Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 581394" data-attributes="member: 704">While there is nothing wrong with wanting the adventuring party to make sense within the context of the campaign, you want to be careful when applying race / class / alignment restrictions.   The enjoyment of the game by all of the players must come before pretty much everything else.  I personally cannot stand it when a DM starts putting arbitrary restrictions on what characters I can or cannot play just because he want's the campaign to be 'just so'.About the only restriction I ever put on my players is that they may not act in such a way that overly disrupts the game, and must be able to plausibly work as a team.[BOLD]Of all of the things you say in your post, this is the one that gives me the most concern.  I differentiate between the game world and the campaign.  The game world is entirely the GM's domain.  But the campaign belongs as much to the players as the GM.  Try not to set your self up to lose hours of work setting up an adventure that your players have no intrest in following.  You will either end up having wasted a great deal of your own time, or have a bunch of players who are unintrested in your game.If your players want to play a character archtype that you do not like, that is their call, not yours.  However, you do get to decide the consequences of the players actions.I would relax the race and class restrictions.  There is no reason why a foriegner cannot save the land just as ably as the local talent.END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

Verification