D&D 5E Group Rule Deal-Breakers

[Greg K]

In my experience, having a restrictive approach hasn't really limited my options. As the DM, of course, it's almost always in the style I want to play, because that's the game I'm going to run.

My campaigns are very old-school in the sense that I allow only the races in the AD&D PHB and much of UA, classes are restricted (no barbarians, druids, monks, although they exist, they are almost always NPC classes), special abilities for the classes are often tweaked to bring them into line, there are level limits based on ability score, and ASis aren't as generous, combat is more deadly by design, healing magic is less effective, and resurrection magic of any sort is almost never available, etc.

My games are very restrictive in the sense of PC classes and races that you are going to find. In terms of races, sometimes it is human only. Usually, it is human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, and lizardman. However, I might add and/or remove non-human races for a specific setting. For a specific setting, you are not going to find new PC races first appearing in various 3e supplements, Drow, Dragonborn, Tieflings (as PC), but maybe I will include centaurs, half-ogre, kobold, gnolls, minotaurs, orcs, and/or half-orcs.

I am just as restrictive on classes. For 3e, it was the Barbarian Inclulding the UA crafty hunter barbarian variant to cover the non-raging 1e version of the barbarian/2e Wilderness Warrior fighter), Bard (including bardic sage, divine bard, and savage bard variants), Cleric (reworked to be more like 2e priests of specific mythos/specialty priest), Fighter, Paladin, Ranger (spell-less variant from Complete Champion), Rogue (including the martial and wilderness variants from UA), Sorcerer, and Wizard. New classes were the OA Shaman (replaced the monk), Green Ronin's Psychic, Green Ronin's Shaman (replaced the Druid), Green Ronin's Witch, and Skirmisher Press's Expert. As for prestige classes, the only prcs allowed were those that I chose based on the campaign and very few were included.

For 5e, my class list at the moment is going to be the Bard (Lore), Druid (Circle of the Land), Fighter (Battlemaster), Paladin (Devotion (must be LG), Ancients), Ranger (UA non-spellcaster), Rogue (Assassin, Thief), Warlock (Fey). I am also going to include Khaalis's Light Fighter variant (and, its archetypes), Jester David's Fey Sorcerer, a Martial Artist class from a site, plus a couple of archetypes from various sites including a Skald Fighter Archetype and Rogue Troubadour Archetype (neither of which cast spells). Once I either rewrite the cleric and domains or find a third party version that I like, I will add the cleric.

And, since, I am big on cultures, in the past editions, some classes or class variants/subclasses were not found in certain cultures meaning that certain options were not available to every race and culture while some class variants or subclasses were only found in a specific culture.

And yet, I literally have a waiting list for people to join right now (and will probably be starting a second night to accommodate more people.

Technically, I have always had a waiting list. When I used to keep track, it was a dozen or more . However, once my campaigns started consistently hitting two or three years, it was kind of hard to tell people that I will keep them in mind. It was much easier, if a seat opened up, to have my players bring in a friend or two that were interested based upon what they had heard about the game. Yet, I still have people asking for me to keep them in mind.

I'd say that having a well-defined (some would say overly restrictive) game makes it easier to find people that stick around for a long time because it's much clearer what they are getting into. It's not just "a D&D game" which could be any of dozens of play-styles and tone. People coming to my table know what to expect.

I have stated the same thing in other threads over the yeas. After many different editions (with new races and classes), different settings, and different media influences, there is just too many expectations of what "D&D" means. Which is why I talk with prospective players to find out if they are going to be compatible with what I am running (there is no reason to waste either of our time). Thankfully, by my players bringing in people whom know what to expect, it makes the job easier.

So I highly recommend that you have a good understanding of what you like. It doesn't mean you can't branch out, and I have run a few games with 5e RAW, but in the end I only have so much time I can put into it, and I'd like to spend that time playing it the way I enjoy the most.

Agreed.

 

[Oofta]

tl;dr: There's no compromise? It's hard to manage highly detailed worldbuilding without some concept of where within the setting the party will operate.

Full version:
There's no give-and-take at all? What if the DM lays out a well-developed setting and says "You can go anywhere, but I feel the lore for the seacoast is really central and compelling. You may want to consider focusing there."

