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

[steeldragons]

Absolutely I do this. Nothing wrong with it at all.

No evil PCs. Period. No drow PCs. Period. No sorcerers. Period. Warlocks can not be Good. Period. Paladins must be Lawful (and devoted to these four possible deities]. Period. Barbarians are a specific ethnicity human-race-class. Period. Etc...etc...

My homebrewed game world/campaign setting is an established place with established norms. Thankfully, I get to game with people that share my sensibilities and have a thorough [and mostly appreciative] vision of that world [most of the time].

Have things changed in the game world [and thus the game itself] over the years? Brought in from other material, homebrewed whole cloth, and/or removed/deleted? Absolutely. Have nations, religions, peoples [characters and players] risen, developed, retired, been lost, and/or fallen? Of course.

But because "X race is in the PHB" and a player, as others have put it, is a "butiwanna" or "UASS"* [like them both. very nice ] or feels some entitlement that the DM has a responsibility to say "yes" to their every whim, is not a reason for me to say "Ok. Let me alter everything we know about this world to make what you want fit."

The DM has a responsibility to make sure those at the table have fun. Yes. No arguments, there. The premise that saying yes to any/all player desires is the "correct" or "best" way that happens is...flawed, in my view.

Structure and guidelines, in almost all cases ime, breeds more creativity, critical/creative thinking, problem solving [in the sense of, "What do I have to work with/from to make the character I'm envisioning?"], overall diversity, and fun for all than an "anything goes" situation.

It's all about forming a common consensus with your group...a degree of trust...and a common interest in the style of game play[or close enough, given the automatic spectrum of human opinion about any possible given thing] and buy-in.

The guy from the OP just sounds like a problem player if this is something that happens no matter what the game/campaign/limitations are. He will likely be more satisfied in/with a different group who have a vision/expectations of the game/character generation closer to his/her own.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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

I find this attitude... unsavory. If I had a DM who, after I expressed displeasure at the removal of something I was interested in, told me to walk away... well... they wouldn't actually have a chance to tell me to walk away. Unless they were interested in saying it loudly enough--to my backside--such that that I could still hear it, as I was already walking away.

 

[Dit464]

I don't see these problems nearly at all, then again I don't usually DM. Nevertheless of my DM's I've had in the past there has been no issue that I want to play a Minotaur Bard that only uses a giant cowbell to fight and play music. Granted I know I probably won't last too long before I need to reroll. Of my DM's the only one who really puts limits on what players can and can't do pretty much has only a few rules. 1) No evil characters, the only evil character that he allowed play was part vampire and ate all the children of a town and managed to survive the town guard, the DM was mortified (he's a good person) and immediately had an Ancient Dragon murder him while he was resting. 2) No really weird or overpowered backgrounds, races, and classes, a fellow player wanted to make Edvard's Black Tenticles a cantrip as his race bonus and a +1 to int or something like that, while having nobles starting gold and the criminal's starting items. My main DM kinda just goes with it, sure he will balance out an idea or two with some possible drawbacks but the extent that hes had to do that is "I want to play a cat-person" so I suggested he reskin the Aarakocran race to make it feline and give it acrobatics proficency (which any cat should have), claws (Part of the Aarakocran racial traits), and a normal walking speed instead of flight. He agreed that would be fine and we are now on our merry way, sure EVERYONE in the campaign is asking why the hell we have a cat following us around, and every druid we pass asks "What did this man shape-change into? And why isn't he changing back?" But other than that its just been give and take, sure we dont play Dragonlance where dragonborn are hated or other campaigns of that nature but we tend to come to a fair decision between ourselves our DM's and get on with playing.

 

[the Jester]

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

I have. They just have to suck it up.

Actually, I have a weird approach- I'll often allow an option that doesn't fit well into my campaign once. Once it has been used by a player, that's it- no more. Not from that player, nor from any other. There was a shardmind pc in my 4e game- once. Likewise, I allowed a vampire (4e class) pc- once. Not once per player, but once.

 

[Sunseeker]

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..

Agreed. And doing so usually leads to more player engagement in a game rather than less.

EX: I don't allow Drow in any of my games unless the following conditions are met:
1: You must have encountered the Drow in some meaningful fashion.
2: The lowest member of the party must be level 5 or higher.
---not withstanding it being an Underdark-set or Drow-based game.
The Drow have an expensive civilization, above the surface you're only going to meet trained combatants. Drow Clerics/sorcerers were even more restricted.

In one of my other games were I required everyone to start as Human, I applied the same rules to every other race. The world was expansive but the races and nations were largely xenophobic so in order to be a non-human, the party would have had to encounter that race in a meaningful fashion and the lowest member of the party had to be level 5. I applied the same to classes that came from an Order, such as Clerics, Druids, Monks, Wizards, Paladins, the Soldier background, etc... the only exception was if you could accept that your character was dishonorably discharged before their "training" was complete. Because they all start with some basic 'favor' with their faction because of their rank. (which basically opened quests, supplies, places to rest, etc...)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

- 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.)

