide what's fun for us to play.

Depends on the group. In some groups, the DM is (at best) first among equals, while at others he's the absolute authority for the game. When I DM, I set the restrictions up front, but am willing to consider some ideas. If an idea just won't work for the campaign, then the player either accepts that restriction or chooses to leave. I've known far too many players that like to play weird for the sake of weird, and I find it very disruptive.

 

[Elf Witch]

Heh, I made a comment to that effect years ago and got absolutely dog piled for it. Pages and pages of people telling me what a terribly entitled player I was to even suggest that the DM doesn't have the absolute right to ban anything at the table for any reason. Times maybe have changed a bit.

Seems to me the issue is this: if you only "permit" the DM to ban things for "good" reasons, you then have the question of whether his stated reason for a ban is the actual reason. A player might accuse the DM of ignoring his "perfectly reasonable" argument for inclusion just because he secretly doesn't like them.

I'd suggest the best option is to (a) trust the DM and allow him to ban whatever or (b) grumble a lot and put up with it. (Assuming that "don't play with that DM isn't a desirable outcome.)

Yes, it seems I'm in this minority as well.

I'm finding the whole conversation fascinating. I understand DMs wanting to ban things because they genuinely believe that it is mechanically broken. Very few of the comments in this thread of of that class, however. The majority (self-selected, admittedly) do like to ban their players playing things, because of the personal taste of the DM ("I don't like/hate x").

This is completely foreign to my experience as a player, and consequently as a DM as well. Even if the dwarves have all been hunted and killed in the setting, if a player wants to play a dwarf, I want to work with him to make that happen (and I recognize that by saying that about dwarves up front, I am actually encouraging players to want this). Even if there are no orcs in the setting at all, I can find a way to get the mechanics of the half-orc into the setting without any real difficulty -- reskinning is trivial if the player wants to make it happen too.

I can understand not allowing non-core* options for various reasons (power-creep; the belief that it's underplaytested or disruptive; or due to accessibility -- i.e. mechanical or practical reasons), but if a player wants to commit to a certain story knowing the default assumptions of the setting, I don't see why my like/dislike of that particular race or class should even become relevant. As a DM, I've already get to control the entire universe at the table -- the player just gets one character.

I think I count myself very lucky that I've never had one of my ideas "banned" because the DM doesn't like something. Judging from this thread, I'm in a rare minority.

* I do recognize that the distinction of core/non-core may come to mean something very different in the new edition. With all the options the DMG will apparently offer, there will be some that are in, and some not. My instinct, though, is that all of the PHB will be in for games I run (incl. feats and other "optional" elements) -- even if I myself do not happen to like it.

I want my players to tell the stories that get them excited!

Hussar I have mixed feelings about this. For example if a DM says I want to run an all human world then trying to convince him to let him an elf into the game does feel like player entitlement. On the other hand being told all the time no you can't play an elf in ever campaign feels like a DM letting his dislike get in the way of fun.

Savage Wombat you do have a point. But DMs know when they are banning things simply because they don't like them and I think players pick up on this. This is a cooperative game and I think banning something you hate all the time even if you have a player who really wants to play it is kind of selfish.

Kobold Stew I agree that reskinning is a good way to handle things. In my homebrew if a player wanted a half orc I would offer the half hobgoblin from the Kalamar if they still didn't want that I am not sure what I would do maybe make a race that was similar. The orc issue or lack off is an important plot point in my game. If someone really wanted to play a dwarf and they were willing to accept that the rest of the humanoid races hate them and that they would be in for a tough time I would allow it.


I do think if the DM is trying for a certain style game and the players have agreed to it then they should not fight to hard to play a banned race or class. That does smack a little to me of being a brat. There is a big difference to be in a DM saying in this game there are no half orcs and saying I will never allow half orcs in any game I run.

 

[Hussar]

Elf Witch I agree with what you said. Trying to play an elf in a human only campaign wouldn't fly and was not what I was talking about. The DM isn't banning elves simply because he doesn't like elves but has a very specific game in mind. No problems.

Where I tend to fall is when someone had fairly generic fantasy setting, even one that is very detailed, and bans something because he or she either doesn't like it or can't conceive of how to compromise. At that point, big warning bells are all going off in my head that I am probably a poor fit for that table.

 

[MoonSong]

Heh, I made a comment to that effect years ago and got absolutely dog piled for it. Pages and pages of people telling me what a terribly entitled player I was to even suggest that the DM doesn't have the absolute right to ban anything at the table for any reason. Times maybe have changed a bit.

Well I don't entirely think things have changed as much, over the past month I started receiving a strong vibe after reading one delighted comment after another on how easy it was going to be forbidding stuff in the new edition. As if thousands of controlling DMs started laughing like maniacs as one. And that was scary.
Well this thread existing (And others like "I'm banning feats forever" or something like that) is proof enough there are DMs out there that have already decided the PHB is superfluous and just another splatbook.

