D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[GrimCo]

As a DM i banned races and classes for various reasons ranging from "i don't like them" to "doesn't fit my campaign". Most extreme was campaign with 1 race and only 3 classes available. I also run plenty of 3.5 games where anything published by wotc was allowed (races, classes, templates, feats, go crazy). And in late 3.5 there was metric crapton of character options.

I don't feel the need to explain my reasoning for banning things. If i have idea for a game, i give my players short pitch. Theme, mood, quick setting info and character options. If they are in, we play. If they aren't, i throw it into ideas bin and usually forget about it. For example, i ran short campaign based on historic period with slight hint of magic. Races - human and half elf only. Classes - no full casters, heavily modified and very small list of spells available to other casters, specially for paladins and rangers. This was 5e 2014 game. Players had a blast.

As a player, i played in fair number of games with restrictions like - PHB only, or in PF1 PHB+ACG only or with small number of books allowed. When official material bloat is huge, those kind of restrictions are pretty common for simplicity sake.

If player doesn't like DM's restrictions, he has 2 options. One - talk with DM and see if there can be some compromise solution. Two - not play in game. DM has same two options, either try to find some compromise, or just not run that game.

 

[TwoSix]

If they are in, we play. If they aren't, i throw it into ideas bin and usually forget about it.

That is a position I strongly advocate.

 

[CreamCloud0]

As a DM i banned races and classes for various reasons ranging from "i don't like them" to "doesn't fit my campaign". Most extreme was campaign with 1 race and only 3 classes available. I also run plenty of 3.5 games where anything published by wotc was allowed (races, classes, templates, feats, go crazy). And in late 3.5 there was metric crapton of character options.

I don't feel the need to explain my reasoning for banning things. If i have idea for a game, i give my players short pitch. Theme, mood, quick setting info and character options. If they are in, we play. If they aren't, i throw it into ideas bin and usually forget about it. For example, i ran short campaign based on historic period with slight hint of magic. Races - human and half elf only. Classes - no full casters, heavily modified and very small list of spells available to other casters, specially for paladins and rangers. This was 5e 2014 game. Players had a blast.

As a player, i played in fair number of games with restrictions like - PHB only, or in PF1 PHB+ACG only or with small number of books allowed. When official material bloat is huge, those kind of restrictions are pretty common for simplicity sake.

If player doesn't like DM's restrictions, he has 2 options. One - talk with DM and see if there can be some compromise solution. Two - not play in game. DM has same two options, either try to find some compromise, or just not run that game.

I do agree with what you say here but would just like to caveat on this one point, that they can talk to their GM does not inherently mean they will get what they want even with a compromising GM, sometimes what they desire simply runs counter to the GMs desired intentions for their setting.

 

[Gimby]

Forced movement (push-pull-slide) leaves me with no choice but to accept it, however, should the leader decide to use it on me.

There are three typical targeting rules for forced movement (or indeed, most powers)

Ally : This requires a willing target - if the Warlord uses such a power on you, you can declare yourself unwilling and it has no effect.
Enemy : This does not require a willing target, but is typically requires an attack roll of some sort representing physical force (attack vs AC or Fort)
Creature : Can be used on both allies and enemies, typically for magic effects. But Warlords don't actually get any of these powers. The leaders that do are magical and I don't expect you'd have an objection to a character using a magic effect to move another character.

Essentially, all Warlord forced movement powers give you the choice resist it, either automatically for Ally targeting or by physical resistance for Enemy targeting. This is a concern not based on the actual abilities of a Warlord.

 

[GobHag]

Yes, it's completely irrational to demand that DMs be forced to do whatever players want as long as they rules lawyer hard enough.

DMs have been banning broken or otherwise overpowered options since 3.5 at least and every official campaign setting has specific lore.

Are you seriously claiming it's unreasonable for DMs to ban Silvery Barbs just because it's in a book?

Yes, Silvery Barbs should be banned because it's broken, not necessarily because it's in another book

 

[GrimCo]

I do agree with what you say here but would just like to caveat on this one point, that they can talk to their GM does not inherently mean they will get what they want even with a compromising GM, sometimes what they desire simply runs counter to the GMs desired intentions for their setting.

Of course. That's why i said try to find compromise. Key word is try. Sometimes, DM's and player's vision is so wide apart that there just isn't any compromise to be made.

For example. that one campaign i mentioned. Only race was human, only classes were barbarian, non casting ranger and shaman. It was prehistoric themed campaign. Now, if someone came to me and wanted to play bard, i would asked them what is it about bard that they like, what abilities they mostly want. If it's spell casting and spell related stuff, sorry, no dice. If it's skills and song based buffs, i can work something up that will fit into campaign.

To adress notorious silvery barbs. I have never banned them. But, if players take them, every spellcaser npc or opponent in game also has them. It's just too good of a spell and it would make no sense in setting that only PC casters use it.

 

[Zardnaar]

They take primacy because the DM's the one running the campaign.

If you want something different then ask, but don't act like you're entitled to change anything.


People here have repeatedly said DMs shouldn't be allowed to reject players/are unreasonable for doing so.

The idea that a good faith DM could still say "No" is apparently antithetical to that worldview.


That's not true.

It was accurately pointed out that if a compromise can't be reached that the DM gets to decide because they're the one running the campaign.

In response you claimed that rejecting bad players was treating players like they were 'disposable' as opposed to the entirely reasonable goal of wanting players actually interested in the campaign offered.

If you show up to a Forgotten Realms campaign with an Eberron Ravnica 11th level Druid Elf child princess (which has happened to me as a DM) you don't get to act offended when your character's rejected and then you're ejected for continuing to argue.

Alot of Eberron stuff says Eberron campaign.

So even WotC doesnt agree with anything goes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Of course. That's why i said try to find compromise. Key word is try. Sometimes, DM's and player's vision is so wide apart that there just isn't any compromise to be made.

Sure, sure, there are just some conversations here that have left me with the impression that some people think compromise is a one sided thing where you get your way as you wanted

 

[Mecheon]

Then why in the nine hells did they call them "leaders" when their role is more accurately described as "supporter"?

Probably the same reason they didn't want to call the DPS the DPS, or just preferring how it sounded compared to Support.

If you show up to a Forgotten Realms campaign with an Eberron Ravnica 11th level Druid Elf child princess (which has happened to me as a DM) you don't get to act offended when your character's rejected and then you're ejected for continuing to argue.

I mean the problem with this is the bottom half of it because, well, 'Eberron Ravnica' doesn't really work, they're separate planes and unless they're trying to stack a dragonmark and a guild, is meaningless. The problem is the elf child princess which is going to be a potential problem anywhere. This is irrelevant if its a FR campaign, a Greyhawk campaign, a Dark Sun campaign, anything, its the latter half that's all the problem.

Lore as written though, FR's got plenty of cross planer transfer so the first part of it isn't even that difficult, and things get even worse once you bring Greyhawk into it and its 'Yeah we published an adventure where you just go to Wonderland'.

Just saying, anyone concerned about balance? A Half Elf is far, far more unbalanced than a dragonborn or an aarakocra. Not as much as yuan-ti, sure, but anyone seriously concerned about balance should be looking at chopping the half elves well before anything else.

 

[Marc17]

I think a key difference here is who your players are and what your relationship is to them.

Good point. We always discuss new players between DM and current players before allowing them in our game. I'm pretty sure that if I said "I've got a new player, but they refuse to play anything but a tortle character." that they'd look skew eyed and me and nix them before I would. Even beyond that it would be breaking the rules they agreed to and made characters to, I suspect they'd see somebody that is needy and not willing to be a team player.