I've got a homebrew setting that been running on-and-off for 16 years. I can run on-the-fly anything the PCs dream up and answer with confidence any lore questions. But if I'm putting countless hours into the political intrigue of a particular continent and tossing adventure hooks for that area left and right, and PCs decide to go to another continent entirely...it would be frustrating.

From a DM perspective the "You aren't the boss of me" players make it difficult, if not impossible, to create a world that has any sort of depth. I've spent a lot of time getting better at improvisation and giving players as much free reign as possible, but I still need the cooperation of the players.

I can't craft a campaign for 1 person, I have to do it for 4-6 people. I have to have some sort of framework to do that. While I'm flexible in a session 0 or before on what type of campaign we want to play, once we as a group decides the theme and general direction I expect the players to come up with PCs that will be interested in the theme and general direction.

That has meant that occasionally I lose players. I had one guy that didn't want any sort of overarching story at all and just wanted to "go to a tavern and see what happens". To this day I have no idea how he thought a campaign could run like that.

 

[schnee]

The problem you highlight with rule 2 also has something to do with the increased voyeurism of the media in the last 30 years, and how it has affected culture and morals (just notice the % of movies or series that seem to be required to show intercourse scenes, when it is already perfectly clear that character X and Y are having a relationship). So to me it makes a huge difference whether the player of an evil PC says "I am going to kill the whole town (period)" or instead indulge in the detailed description of how he kills one bad guy. I would allow the former even if it's a greater evil act, but disallow the latter (the description, not the act).

I dunno, we were hideously evil in 1979 with the torture and grisly murder we inflicted on shopkeepers in Basic and in early AD&D

I think the 'psychotically evil' gene is just in us all and it's easy to forget how we were as kids

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

Not really. The only time that I have had to find a group was during my original college years as I had moved to a new city. Normally, I have created groups as necessary. However, for a long time, I have pretty much had stable long term groups averaging ten years or more. Most of my player turnover is to long distance moves. Furthermore, at some point, any lost players have been replaced by players recruited by existing players (although, I vet the new players after having had a very disruptive problem player and encountered a few others in other peoples games).

As for having to look for a group just to play, if it ever came down to it, I would simply not play rather than play in a style of game that I do not enjoy. It is not a difficult decision for me to make as I am an advocate of no gaming is better than bad gaming where bad gaming is often subjective and as simple as a style of game one does not enjoy. In fact, I have walked out on campaigns including, temporarily, on the a long term group that I founded, following a return from a semester break to focus on work and classes. To make a long story short during my absence, the newest player took over DMing in my absence. He also brought in a friend whom was a "butt-kicker' that only liked combat. The guy would be disruptive if the game moved away from combat so the DM tailored the game to his friend. I didn't have fun so I informed the DM I would not be returning (A day or two later, we talked and he was not having fun running the game He talked with the long term players and learned that hey were not having fun, but were accommodating just to have a game. The DM altered the game to the group's preferred style).

I also walked out of a boss's group after two sessions. They were nice guys and I continued to play Risk and Talisman with them, but I did not continue in their high level AD&D game in which characters were modeled after various comic book superheroes. It is just not my type of fun D&D.

(Note: I am much more picky about fantasy than other genres- especially, when using D&D as the system. For other genres, it often comes down to the mechanics of the system where the deal breaker is a lot of D&Disms in terms of mechanics).

Interesting. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Greg K]

tl;dr: There's no compromise? It's hard to manage highly detailed worldbuilding without some concept of where within the setting the party will operate.

Full version:
There's no give-and-take at all? What if the DM lays out a well-developed setting and says "You can go anywhere, but I feel the lore for the seacoast is really central and compelling. You may want to consider focusing there."

I've got a homebrew setting that been running on-and-off for 16 years. I can run on-the-fly anything the PCs dream up and answer with confidence any lore questions. But if I'm putting countless hours into the political intrigue of a particular continent and tossing adventure hooks for that area left and right, and PCs decide to go to another continent entirely...it would be frustrating.

