D&D 5E (2014) DM imposed restrictions to the game (+)

[Emerikol]

I tend to run a fairly rich world and at times I include or exclude some races. I tend to have players who care about creating a character that fits in that world and is part of it. People who show up and immediately say they want to play and X,Y,Z multi-class A,B,C are typically poor fits for my game. And that is only a commentary on the kind of game I prefer and not on them.

So what I will allow or not allow varies. I did generally accept the original 3 core books though not sure I would these days if I played 5e. My answers are based on my experiences across all editions. I was always open to someone who could argue for something else reasonably. I never excluded something and later wished I hadn't but I've often allowed something and later regretted it.

 

[Umbran]

I don't run a single type of game, so I have no single answer for this.

Sometimes I will restrict some things, sometimes I will make no restrictions, or even build the world around what the players choose.

 

[GrimCo]

I didn't pick, since it's highly dependant on what i want to run. For some games, it's everything goes, pick, mix, match, enjoy. If i'm going for something thematic, then i might have very hard restrictions, as in, it's shorter to tell players what they can take rather than what they cannot. And anything in between.

 

[DragonLancer]

As someone just coming back to D&D with 2024, I have the following restrictions:

2024 books only and only if I own a copy, or you can bring a copy for me to look at first.
No 3PP books at all.
No evil alignments.

Saying that I have expanded the PHB races with Goblin, Sentinel (Warforged), Tabaxi and Kitsune for my own homebrew world.

 

[Baron Opal II]

My campaign is curated, so there is a specific list of races, changed classes, and specific sub-classes that are available. I'm pretty open handed with feats as I see those as a good mechanism for flavoring or personalizing a character. I'm getting pretty soured on multi-classing, and am strongly going the 4e route and making only "feat-based" multiclassing. I've thrown alignments out except in the cosmic sense.

That said, I am messing about with the Hexcrawl challenge, and have a much more open sort of game. The main restriction is that there are two races. The native humans, who all have the Lucky feat, and the Gatecrashers, who don't. If you are not a local you come through the anomalous metal structure way over that-a-way. You can be whatever you want in a published book or Tasha's method. But, you can't have the Lucky feat. Or, you grew up here from Gatecrasher parents. Also, all PCs, or PC equivalents, have visited the Temple of the King and have the Mark of Royalty. They can do amazing things like completely heal all wounds with a good night's sleep.

 

[JohnSnow]

My answer is: "It depends."

I just got persuaded to DM a game for a total newbie, her bestie and a few other friends. This is a full-on free-for-all game, because my excited newbie has been enticed to play after watching a totally gonzo Dungeons & Dragons liveplay show (Dimension 20's "Dungeons & Drag-Queens"), and I wouldn't want to disappoint her.

Sometimes, I try to keep it a bit more focused.

 

[bloodtide]

I'm an Anything Goes type of DM.

Of course I'm also a "as DM I can do anything" type DM who has no limits.

Game On!

 

[GM Lent]

I picked "some races" because I've run a handful of human-only campaigns.

 

[Hattly82]

As a plus thread, please don't put down, dismiss, judge, etc. other peoples' view or comments. Thank you!

From the direction this thread (D&D 5E (2014) - We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign) took, I became curious about what things different a DM might modify or restrict when they run a game. I'm not talking about modifications or homebrew, but pure restrictions--NOT ALLOWED.

You can choose multiple options, and feel free to explain why you make the choices you make if you care to. If you think of a type of restriction I missed, let me know and I'll update the poll. Thanks.

I'll go first.

BOOKS
Supplements

• Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything
• Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons
• Monsters of the Multiverse
• Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants
• The Book of Many Things

Campaign Settings

• Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica
• Acquisitions Incorporated
• Eberron: Rising from the Last War
• Explorer’s Guide to Wildemount
• Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft
• Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos
• Spelljammer: Adventures in Space
• Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse

Adventures

• Stranger Things: The Hunt for Thessalhydra
• Dungeons & Dragons vs Rick and Morty
• Wild Beyond the Witchlight
• Critical Role: Call of the Netherdeep
• Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel
• Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen
• Keys from the Golden Vault

3PP MATERIAL - None allowed. I might homebrew something based on 3PP, but that's pretty rare.
RACES - Only the "traditional" (dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, humans, half-elf, half-orc) are allowed.
CLASSES - no Artificier
SUBCLASSES - If the class and sourcebook are allowed, the subclass is allowed.
FEATURES - As subclasses, if the class, etc. is allowed, the feature is allowed.
MAGICAL ITEMS - Nothing too poweful (unique, legendary, artifacts) since my games run tier 2 generally.
NON-MAGICAL ITEMS - GUNS! No guns. Guns don't belong in D&D for me. Sometimes no plate armor, which is campaign dependent.
RULES - I play with a lot of rule modifications, but don't really restrict anything. Too many DM restrictions can feel like sitting at a blackjack table where the dealer suddenly changes rules mid hand, and kills the fun. But having zero limits is as messy, like throwing all your money on roulette with no idea what the odds are. A good game needs balance. The DM should set clear boundaries, like stakes in poker, so players know what they are risking and how to play smart. If rules keep shifting, it feels like bad betting, not strategy. This whole topic reminds me of online gambling too, especially crypto stuff like https://cryptopayingnz.com/ethereum-casino/ where fairness and consistency matter a lot if you want players to trust the system. In both cases, whether it is chasing a jackpot or running a campaign, the experience works best when rules are clear and everyone feels the game is worth playing.

Like, most groups I’ve seen are fine with limits if they feel like they’re there to support the campaign (tone, setting, whatever). Banning a race/class because it just doesn’t fit the world? Sure. Limiting certain options because they break the kind of game you’re trying to run? Also fine.

 

[DammitVictor]

Really just depends on what I'm running and for whom. My current "D&D" game is basically Phantasy Star + Level Up with a smattering "pure D&D" content. Party's a Human 2024 Cleric, a Musk Cat Adept, a Dragonborn 2024 Ranger/Rogue, and an Axon Hunter.

When I run AD&D, there are no Fighters, Clerics, or Mages, and the Thief is more specifically a Thief.

I'm planning a 3.PF game where WotC and Paizo sources are wide open and I'm not planning on being stingy with 3PP... but core races and classes are all banned.

I'm planning a Pathfinder game where the classes are probably limited to Paizo 1PP (including Occult Adventures) and the races are limited to Star Trek aliems.

When I run Dark Sun, I don't allow Clerics (except Athasian Clerics) or Paladins and I don't allow gnomes, half-orcs, tieflings, or dragonborn.