This topic comes up a lot, and it’s hard to say ‘I like having all the options available’ and not have it sound like you’re against a curated list. Or not have it be framed as player vs DM as has been the case again in this thread.
Surely, then, we must break the false dichotomy by making each one more nuanced?
"I have certain options I love, and would really really like to play unless it is an absolutely intolerable burden" is quite a bit less strident than "I want every option available every single time." Likewise, "I have certain setting concepts I want to explore, and would very much appreciate efforts to support, rather than detract from, those concepts" is a lot less strident than "here's the list, play something on it or get out" that is so often presented here. And, as a lovely bonus, both of these come with the implication that discussion and compromise are possible, while recognizing that some things are still a bridge too far, rather than the incredibly frustrating
constant push toward "oh so if I can't forbid whatever I want whenever I want for literally any reason or no reason at all, it's an ABSOLUTE ETERNAL FREE-FOR-ALL?!" that keeps plaguing this conversation.
As a player it doesn’t really worry me if there’s a curated list, I like to play to the theme so it‘s rare that I can’t find something that would be fun from any given set of options. I‘d still prefer to be given a theme, be it a setting such as Dragonlance or Ravenloft, or something more vague, like a pirate swashbuckling campaign, rather than just be given a list of what’s banned.
Same. By that same token, I also don't necessarily have a high opinion of hyper-restrictive themes most of the time. "Historically-accurate 13th century France" leaves me cold, mostly because it is cutting out most of the
fantasy. "Everyone is a centaur from the same tribe, no classes other than this list of six, you all must be just beginning your coming of age" similarly turns me off, because at that point we may as well just be playing pregens, which is something I have zero interest in. (I've considered it before, and never found a single pregen character to be interesting enough that I would actually want to play them.)
It's more that as a DM I prefer to have no limits beyond the options officially published. Part of the fun of world building for me is finding ways to write new races into my homebrew setting. I also want the players to be engaged and into the game as much as possible, and letting them play the thing that they're most excited about is a big part of that.
Fully agreed on all counts. I find many heavy restrictions DMs are
shockingly cavalier about obtaining and sustaining player enthusiasm, despite it being one of the most precious and easily-lost commodities in tabletop roleplaying. If my players aren't sincerely and
internally motivated to attend my game, I have failed big time. And one of the best ways to lose your players is by saying no, no, no all the time—
especially if you do so "for any reason or no reason at all."
I see a LOT of DMs who talk a great deal about how much they say no. I see very little from these "my setting is an artwork" DMs that reflects any desire to obtain or sustain player enthusiasm. Indeed, they seem to feel quite
entitled to that enthusiasm, hence all the "I do all this
work and the players are such ungrateful JERKS!" rhetoric.