Want I am looking for is the DM to have a setting
1. What is the general world like ( a desert world? an ice world? a gothic setting? an Asian themed setting? medieval Europe but with magic, a mix?) and what are the cultures,races and nations? What is the basic subsistence pattern of a given culture?
2. What are each of the cultures like in a general sense? Is a group nomadic horseman herding animals? Is a country a theocracy or mageocracy? Is a region made up of various city states? Is it a monarchy? Is it an island serving ruled by "demon worshiping" elves known feared as pirates? Do noble houses compete at the expense of others for power or to be close to the ruler?
3. Who are the rulers? Who are the major NPCs in the a region? What are the major institutions (e.g., temples of deities, wizard academies, etc.) and where are they located? Are their prestigious knightly or paladin organizations and, if so, where.
4. What are the cultures like?
What is their economy like?
What is valued? Individuality? Competitions between members? Harmony with the group? Personal honor? Dealing truthfully with members of their own culture, but it is okay to cheat and get the better of outsiders?
How do they punish crimes? Shunning? Banishment? Imprisonment? Forced labor? Chopping of limbs for stealing?
5. What classes and specific subclasses can be found there
6. What are some notable historical facts from the past that?
7.How is magic viewed by the culture?
8. What are some relevant current events for a player that might be relevant to a character from a specific culture? Is the character's country at war? Is there trouble with trolls from a nearby swamp? Is the King looking for eligible suitors for the princess? Has the ruler's daughter been kidnapped? Was the legitimate monarch replaced by a usurper and now a band of "outlaws" are trying to reinstall the rightful ruler or their heir?
9.Think about religion. Is it monotheistic, polytheistic, shamanism, or animism? Is there more than one existing in the world? Do multiple exist in a society. If there are deities, who are they? what are there relations? what are their domains? what are their relations with one another? what are their priests like? Are their priests clerics or some other class? What is their holy symbol? What distinctive clothing and/or other adornment identifies the priests, the tenet of a deity's priests? what are there religious strictures on a deity's priests (if any)? what are key holy times?
10. If the DM is inclined, what are marriage patterns like? how are women viewed? how is kinship traced (through the mother's line? father's line? both?) what are naming patterns like (Do only nobles have last names? Is the family name listed before the given name or vice versa? Is the son's last name his father's name with son added to the end? Is the last name based on a family occupation?) What are common types of body adornment (Piercings? Tattoos, jewelry?)? what is the cultural attire like and are there differences by class (can only nobles wear certain colors or items? Are peasants forbidden from wearing clothing with color or limited to a single color?). What are key holidays?

Some of the above elements may be influenced one another. Subsistence patterns might affect the type of religion and classes. Religion and how deities interact among themselves may be reflected in the society itself.

I don't need the DM to create long detailed histories of each nation, create unique languages, etc. What I do want is a sense of the world, its religion and cultures, and some basics that a) help me feel my character exists in a world; b) develop a background based in a specific culture; and c) provides me with possible character hooks. If warrior prestige is important and the ruler's daughter is kidnapped setting out to find her and gain status might be my reason for adventuring which might be different from someone else that hails from a monarchy ruled by a usurper and whom is trying to get help other nations in removing the usurper.

This, however, is just my own preference. The DM builds a setting. The players build characters based within the parameters of the setting and its cultures as determined by the DM. The DM should be able to get a lot of ideas for adventures from the character background, with a little work, tie the goals together in some way and use them to bring the party together. He or she can still throw in other hooks, or an occasional adventure along the way (it should be a "living" world). However, the campaign direction, once it begins, is determined more by the players, their goals, whatever hooks they make, where they decide to go, the enemies they make along the way, etc.
Again, this is just my preference and what I find more interesting than the DM pulling out the canned module of the week or saying, "you should stick to this narrow region, because I have focused my time on this small section and didn't think of the setting on a larger scale despite allowing characters from outside areas (e.g. the elf kingdom, the dwarvish clans, the "barbarian" kingdom, some other neighboring kingdom(s)) without giving additional thought to those ahead of time.

 

[Lanefan]

That has meant that occasionally I lose players. I had one guy that didn't want any sort of overarching story at all and just wanted to "go to a tavern and see what happens". To this day I have no idea how he thought a campaign could run like that.

Easy. That player (in character, I assume) wants to go to the tavern and see what happens...and is then expecting or assuming that the DM will have something of interest happen there to which he can react. In other words this is a reactive, not proactive, player (or character) who is looking for the DM to supply - well, not so much the story as he's not interested in that, but the day-to-day events and opponents and challenges for him to react to.

