Are your players usually ok with restrictions?

[Wednesday Boy]

If a DM had no other reason to ban half-orcs other than because he doesn't like them, why does it matter?

To me it matters because it's not just the GM's game, it's everyone's game. It's disappointing to have your opinion sidelined and trumped with no consideration.

 

[Oryan77]

To me it matters because it's not just the GM's game, it's everyone's game. It's disappointing to have your opinion sidelined and trumped with no consideration.

But if the DM simply said, "There are no half-orcs in this campaign world" then you would be ok with it? I don't understand how it makes a difference.

 

[billd91]

But if the DM simply said, "There are no half-orcs in this campaign world" then you would be ok with it? I don't understand how it makes a difference.

Since I often enjoy playing half-orcs, and people I play with know this, I'd ask "Why"? And if I thought the answer was arbitrary, I might be disinclined to play. It may be a negative factor when I decide on participating or not. Get enough of us together who aren't on board with the restrictions and the game won't get off the ground. That's why I try to make sure the restrictions I have are based on thematic issues and other topics and I try to be reasonably flexible with them. And I've rarely had a significant problem with restrictions on the campaign either as a player or as a DM, I think, as a result.

This is largely the way I view it as well:

If I'm going to impose restrictions, I'd generally discuss it with my players, to work out what fits and what doesn't with the game we've got in mind.

I would say that in this process, as GM I'm definitely first among equals, but it's not a unilateral thing.

 

[Mallus]

My players are totally fine with restrictions. I ran a multi-year 3e campaign for them where I removed/replaced all the standard PCs races other than human. I got not one complaint.

That said, I don't usually place restrictions on players. Other than, "find a reason you all adventure together".

When it comes to mechanics/class options, we have an agreement. I'm not going to ban anything outright --that would require a lot of tedious vetting of material-- but if something becomes a problem for me during play, we're going to fix it. And that might mean 'nerfing'.

When it comes to more... aesthetic choices, I try to give players their say, so to speak. My evolving view on this is pretty simple. I've removed classes and races from my settings for aesthetic reasons in the past. Creative editing can be important. But, I've found editing alone can't get you a interesting fictional setting, and mistaking editorial control for creativity is a mistake.

Which means if I remove elves from a setting, but a player *really* wants to play an elf (or half-orc, or gnome, or a Confederate veteran who was the victim of wanton, accidental teleportation), I'll probably accommodate them, as long as the player is willing to run a PC without ties to country or culture. That way, I get my creative agenda and they get (a tiny amount) of theirs...

Any campaign setting I design/run is going to have a staggering amount of me in it, for better or worse. I can afford to cut my players some slack, even when they make aesthetic choices I don't particularly like. Besides, if running the campaign is so unrewarding, overall, that a player's choice of race/class is such an irritant, then I should graciously step down and let someone else DM.

 

[Ramen]

Well the half orc restriction could be because there are no orcs in the GMs world. It could be because, ala palladium, orcs aren't genetically compatible with humans(which might also exclude half elves to). For some they just don't like the stats our the flavor text. I've found that most of the times when you have a game setting problem with a particular race you can always reskin them. Half orcs could be incredibly strong tough humans from the northern wildlands. Elves could be an older race of humans who deal with ancient magic. Flavor text shouldn't be confused with game rules. However if it is the game rules and stats that are the offending thing at least have a good explainable reason why your going to exclude it. Players hate being left uninformed.

Sent from tapatalk

 

[Oryan77]

The Darksun campaign setting doesn't have half-orcs and I've never needed an explanation.

If I'm unfamiliar with a homebrew setting and he tells me I can't play a half-orc, I don't need an explanation just like I didn't when I played Darksun for the first time. I might be curious and ask why so I understand the setting more. But I'm not going to care if his answer is that he just doesn't want half-orcs in the game.

As a player, I just don't see why I need to grill the DM and demand an explanation. I can choose something else to play and still have fun. He is allowed to have fun also and if that's how he'll have fun, that's fair as long as I have other options.

When I was a kid, I got mad when my friend wouldn't let me play with Laserbeak. Then I yelled at him and went home. I felt like a jerk after I did that. Just because we don't get our way doesn't mean we should make an issue out of it. It's really not that big of a deal.

 

[Ramen]

Well it should work like that but with the variety of different players I'd still have a good excuse handy, just in case.

Sent from tapatalk

 

[Wednesday Boy]

But if the DM simply said, "There are no half-orcs in this campaign world" then you would be ok with it? I don't understand how it makes a difference.

"There are no half-orcs in this campaign world." makes it sound like the the DM had a specific rationale for excluding them in order to promote a specific tone or feel to a campaign. I may still be disappointed if I really wanted to play a half-orc but I can respect the DM's decision when it's trying to make the game better for everyone rather than based on their own preferences.

As a player, I just don't see why I need to grill the DM and demand an explanation. I can choose something else to play and still have fun. He is allowed to have fun also and if that's how he'll have fun, that's fair as long as I have other options.

When I was a kid, I got mad when my friend wouldn't let me play with Laserbeak. Then I yelled at him and went home. I felt like a jerk after I did that. Just because we don't get our way doesn't mean we should make an issue out of it. It's really not that big of a deal.

A player should be asking why without grilling the DM and it certainly shouldn't equate to yelling and going home. If the DM imposes a restriction I usually do choose something else and still have fun but that doesn't mean it's not disappointing if you really had your heart set on playing a certain type of character.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

If I'm unfamiliar with a homebrew setting and he tells me I can't play a half-orc, I don't need an explanation just like I didn't when I played Darksun for the first time. I might be curious and ask why so I understand the setting more. But I'm not going to care if his answer is that he just doesn't want half-orcs in the game.

Let's say you're at a diner, looking over the menu. You don't see an item that you'd expect from a diner menu; a BLT, say. But you've had a hankering for a BLT all day, so you ask the waitress why it's not on the menu. Her response is "the cook just doesn't like BLTs."

Now you might not get up right then and walk out, but are you going to just shrug your shoulders and say "Well that's the cook's prerogative"? Or are you going to comment that this diner would be a better diner if it served BLTs? I'm not saying it'll be a nasty comment; and you might wait until the waitress is gone before making the comment to the guy sitting next to you. In any case, are you going to recommend this diner to your friends? Are you going to come back?

Or to put it differently: D&D has a wealth of options, which is part of what makes it so successful. Cutting down on those options makes for an overall poorer game, so it's only natural to ask "Why cut?"

PS What's laserbeak?

 

[Nagol]

Let's say you're at a diner, looking over the menu. You don't see an item that you'd expect from a diner menu; a BLT, say. But you've had a hankering for a BLT all day, so you ask the waitress why it's not on the menu. Her response is "the cook just doesn't like BLTs."

Now you might not get up right then and walk out, but are you going to just shrug your shoulders and say "Well that's the cook's prerogative"?

Yep. I don't think a diner is well-served for offering everything from won tons through goulash. What's available is what's available.

Or are you going to comment that this diner would be a better diner if it served BLTs? I'm not saying it'll be a nasty comment; and you might wait until the waitress is gone before making the comment to the guy sitting next to you. In any case, are you going to recommend this diner to your friends?

If I find something else I want and it is served well, then yes I'll recommend the diner for what it does well.

Are you going to come back?

If i like what I order then yes -- just not when I want BLTs.