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

[DammitVictor]

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.

Yeah, most groups. Most of the problem players hang out on online gaming platforms or in game stores.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm generally freewheeling, but I do have a few hard/fast rules.

1. Material from other setting books isn't allowed unless I'm running that setting OR special DM permission. I borrowed this idea formally from Dragonlance in that stuff from specific campaign settings should remain unique to that setting. No warforged outside of Eberron, no kender outside of Krynn, etc. If it's a setting that is multiversal (IE Planescape or Spelljammer) you pick a home setting and that restricts your options (so no warforged knights of Solomnia).

2. 3pp stuff is dependent on setting/genre. I allowed the bloodhunter and witch classes in my Ravenloft game, but I probably wouldn't in Faerun. They don't fit the feel. This is fuzzier as 3pp is too large to have an all-encompassing list on.

3. Generic D&D stuff (IE Tasha or Xanathar) is always allowed, but there may be caveats or additional implications. Again, I point to Dragonlance limiting what races are naturally occurring.

4. If a setting has a unique rule (Theros piety, Dark Gifts, Dragonmarks, etc.) they are only allowed IF the game is set in that setting.

My limitations are to keep games to a theme. My Eberron Pirate game was nautical, my current Ravenloft is dark fantasy/horror, and my players are expected to keep to theme. And for the most part, they do.

Future Remathilis here.

For the most part this has remained true. What's nice is that WotC in 2024 has further expanded both the Campaign restrictions (Forgotten Realms campaign, Eberron campaign, etc) and lumped the campaign specific features (Dragonmarks, Dark Gifts, etc) into level 1 feats to limit stacking them.

 

[cbwjm]

Yeah, most groups. Most of the problem players hang out on online gaming platforms or in game stores.

Yep, the only time someone has taken exception to me excluding something (in the case I can think of, dinosaurs) it was someone online complaining about it: "Everything in the core books should be available!"

A lot of people seem to be against any kind of limitation, but my friends aren't some of them.

 

[Zardnaar]

Biggest thing irl is a stable game imho.

Anything goes games tend to be unstable. Usually due to inexperienced DM as they're the most likely to be anything goes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Biggest thing irl is a stable game imho.

Anything goes games tend to be unstable. Usually die to inexperienced DM as theyre the most likely to be anything goes.

I’d tweak that slightly - anything goes tends to reveal underlying instability. With an established group who know how to read the rest of the table you can really let players do whatever they want (because they’ll keep it within reason)

But with strangers, more strict can be better.

(Unless the goal is to vet players in the first place - I like to let new players I’m considering inviting to long games play one shots with me, and bring whatever. It lets me know what sort of characters they want.)

 

[AlViking]

I restrict a lot of things, either because of lore, preference and balance. I have a list of allowed species because I want everyone to come from somewhere, I don't like playing games with evil characters so they're banned, there's a handful of spells that simply too much of an "I win" button.

About the only time I ever have an anything goes game is when it's with AL, everybody else has at least some restrictions here and there. As long as the DM is clear on what the restrictions are so I can decide if I want to join.

 

[DammitVictor]

Yep, the only time someone has taken exception to me excluding something (in the case I can think of, dinosaurs) it was someone online complaining about it: "Everything in the core books should be available!"

Goes hand-in-hand with online RP culture, especially in D&D spaces, being dominated by players who want to play their character and don't necessarily give a damn about the game they're playing it in. Feel like a lot of grogs would complain that they want to play their "build" or their "toon", but it's not just mechanical stuff. They've got something they want to play and they're looking for a game to plug it into.

You wouldn't believe the pushback I've gotten against wanting to do collaborative worldbuilding before character creation, and character creation with all of the players working together. It's almost been enough to sour me on online tabletop platforms entirely.

 

[Lanefan]

Goes hand-in-hand with online RP culture, especially in D&D spaces, being dominated by players who want to play their character and don't necessarily give a damn about the game they're playing it in. Feel like a lot of grogs would complain that they want to play their "build" or their "toon", but it's not just mechanical stuff. They've got something they want to play and they're looking for a game to plug it into.

You wouldn't believe the pushback I've gotten against wanting to do collaborative worldbuilding before character creation, and character creation with all of the players working together. It's almost been enough to sour me on online tabletop platforms entirely.

If you're the DM and I'm a player then worldbuilding is your job, not mine or any other player's. Doesn't matter whether it's in-person or online, I'm here to explore and discover what you've built, which I can't do if I helped build it.

However, creating and playing my character (within whatever class-species restrictions you have set, of course) is my job, not yours nor anyone else's at the table. You don't get to tell me anything about my character's personality, alignment, outlook on life, or how to roleplay it, though: that's mine alone to determine via whatever means I choose.

 

[DammitVictor]

If you're the DM and I'm a player then worldbuilding is your job, not mine or any other player's. Doesn't matter whether it's in-person or online, I'm here to explore and discover what you've built, which I can't do if I helped build it.

Your argument would hold a lot more water if the same D&D players we're both complaining about were willing to play in anything but published settings and even specific pre-written adventure paths.

And, quite frankly, your attitude sucks and if that's the way you feel about playing at my table, you are hereby cordially invited to go play with yourself instead.

 

[Lanefan]

Your argument would hold a lot more water if the same D&D players we're both complaining about were willing to play in anything but published settings and even specific pre-written adventure paths.

Truth be told, that's not something I've ever encountered.

And, quite frankly, your attitude sucks and if that's the way you feel about playing at my table, you are hereby cordially invited to go play with yourself instead.

Nothing specific to your table in particular. I just don't like being told how to play my character.