Unfortunately, I find that many DMs who make custom campaign worlds, or who claim to want to let the world develop organically, pack in a huge number of preconceived notions about what "is" and "isn't" "a D&D game," such that they feel that they were being highly specific when they weren't. This can sometimes result in the appearance of being almost...gleeful about denying options to players that the players thought were perfectly acceptable. Dragonborn and Tieflings are especially vulnerable to that, but it can happen to almost anything. I'm a huge, huge believer in accepting and supporting genuine excitement and investment whenever and wherever it appears--as long as it isn't exploitative or clearly attention-seeking. Deciding that swordmages/EKs/Warlocks/Dragonborn don't exist in your universe because they're dumb and I'm the DM so what I say goes is, IMO, terrible practice. It teaches players to avoid getting excited about anything, lest the DM banhammer fall--even if that's not the intent.

I take a slightly different approach. Before I ask myself if I can make it work, I ask the player what other concepts they would be interested in trying. It helps that I tell my players to come to session zero with either a blank slate or multiple concepts.

If you fail to discourage your players from coming up with ideas before they understand the theme/restrictions, then it is understandable they might be let down when they are expecting to play one thing and it is shot down. Simply making sure they aren't attached to any expectations ahead of time is very useful.

Our current DM allows anything and everything. I'm the only human in the party and I'm a Paladin (LG as well of course). If a player doesn't like my house rules I invite them to run their own game and I will happily abide by any and all decisions they make in terms of class and races allowed. Current DMs allow anything including Aarakokra (spelling?).

I think you bring up a good point that perhaps has gone unstated too often. Many (I daresay most) of us DMs who are the most restrictive in allowed character choices/options, are equally willing to abide by any options that other DMs set when we are the players. I actively make sure that I know what the parameters of the game are before I make a character. Even if I have had a couple ideas of characters I'd be interested in playing rolling around in my head, I determine if any of them are even appropriate, and come up with something new and custom made for the campaign if it seems like it would be better for the overall theme. If it seems like nothing would work for me, I express to the DM that I have a potential enjoyment problem and might have to skip that particular campaign. The last couple of times that happened was because I didn't want to play the edition in the first, and because I didn't want to play altered versions of the particular D&D creatures in the second. The first was an ongoing game I had gotten invited to when I asked about something else, and I just decided not to take it up. The second was a game proposal, and the response was that he wasn't sure it was going to be D&D at all. I'll be happy to play it if it turns out not to be D&D, and I'll abstain if it is D&D. No conflict needed.

A DM having strong parameters doesn't mean being a jerk, or doesn't mean having such narrow vision that we will only game one way. It generally means having a strong vision of a particular campaign, and wanting people to make characters that complement that vision rather than clash with it. A strong planned activity is a recreational choice, just like hanging out and seeing what we all feel like doing is. Neither is right or wrong, and you can do different ones at different times, but everyone needs to be on the same page for one particular time or it gets messy.

Also, I get the feeling from these discussions that some people seem to view a new campaign as the only game they're ever going to play or something. It's only one game. If you can't play the particular concept you want in this game, there is always the next one.

For DMs, I'd say to tell your players not to get attached to any concept (ie, blank slate or multiple concepts) before you've all met to discuss the game.

And for players, have more than one concept, please. Only complete newbs get the pass on having one and only one concept they are interested in playing. I expect some maturity out of players who have played RPGs before.

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).

If you mean in the mechanics, I would argue that it was barely there in 3e either. Off the top of my head I can only think of the arcane spell failure mechanic and scrolls being either arcane or divine. Other than that, a spell was a just a spell.

As far as conceptually, it is definitely there in 5e. It is specifically called out in the sidebar in the spellcasting section.

Also, it is debatable whether the favored soul's magic is intended to be divine or arcane.

 

[MoonSong]

Also, it is debatable whether the favored soul's magic is intended to be divine or arcane.

Which blurries the divide so much it is kinda meaningless.

Also yes, it is obvious that a particular campaign isn't the last one ever for anybody -until it is-. But what happens if you are the only game in town? Starting my own game wouldn't be an option because I wouldn't get to be a player, is this campaign or no game. And how do we know the selection will be any different next campaign many months in the future? Some DMs here express an open disgust or even hatred for certain concepts it isn't funny, and if these prejudices against races/classes are chronic they in turn poison the well for everybody, even players who are completely neutral to say sorcerers, become less sympathetic to them when going with the DMs dissapproval earns them points and grow less likely to allow them if they ever want to run their own campaigns.

Yes I also try to run games with the idea that any game could be someone's last. Life is just too short to be selfish.

 

[Agamon]

I never get player buy-in and then have them complain afterwards. That's not actual buy-in. You need the players to be honest with you about what they want out of a game.

That said, if everyone gets their way, you get Smorgasbord: the Kitchen Sink RPG. That might be fun to play once, but I can't personally imagine doing that all the time. Everyone, players and GM included, need to compromise. If a player refuses to work with everyone else, whining when they don't get their way, they're probably too immature for any game I would run.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Its not a knock against your game. I know what I like and I know I'd be a poor fit for it. In times long ago, I'd raise a stink about such things, but these days I'd rather find a game suited to my play style. Live and let live.

That said, my own game these days is pretty bog-standard. I've added things (new races or Gods), tweaked things (such as using Ravenloft or Eberron) but I rarely ban things from the PHB. Outside the PHB is fair game for banhammer, but I don't ban much more than "no evil alignments" these days.