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

[AlViking]

sure and giving players restrictions on what kind of characters 'aren't allowed' is far from the same thing as telling them 'how they ought to be playing their character', but the latter is what i think Lanefan was referring to when they said whatever it was to the effect of 'nobody gets to tell me how to play my character but me'

I'll let @Lanefan clarify if he wishes, but I know from previous posts that he likely runs a game that wouldn't be a good fit for me. That's fine - we all have different preferences. I was just clarifying that I put limits on what kind of characters a person can play. There's still a nearly infinite number of personalities you can portray and I'm not going to tell you how to play your character. I will however let you know that if your portrayal crosses specific lines that you can either change the character's behavior, change to a different character or find another game.

Quite simply I want the game to be fun for everyone at the table including me and sometimes that means that a player can't run a character they want to run. If it's the only type of character they would enjoy playing (i.e. the guy who wanted to play an evil character) then it's just not going to work.

unrelatedly, has anyone else been getting alot of connection issues with ENworld recently?

Yes.

 

[saviirkad]

I voted I restrict some materials (official and 3PP) and some rules, but to explain my selection of those, I first of all would say "table-imposed restrictions" is more accurate for us.

Once we've had our discussions about what kind of game we want to do and such, often pre-sesh zero stuff, that's usually when restrictions begin to apply. 3PP has a blanket caveat of just "ask first," because I want a chance to know what is being requested. If in the conversation we don't go with it, it may end up a compromise where I homebrew something instead.

Official content restrictions are self-imposed based on what we are playing. Like when I ran the Netherdeep campaign, we prioritized character options that originated from CR products, both official and 3PP.

The "some rules" is because we've settled on a hybridization of the 5e rulesets, like 2014 backgrounds, 2024 species, etc., so it's just about using the right rules at the right time.

 

[Remathilis]

unrelatedly, has anyone else been getting alot of connection issues with ENworld recently?

OMG I'm glad it's not just me!

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree. I can tell you that I don't want a character that is a lone wolf antagonistic to other characters because they're "edgy" because it's a team game. I can tell you I don't want evil characters because I don't care for that kind of game. In fact I'll tell you this and a handful of other restrictions when I let you know there's an opening.

That would raise a huge red flag for me as a player, because it immediately sets a precedent that you're giving yourself the right to tell me how to play my character, and also to monitor my play. And here I thought monitoring of play went out with the demise of 1e's horrible as-written training rules, where the DM's evaluation of one's play was used to set the character's training costs.

The way I see it, if someone wants to play a character who doesn't fit then it's on the group to deal with that in character, just like the characters would deal with it. There's no such thing as "PC gloss" in my view; and kicking a character out of a party in-character (or killing it, whatever) does NOT equate to kicking that character's player out of the game.

And if their dealing with such things in character delays the DM's story's progress, so be it. Their roleplay is always more important than the DM's story.

And it's not necessarily that I want to play a lone wolf or evil character or whatever right now. Odds are, I don't, as I have something else in mind. I do, however, want those options to be and remain open to me as an integral part of my right to play my character as I see fit.

You are not the only person at the table and I don't feel bad about weeding out before they join or even kicking out someone that insists on running a character at the table that doesn't fit.

If that means you have to find a different table, that's fine. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. If I ever end up being the one I'll reconsider or quit DMing but it hasn't happened yet.

While "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" is in general a fine principle, taken too far at a game table it can lead to a bunch of passive yes-people who either won't, can't, or feel banned from disagreeing with each other or doing anything the least bit individualistic. And that ain't entertainment.

 

[Lanefan]

sure and giving players restrictions on what kind of characters 'aren't allowed' is far from the same thing as telling them 'how they ought to be playing their character', but the latter is what i think Lanefan was referring to when they said whatever it was to the effect of 'nobody gets to tell me how to play my character but me'

To me, saying I can't play an evil character IS, in broad strokes, telling me how to play.

unrelatedly, has anyone else been getting alot of connection issues with ENworld recently?

Yes. There's a thread about it in Meta. They're working on a fix.

 

[cbwjm]

Add me to the list of dms who doesn't want to run a game with evil characters, I prefer games where the characters are heroes. I haven't so far had to ask anyone to change their character from edgy loner to a team player to fit into the group.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Add me to the list of dms who doesn't want to run a game with evil characters, I prefer games where the characters are heroes. I haven't so far had to ask anyone to change their character from edgy loner to a team player to fit into the group.

honestly, if you(generic) were able to look at things entirely objectively, i think there's far more groups than you'd think that are much closer to being evil than you'd expect.

 

[Zardnaar]

Honestly, I can cope with edgy loners and bastard heroes. The one that breaks my teeth is that I can't run Street Fighter: the Storytelling Game without the first application–every time–and more than half of the applications being players who don't want to play PCs who fight.

What do you even do with that?

Tell them to find a different game.
Session 0 no joke characters, lone wolves, pacifists/cowards.

 

[AlViking]

That would raise a huge red flag for me as a player, because it immediately sets a precedent that you're giving yourself the right to tell me how to play my character, and also to monitor my play. And here I thought monitoring of play went out with the demise of 1e's horrible as-written training rules, where the DM's evaluation of one's play was used to set the character's training costs.

The way I see it, if someone wants to play a character who doesn't fit then it's on the group to deal with that in character, just like the characters would deal with it. There's no such thing as "PC gloss" in my view; and kicking a character out of a party in-character (or killing it, whatever) does NOT equate to kicking that character's player out of the game.

And if their dealing with such things in character delays the DM's story's progress, so be it. Their roleplay is always more important than the DM's story.

And it's not necessarily that I want to play a lone wolf or evil character or whatever right now. Odds are, I don't, as I have something else in mind. I do, however, want those options to be and remain open to me as an integral part of my right to play my character as I see fit.

While "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" is in general a fine principle, taken too far at a game table it can lead to a bunch of passive yes-people who either won't, can't, or feel banned from disagreeing with each other or doing anything the least bit individualistic. And that ain't entertainment.

Like I said, it's not going to work for every potential player. Just like I've occasionally listened to someone's pitch or played a few sessions and it wasn't for me. I stopped worrying about pleasing everyone - as DM and in many other aspects of life - a long time ago.

As long as everyone knows what the game style and restrictions ahead of time I don't see an issue.

Would you really want me joining your game when someone else at the table is running an evil character that initiates PVP because my character wasn't happy with something they were going to do? Because that's not something I want to spend what little time I get to play doing. Yet IIRC you have no problem with PVP.

Which is perfectly okay and you aren't running your game wrong because it's not one I want to be part of.

 

[AlViking]

honestly, if you(generic) were able to look at things entirely objectively, i think there's far more groups than you'd think that are much closer to being evil than you'd expect.

So? I'm not playing with those groups, they can do what they want.