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

[Ruin Explorer]

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

Pretty much never, but I've always been open and honest as to why, and willing to at least listen to "Why you should include Race/Class X in your game". I may well still say "Nah", but I'll see what I can do for them, or help them to another choice.

As a player, I've seen DMs be real idiots with "No", to the point of banning stuff which is a significant default part of setting, and the banning of which served no real end, and went against player/setting expectations. One should never say no without a good reason, and always consider the possibility of a work-around - but in the end make the right decision for your group/campaign (not your ego!) which may still be no.

All that said, if I am persuaded to run DL and you wanna play a Kender, you better get ready to hear "NO!". That's Kenders though. They're a special case, because they're more or less precision-engineered to start fights and cause problems. They make having an obvious Drow in 2E-era FR party look like it's the least disruptive thing in the world.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I prefer to remain open minded for the most part. Or try to anyway. Player buy-in generally helps, anyway. I don't normally have the type of player at my table who is pushing envelops just because he wants to be contrarian and/or a snowflake.

I already know the next campaign I want to run will be Primeval Thule. I'm sure there are many DMs who will immediately want to cut out a bunch of PC options for such a setting. I don't blame them. I get it. But I don't think I will. I'll wait and see what my players come up with and see if I can work it out so it will fit the setting.

Now that doesn't mean I won't present a few choice houserules I'm already considering. Ones that might steer player in certain directions (or, more precisely, away from a few choices). But it still won't really be a ban-hammer type situation. The stuff I'm thinking of working on, to make if feel more "magic = dangerous", will definitely make casters interesting. But not necessarily debilitating if that's still the player's choice. But they will go in eyes-open.

 

[Remathilis]

I've reached a point where I much prefer traditional or lightly flavored D&D; a game like [MENTION=662]thalmin[/MENTION] described would pretty much mean I leave before chargen with a smile and a "good luck". If the restrictions are too great for me, I'll just leave rather than ruin others fun.

 

[thalmin]

I am well aware that my game is far from the norm, and certainly not to most people's taste. It is but another way to play D&D. Each time I run it, I make sure my players are all on board. I have been running my world off and on (mostly on) for about 26 years.

 

[Ahrimon]

As a player I am perfectly ok with cutting character themes. If you don't want any warlocks, or divine classes I understand, but if the DM is open to re-skinning a class and allowing the mechanics with different fluff it's a good middle ground. For example the above warlock as a re-skinned paladin or a cleric as a dark-sun style Templar.

I do encourage DMs to explain why to a certain extent. Saying that there are no elves because they don't exist is fine. Saying that they haven't been seen in 100 years and their disappearance is a mystery is good too. If a player really wants to play an elf they should accept that the mystery is a part of the campaign and that it would be too disruptive to allow an elf. But the DM could also allow them to be an elf that's been in magical sleep and now has no idea where his people are so he still gets to be an elf, with extra role-playing opportunities, and keep the mystery intact. The worst thing that the DM can do to me is say no without saying why. For example, [MENTION=662]thalmin[/MENTION] gave his restrictions without much of a background behind it. Reading it I was initially wary that it sounded like a very railroad style game. i.e. This is my story and you are here to experience it. Then he posted later with a campaign background and his restrictions made sense.

The moral for me is restrict what you absolutely need to for your campaign but give your players a good reason. Don't just expect them to accept because you said so..

 

[Zardnaar]

As a heads up, Warlocks work really well as Templars. Just sub in the sorcerer king for the outsider, and create bonuses based on the city state.

Except they cast divine spells not arcane. The 2E Templar is closest to the war cleric in the 5E classes IMHO. Divine spells on Darksun are powered by the elements and they do not have to worry about defiling mechanic. The SKs stole their elemental power to grant to the Templars. .

 

[Shasarak]

If I banned races introduced after 2000 I would just say I'm after a Gygaxian theme because I said so.

Great, so Gygaxian Drow are in then?

 

[MoonSong]

Except they cast divine spells not arcane. The 2E Templar is closest to the war cleric in the 5E classes IMHO. Divine spells on Darksun are powered by the elements and they do not have to worry about defiling mechanic. The SKs stole their elemental power to grant to the Templars. .

But the Arcane/Divine divide is not there in the rules, it is vaguely there at all, spells are just spells (Evidence A: The favored soul).

 

[Zardnaar]

But the Arcane/Divine divide is not there in the rules, it is vaguely there at all, spells are just spells (Evidence A: The favored soul).

It is in 2E. Stolen elemental power was how Templars were empowered and Templars were a priest class same as clerics and druids in 2E. 4E did not do a good Darksun conversion.

 

[El Mahdi]

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

No; because if they behave this way, they are no longer welcome as part of the group, and therefore not one of my players.