As DM, this would in theory be easy to handle - let him go to the tavern, have something happen there that ties into your story somehow (and brings him back to the party if they didn't just go with him in the first place) and go from there. The rest of the players can worry about the overarching story while this one player stays focussed on the in-the-moment view; and maybe over time some facet(s) of the larger picture might grab his attention and interest.

And I can kind of see that player's point. Sometimes it's fun to just deal with the day-to-day stuff and let whatever story that grows out of that just...happen, rather than trying to force something.

Before puck drop I'll tell people the basics of the game world, its history, the local cultures, etc. but other than the first adventure (for which I'll usually have something concrete in mind*) I can only guide the players/characters toward any storyline I might have in mind. It's a big world with lots of possible stories and overarching plots they can delve into; I can drop hooks all over the place but I can't (or shouldn't) force them into biting on any particular one.

For the current campaign I pretty much told them "We'll start with Keep on the Borderlands and see where it goes from there", and during 'Keep' I lobbed in a few hooks for other things. All the hooks were ignored in favour of going back to town and looking for adventures that needed doing, once the Keep was done; and so it took a bit longer to get any real story going.

Lanefan

 

[Satyrn]

Easy. That player (in character, I assume) wants to go to the tavern and see what happens...and is then expecting or assuming that the DM will have something of interest happen there to which he can react. In other words this is a reactive, not proactive, player (or character) who is looking for the DM to supply - well, not so much the story as he's not interested in that, but the day-to-day events and opponents and challenges for him to react to.

I'm a reactive player, but in the sense that I just want the hook. Do I have to be at the tavern to witness tge introductory scene? Do I get mugged by crooks working the big scheme? Should I look at the job board?

Just tell me where the adventure/scenario starts so we can get the most value out of the DM's prep.

(And yes, go right ahead and mug my character if it's meant to drive the story.)

 

[Lanefan]

Want I am looking for is the DM to have a setting ... [list of setting-knowledge points] ...


This, however, is just my own preference. The DM builds a setting. The players build characters based within the parameters of the setting and its cultures as determined by the DM. The DM should be able to get a lot of ideas for adventures from the character background, with a little work, tie the goals together in some way and use them to bring the party together. He or she can still throw in other hooks, or an occasional adventure along the way (it should be a "living" world). However, the campaign direction, once it begins, is determined more by the players, their goals, whatever hooks they make, where they decide to go, the enemies they make along the way, etc.

That's a pretty comprehensive list.

My question: if player knowledge is to roughly equal character knowledge, how much of all that is the average character realistically going to know? And, how much of that knowledge will be accurate ("The Elven realm of Aurelauren to the east has existed for just over 940 years and is currently ruled by good king Cemebras the Wise") as opposed to hearsay or guesswork ("There's been Elves in those woods forever - their king eats babies for breakfast and kittens for lunch!")?

Rural-based characters might not know much of what goes on beyond their own village and those close by it. City-bred characters might know some stuff about a few guilds and various laws but might not know where the borders of the realm are. Dwarves might not know squat about what goes on on the surface.

So, there's a strong argument to be made for erring on the side of too little information - it's way easier to reveal more later than it is to unreveal that which has already been told.

Again, this is just my preference and what I find more interesting than the DM pulling out the canned module of the week or saying, "you should stick to this narrow region, because I have focused my time on this small section and didn't think of the setting on a larger scale despite allowing characters from outside areas (e.g. the elf kingdom, the dwarvish clans, the "barbarian" kingdom, some other neighboring kingdom(s)) without giving additional thought to those ahead of time.

Yeah, the answer there is to try and start with all characters being from the same realm or culture (i.e. the DM puts her foot down and says you're all starting with a Greek Human) and assume there will be some character turnover as the game goes on. Then, as they expand their horizons via exploration and bring in characters from elsewhere, information about 'elsewhere' can come in with them.

Lanefan

 

[Fleetwood C. DeVille]

For the current campaign I pretty much told them "We'll start with Keep on the Borderlands and see where it goes from there", and during 'Keep' I lobbed in a few hooks for other things. All the hooks were ignored in favour of going back to town and looking for adventures that needed doing, once the Keep was done; and so it took a bit longer to get any real story going. Lanefan

Indeed. Sometimes it takes a few hooks/sessions before someone bites deep. Having the players "organically" excited about a story-line makes things SO much better.