D&D 5E (2014) Enforcing theme/structure by saying NO to players

[JohnLynch]

I don't have complaints. I explain ahead of time what is (and isn't) available for play and I don't run the game for anyone who isn't interested. This might mean running it for a different set of players, someone else running a different game or me running a different game.

 

[thalmin]

Since my campaign is home brewed, and I've run it for 2E, 3E, 3.5, Pathfinder, Next playtest, and 5E; and I explain my game is based on my own version of whetever are the current rules, I've only had one seriously disgruntled player. This in spite of some very serious restrictions.

• No monks
• No psionics
• No warlocks
• No drow
• No dragonborn
• No tieflings
• No eladrin
• No warforged
• 25 point-buy at start
• No class at start
• Start play at 0 level
• Proficient in no weapons
• Start in captivity as a slave
• At zero level, all stats are temporarily capped at 12+racial mods
• All class abilities and class skills must be learned through played experience.
• My campaign is not Hack & Slash, but rather more Think & Sweat

The one dispute was the player wanted to roll his own stats. I finally agreed, but he would have to roll 3d6 seven times, take the best six rolls, with no take-backs.
I've generally had a waiting list of players to get into my game, and most of my current players have played in previous incarnations of my campaign, 2 have been in all of them.

 

[aramis erak]

When I restrict choices, I make it clear ahead of time.

I seldom do so, other than, "here's what the game provides."

When I do, it's because of a specific, agreed upon theme.

For example, when GW II kicked off full bore, we wrapped a plot arc, and I wanted to do a pastiche on an old short story, Hold Until Relieved... So character gen was limited to Marines. And reenlistment wasn't even rolled. Everyone agreed on final ranks before we started generating, and everyone generated to that contracted rank.

My current home D&D game, it's limited by what is legal for AL play - not because they're doing the AL modules, but because that way I don't have to keep track of the differences.

 

[Jester David]

I like to alternate. If I'm doing a restrictive campaign, I let the players know that the next one will be farm more open. So if they can wait they can "go nuts". (It helps when playing Pathfinder since even if you ban half the options there's still hundreds of choices.)

5e is a little trickier at the moment since there is so little content. Banning an option greatly reduces the percentage of choices. Still, I think it's good for campaigns to have different tones and different suites of house rules. Just so long as they're decided on in advance.

Also, it's good to have options that are right out and options that might be allowed with the right backstory. IF the player puts in the work, be willing to compromise. For example, the one player who really sells you on a unique teifling or someone playing a noble draconian. Especially if it's a replacement for a dead character.

 

[Zardnaar]

Campaign settings are the prime examples of where stuff is banned. Hell I am planning on running Darksun soon and here is what I am planning.

No Sorcerers
No Warllocks
No Moon Druids
5 Clerics allowed (life=water, earth=nature, air=tempest, fire=light domains, templar=war domain)
No bards (bards are Rogues:assassin with the entertainer background)
No Drow/Tieflings/Dragonborn/Half Orcs/Gnomes
Only 1 subtype allowed for Elves/Dwarves/Halflings
HD regenerate at the rate of 1 per day, no overnight healing at all. 1HD is your natural healing.

No

 

[Shasarak]

So if I can not be a Drow, then can I at least be a Human using the Drow mechanics?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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

I follow my vision with the game I want to present, and those who aren't interested will pass. I'm not a jerk about it, but it's my baby, and they'd better respect her.

For example, the stand alone adventure I'm currently running is about questing knights. I have a couple of goals for this adventure (in addition to having an enjoyable experience, and maintaining an appropriate theme). One of those goals is that I want to see how certain different ways to represent knights in shining armor in 5e compare to each other. So when I sent the player primer to those who had expressed interested I explained that there were four choices for you character's class, and each player would choose a different one. Paladin (Devotion), Cleric (War), Fighter (Battle Master or Champion), and Bard (Valor).

They were told that at least half of them should be human, but that half-elf, half-orc, and aasimar are available also. (I got 2 humans, a half-elf, and an aasimar.)

When we got together for our session 0, I let them decide who would play what.

Player 1 mentioned that things seemed a bit restrictive on character options for knights (in other words, he accepted the parameters, but thought I might have overlooked something). He mentioned Storm Cleric's for instance. I explained to him that the reason that wouldn't work was because the domains represent certain orders, and that order (I explained who they were) didn't work well as a knight in shining armor. He was fine with it. Another player asked about Vengeance Paladins, and I shot it right out of the air--explaining to him that it didn't really fit the concept, and also explaining who the Vengeance "Paladins" are in my settings. He laughed about it and moved on. The first player brought up a concept for a ranger in heavy armor and asked about Magic Initiate (Druid). Since no one else had claimed the bard (the least vital character in my comparison), I went ahead and approved the ranger. It's a pretty cool character with a lot of flavor and a fun backstory. Would I have let it sub for the fighter, paladin, or cleric? No. The player also had ideas for any of the other classes, so if his ranger didn't fly, he would have picked something else.

So complaints? Not really. Discussions? Yes. Thematic integrity? Always.

 

[Zardnaar]

So if I can not be a Drow, then can I at least be a Human using the Drow mechanics?

In Darksun? No.

 

[Shasarak]

In Darksun? No.

Dark Sun Humans even come Pre-Blackened by the Sun.

 

[delericho]

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

Sure. When it comes down to it, though, I've never had a player not accept those restrictions in the end.

My suggestions are three-fold:

- Be up-front about the restrictions you have, and the reasons for them. Because if you don't and one player happens to hit against your 'hidden' restrictions, they'll feel you're picking on them when you refuse their character concept and not everyone else's.

- Try to use the minimum set of restrictions required for your campaign.

- If a player comes up with something that doesn't fit, at least ask yourself if you can't make it work.

(Please note that the last two don't mean "just give in to the player". I'm just saying that you should ask the question before wielding the banhammer.)

Edit: Oh, and FWIW - I would indeed stick with all the restrictions given in the OP. As noted, they're a part of that setting, and so appropriate.