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

[Agamon]

Well, what you describe is in fact exactly what I was thinking of. Though I think it's also entirely cromulent for a DM to do the "make your stuff and I'll make a world around it." After all, if players can look to the dice for "challenge" and "inspiration" about their characters, I don't see anything wrong with DMs looking to their players' choices for "challenge" and "inspiration" about their campaigns.

I could do a bare-bones, no-substance campaign that way, I guess. Otherwise, the players are going to have to wait so long to play, they won't remember what they made.

Well, sure, but is it really so far beyond imagining that you cannot possibly conceive of a way that "people can mix and match whatever they like, as they like" could lead to multiple, completely distinct campaigns? You did say you couldn't "personally imagine doing that all the time." I see that as being like saying "I cannot imagine how a huge buffet could be interesting all the time." So...it would be way more interesting to only eat a single dish for every dinner, all the time...?

You read a lot into that. All I said was I wouldn't want to do that all the time. My current game is FR, and anything in the PH was allowed. We decided our next game will be in Primeval Thule. Races and classes are limited. I never said either way is badwrongfun, I just said I personally like different settings.

 

[Sunseeker]

I could do a bare-bones, no-substance campaign that way, I guess. Otherwise, the players are going to have to wait so long to play, they won't remember what they made.

I once had a very simple free-for-all (in terms of character creation) campaign that was based on the idea that the boundaries between realities were breaking down. The party was "the party" because they were just the unlucky fools who happened to all get teleported to the same place instead of oh, the plane of fire or the plane of death.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You read a lot into that. All I said was I wouldn't want to do that all the time. My current game is FR, and anything in the PH was allowed. We decided our next game will be in Primeval Thule. Races and classes are limited. I never said either way is badwrongfun, I just said I personally like different settings.

Perhaps I did. Characterizing "smorgasbord"--which is quite literally a buffet offering a wide variety of options--as being too bland to be one's go-to choice, when it can literally be anything you want, just struck me as really weird. But if you were emphasizing the "all the time" side, then I completely agree...except that that logic applies to everything. Eating any particular thing all the time--even "make it yourself from this plethora of options"--is going to be boring. It has nothing to do with the inherent interesting-ness (or lack thereof) of "smorgasbord" theming, and everything to do with "doing the same thing always."

Some of my games are anything are anything goes, but I do enjoy thematic games as well. If I want to DM a theme game, here's my approach. First, talk to the players. Hopefully everyone's onboard; that's what usually happens. If not then find out if the interested players are willing to go with just them as a group. If too many people don't like the theme, or the interested players don't want to exclude the others, then let someone else DM the next campaign.

Does this mean there's no room for slightly tweaking the campaign theme you came up with, as long as the players are also willing to tweak their stuff? For example, you want to do a human-only campaign, they want to play (say) a wood elf, so you meet in the middle and tweak the Wood/Elf racials to fit within a human norm (call it a particular culture of humans, perhaps)? If not, it seems a bit unfortunate that the choices are so rigidly defined.

 

[Zardnaar]

My dislike does outweigh the players. My house my books if you don't like it run your own game.

In effect this usually means no weird crap or dragonborn/drow/tieflings and evil pc's.

 

[Agamon]

Perhaps I did. Characterizing "smorgasbord"--which is quite literally a buffet offering a wide variety of options--as being too bland to be one's go-to choice, when it can literally be anything you want, just struck me as really weird. But if you were emphasizing the "all the time" side, then I completely agree...except that that logic applies to everything. Eating any particular thing all the time--even "make it yourself from this plethora of options"--is going to be boring. It has nothing to do with the inherent interesting-ness (or lack thereof) of "smorgasbord" theming, and everything to do with "doing the same thing always."

But "anything" and "everything" are different ideas. In a world where everything is possible, everything exists, making it the same everything over and over. That's not inherently bad, some people play nothing but generic fantasy settings and enjoy it, and that's fine. Just not my own cup of tea.

Now "anything" I'm fine with, if it means the setting is decided at the beginning by the whole group.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Despite my opinion that players need to know what the parameters are before they even start making characters, I don't think that necessarily means listing every single race on the ban list. As has been discussed, that might very well generate interest that doesn't fit the theme. I'd recommend instead giving them a clear thematic pitch for the game, perhaps including things like "human-centric," or whatever. If certain races and classes are outright absent on the planet, let them know that ahead of time, because that's setting and concept relevant. And of course, encourage them not to come to the game with a certain character already in mind. At the first session, reiterate the theme, and then start talking characters. If someone suggests one that is out of theme, tell them why that option isn't allowed. If everyone is on-board and nobody asks to play something out of theme, then there is no reason to bug them about it. Do make sure they understand the house rules and what they need to know about the world though, because nobody wants to find out their favorite combat style, spell, or even background feature has been nerfed or changed into unrecognizability after they've already started playing the game.

 

[iserith]

I can and have built campaign settings on the fly based on the players showing up with characters of their choosing via the techniques of No Myth Roleplaying. The basic premise is that nothing exists until it's established, so you can just leave things blank and introduce new elements as it suits the needs of the game at the time. After a few games, the setting becomes remarkably rich and interesting with lots of depth with each session building on what was established in the last.

Player engagement tends to be high as well since they have a hand in the creation of the setting through their particular choices and how they answer questions posed to them by the DM. It's a nice challenge to the DM's improvisational skills, too, something I quite enjoy.

Some don't like this, however, and that tends to be because they have a hard time buying into the "reality" of the setting if it's not created beforehand by the DM. I don't particularly get that though. Some of the most immersive games I've played have been with this sort of dynamic.

 

[Gnashtooth]

-----------------

 

[Mouseferatu]

Might work for you, but I'm walking out the door if you do that to me

Ditto. I'm all for restrictions on player options to fit the theme, but AFAIAC, you tell the players ahead of time if anything major (a race, a class) is banned. Full stop.

And the whole "Banning something draws interest" thing? "I want to play X because you said I couldn't" is third-grader logic. Or rather, let me rephrase; it may spark an idea that you can run past the DM, and there's nothing wrong with that. But don't be surprised or disappointed, or argue it, if (or more likely when) the DM says no. Complaining at that point is immature at best. I don't really feel the need to cater to that, or to play in a campaign that does.

 

[Gnashtooth]

Interesting replies. I tend to run only established settings and as such, try to stick to any limitations or restrictions that setting might infer. So far, Dragonborn haven't been allowed in any 5e games that I've run, simply because other than 4e's Nentir Vale, their fluff has been incredibly sketchy. The current FR setting is the biggest kitchen sink there is, basically burning and pillaging other settings for the sake of having said kitchen sink, and then badly explaining and contradicting itself. In short, it's the worst of the worst.

Why did WotC have to go and ruin the specialness of FR and all the other settings by kitchen sinking? Ugh.