Yes, it seems I'm in this minority as well.

I'm finding the whole conversation fascinating. I understand DMs wanting to ban things because they genuinely believe that it is mechanically broken. Very few of the comments in this thread of of that class, however. The majority (self-selected, admittedly) do like to ban their players playing things, because of the personal taste of the DM ("I don't like/hate x").

This is completely foreign to my experience as a player, and consequently as a DM as well. Even if the dwarves have all been hunted and killed in the setting, if a player wants to play a dwarf, I want to work with him to make that happen (and I recognize that by saying that about dwarves up front, I am actually encouraging players to want this). Even if there are no orcs in the setting at all, I can find a way to get the mechanics of the half-orc into the setting without any real difficulty -- reskinning is trivial if the player wants to make it happen too.

I can understand not allowing non-core* options for various reasons (power-creep; the belief that it's underplaytested or disruptive; or due to accessibility -- i.e. mechanical or practical reasons), but if a player wants to commit to a certain story knowing the default assumptions of the setting, I don't see why my like/dislike of that particular race or class should even become relevant. As a DM, I've already get to control the entire universe at the table -- the player just gets one character.

I think I count myself very lucky that I've never had one of my ideas "banned" because the DM doesn't like something. Judging from this thread, I'm in a rare minority.

* I do recognize that the distinction of core/non-core may come to mean something very different in the new edition. With all the options the DMG will apparently offer, there will be some that are in, and some not. My instinct, though, is that all of the PHB will be in for games I run (incl. feats and other "optional" elements) -- even if I myself do not happen to like it.

I want my players to tell the stories that get them excited!

Personally I hate wizards in general, and I truly despise them and everything they stand for in every single edition I have played, yet I wouldn't ever dream of banning them just for kicks. I dislike the class but I understand they are one of the most popular classes out there and I'm already too quirky as a DM to give myself that luxury. I mean as a DM you should care about the campaign and the kind of stories you want to tell, not about micromanaging the player's characters down to the last proficiency and feat. (Sadly I have found DMs that do and will only stop when you rules lawyer your right to play the character you want to play instead of a sockpuppet. And the new Basic approach doesn't give me much hope)

(c) Discuss it at the table with the group, and we can all decide what's fun for us to play.

This is my favored approach, another one I like is "Say yes", if it isn't broken and won't disrupt the table, require more work for the DM or cause a major change except for the enjoyment of the player playing the PC it should be allowed by default.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well I don't entirely think things have changed as much, over the past month I started receiving a strong vibe after reading one delighted comment after another on how easy it was going to be forbidding stuff in the new edition. As if thousands of controlling DMs started laughing like maniacs as one. And that was scary.
Well this thread existing (And others like "I'm banning feats forever" or something like that) is proof enough there are DMs out there that have already decided the PHB is superfluous and just another splatbook.



Personally I hate wizards in general, and I truly despise them and everything they stand for in every single edition I have played, yet I wouldn't ever dream of banning them just for kicks. I dislike the class but I understand they are one of the most popular classes out there and I'm already too quirky as a DM to give myself that luxury. I mean as a DM you should care about the campaign and the kind of stories you want to tell, not about micromanaging the player's characters down to the last proficiency and feat. (Sadly I have found DMs that do and will only stop when you rules lawyer your right to play the character you want to play instead of a sockpuppet. And the new Basic approach doesn't give me much hope)


This is my favored approach, another one I like is "Say yes", if it isn't broken and won't disrupt the table, require more work for the DM or cause a major change except for the enjoyment of the player playing the PC it should be allowed by default.

It is not because I am a control freak DM. after 12 years of powergamers in 3rd ed a few weeks in 4E before I binned it I got sick of the min maxing and most of it was due to player options. Feats, powers, ability to easily aquire magical items and combo them with feats and/or powers. Just makes DMing a pain in the ass. Basically you spend hours developing a world and story and the players like turning up with some cheeseball combo and ruining it IMHO.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Also, people act like 'fighting monk' is strictly non-medieval archetype. Apparently they've never heard of Friar Tuck? Europe had monks (and friars and other 'godly' men) and yes, sometimes they fought. You don't have to play it as wuxia at all.

Yep - a Monk is simply someone who lives an ascetic life, generally for religious reasons. There’s no implicit reason it’s associated with Eastern cultures - Western monks could also dedicate themselves to martial training.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Yep - a Monk is simply someone who lives an ascetic life, generally for religious reasons. There’s no implicit reason it’s associated with Eastern cultures - Western monks could also dedicate themselves to martial training.

Because Western monks actually tended to have military training as strictly not part of their ascetic lives. They were rather well known for it. Friar Tuck is so famous because he is known as an exception, not the rule.