D&D 5E Enforcing theme/structure by saying NO to players

[Gnashtooth]

At our table, when we alter/remove races and classes for a specific world setting, we have a player that complains that everything isn't available, and doesn't like restrictions. I am not a fan of shoehorning something in just because a player wants to play it, and neither is the other DM at our table. For example, we've played in Dragonlance and there have been disputes over the restriction on spell schools/Tower of High Sorcery test at 3rd level, and what races are available (no Tieflings, Dragonborn or Halflings, but Kender and Minotaurs are playable.) This comes up as well when that player is the odd person out when it comes to alignment.

We've also leaned against certain characters being played because it would derail the adventure too badly (i.e. playing a Draconian in DL1, or dwarf wizards)

Do you ever have players complain about restrictions/changes based on theme?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Hmm. Is this in every game or just your DL campaign?

Reason I ask, many folk will post a comment to the effect that you need to get player buy-in to the setting and any specific rules prior to playing.

The sense I pick up on from your post is that the player is a perpetual "butiwanna" - in which case, unless he/she owns the house you play in or is someone's significant other (cf Majoru Oakheart's heartache elsewhere), you can always part company, if it is a serious problems that affects everyone's enjoyment.

Of course, Problem Player (PP) also has a right to enjoyment. But not at the expense of everyone else.

If it's just a contrarian being a pain in the arse for the sake of excrement and laughter, you're better off without.

But also, does PP know about the DL setting and understand the massive buttock pain a dragonborn PC would present in that setting? Make sure the reasons and not just the rulings are outlined.

There are always people who want to play Drizzt Do'h! Hardon, or in other words the outsider in the leather jacket and the pack of Lucky Strike regardless of options available - this I understand, I really do, but the butiwanna does so without regard to the other people at the table, and that is Not Cool.

But then, if it's a grumble at the start and they just get on with things after that, then no biggie. In the long run, I mean. And you could always employ reverse psychology. Minotaurs are hated and feared pirates, no one in their right mind would want to be a Minotaur...

A lot depends on understanding the setting and the reasons why there are no dwarf wizards, dragonborn PCs etc.

 

[iserith]

At our table, when we alter/remove races and classes for a specific world setting, we have a player that complains that everything isn't available, and doesn't like restrictions. I am not a fan of shoehorning something in just because a player wants to play it, and neither is the other DM at our table. For example, we've played in Dragonlance and there have been disputes over the restriction on spell schools/Tower of High Sorcery test at 3rd level, and what races are available (no Tieflings, Dragonborn or Halflings, but Kender and Minotaurs are playable.) This comes up as well when that player is the odd person out when it comes to alignment.

We've also leaned against certain characters being played because it would derail the adventure too badly (i.e. playing a Draconian in DL1, or dwarf wizards)

Do you ever have players complain about restrictions/changes based on theme?

No, because if I can't build a consensus that includes everyone I intend to have at the table, I do some other campaign that everyone can agree on. This assumes that everyone is acting in good faith with everyone's fun in mind. If the player is not acting in good faith, then the solution is easy - get rid of him or her.

I'm not much of a "top-down" DM when it comes to making these kinds of decisions. I gather ideas from everyone and we hash it out until we come up with something that works for everyone. (Unless I'm doing a one-shot for pick-up groups. Then it's sign up or don't.) As a result, I don't have any issues with players like the one you describe.

 

[Gnarl45]

Do you ever have players complain about restrictions/changes based on theme?

Yes! This often means the player wants to play in a different campaign setting though. It might be worth asking your other players whether they would rather play in a different world.

 

[TerraDave]

I am all for these kinds of restrictions. I know many will not agree.

One trick. Don't announce them in advance. I have noticed that if you don't want, say, drow monks, nobody will make one anyways and you can just side-step the issue. But if you say no drow monks, then someone will inevitably say "but why not!"

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I just had to close down a campaign, or at least take a break to refocus, based on players chafing at restrictions. I thought I did everything right – I gave people a campaign guide, got buy-in from everyone, put the ground rules upfront well in advance. It started off with enthusiasm. And then attendance started dwindling as buy-in faded. People complained about the rules and restrictions of the campaign, or just plain ignored the major themes.

It has been eye-opening, but extremely frustrating as well. I think blame can be placed on both sides of the table, but hopefully we can also work together to fix things.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I just had to close down a campaign, or at least take a break to refocus, based on players chafing at restrictions. I thought I did everything right – I gave people a campaign guide, got buy-in from everyone, put the ground rules upfront well in advance. It started off with enthusiasm. And then attendance started dwindling as buy-in faded. People complained about the rules and restrictions of the campaign, or just plain ignored the major themes.

Would you mind going into more detail on this? What restrictions did you originally put in place, that everyone agreed to, but later changed their minds about?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not me personally, because quite frankly I'm lucky enough to have a wide enough circle of people interested in playing in my games that if they don't like what I'm offering, they know they can be replaced easily.

Based upon some of the horror stories I hear other players here on the boards go through, I thank my lucky stars about that every game day.

 

[Salamandyr]

This has been a perennial problem for me, going back to high school and the guy who wanted to play a drow assassin in Lankhmar.

These days I try to be open...my main stipulation is "If it would look good airbrushed on the side of a van, it's in". But for this campaign, there are two cultures, Ancient Greek, and Norse-all they had to do to fit in was to pick a name that fit one of those two categories. Aaaaand, I've got a character named after Red Dwarf character who belongs in Harry Potter, a Dragonborn named after a Scottish Immortal, and the one guy who actually cares about history? He heard "Norse and Greek" and said, "Cool, I'll make an Anglo-Saxon!"

I just rolled with it, by this point the world has opened up to having Ancient Syria and Egypt too, so why not. I just have the occasional bard comment on the strangeness of their names.

 

[ExploderWizard]

At our table, when we alter/remove races and classes for a specific world setting, we have a player that complains that everything isn't available, and doesn't like restrictions. I am not a fan of shoehorning something in just because a player wants to play it, and neither is the other DM at our table. For example, we've played in Dragonlance and there have been disputes over the restriction on spell schools/Tower of High Sorcery test at 3rd level, and what races are available (no Tieflings, Dragonborn or Halflings, but Kender and Minotaurs are playable.) This comes up as well when that player is the odd person out when it comes to alignment.

We've also leaned against certain characters being played because it would derail the adventure too badly (i.e. playing a Draconian in DL1, or dwarf wizards)

Do you ever have players complain about restrictions/changes based on theme?

If you have players who object to any specific world restrictions then invite them to run the run the game in an anything goes kitchen sink world. I have found that the players who yelp the loudest about and setting restrictions never seem to run games. My policy has been show us all how its done then?