Is campaign flavour sacrosanct in your game?

[Thurbane]

I say the only correct answer is "It depends on the group"

If the majority of your guys are creatively into that stuff, then its great. Itsusually best if you have a well established group.

If its a group that just wants to play regular D&D, then you're being a pain in the ass when you start doing that...especially when its a thrown together group from a game shop or something.

My own feeling as a player is that I can live with it if the DM doesn't want to deal with aftermarket supplements. I'm not a big fan myself. But I find it annoying when standard PHB stuff is disallowed. I come to the table to game...not to spend the night haggling with the DM over whether stuff "fits his vision" or not.

I can agree with this to a point.

Certainly, if it's a one-off game or irregular game not set in a specific campaign world, I would concur that anything, especially core only, goes. I would still probably disallow things that either myself or a significant number of other players are unfamiliar with, for the sake of having to learn a bunch of new rules to keep one player happy.

However, if I'm running my regular campaign world and someone wants something that is specifically unavailable under my restrictions, I'll have a one-on-one talk with them, see if some other character concept that fits within "my rules" will still suit what they want to play.

If the differences are insurmountable (and I've never found them to be so as of yet), then I will politely inform the player that my campaign probably won't be something he's likely to enjoy...

 

[Hussar]

Are there many limits in my game? Nope. About the only one I can think off right off the top of my head is no Vow of Poverty because it doesn't mesh well with the World's Largest Dungeon. Beyond that? Can't think of any. But, I realize that's not for everyone.

Is it a bad thing to restrict player choice to enforce a campaign's flavour?

Certainly not.

Or is it best to allow things in, and see how the campaign adjusts?

Quite possibly. It can work very well depending on the campaign and a number of other factors. While my current campaign is pretty open, my Shelzar campaign was VERY limited.

Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

I did a poll about this a while back asking how many people had actually seen a player demand to play something in a game. About 20 to 1, no one had ever seen it. If there is a notion of player entitlement out there, it's a very endangered beast.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In my Midwood campaign, the available races are gnomes, humans and dwarves. (Kobolds were later made available and if anyone wanted to do it,they could play a feytouched, I decided later as well.)

I automatically ruled out barbarians and monks.

Not one complaint from 13 players to date.

 

[Shadowslayer]

However, I think what I've quoted there looks a bit like "A, therefore B", where A does not necessarily lead to B at all. In other words, a DM disallowing standard PHB stuff (core material, then) doesn't imply that the players will have to haggle or argue about rules. Sorry if I managed somehow to misread you, though.

Sorry, the haggling part comes from bad experiences I had with a couple of DMs who wouldn't shut up about "their world...their vision" and just run the damn game. I find settings to be a mostly overdone aspect of play anyway.

In a nutshell though, my feeling is this: If I come to the game table to play D&D, than this (holds up PHB and points to it) is the game I'm here to play. Not someone else's version of it. Know what I mean? (and I say this without malice, and with complete awareness that I'm probably going against the popular response to this question.)

I guess what I'm getting at is that any player going into a new game should be able to assume that the "PHB core" is the standard. I think that yes, that is a player's entitlement. If PHB stuff is changed or if certain parts are disallowed, then you're running a non-standard game of D&D. I don't imply any negative connotations to a non-standard game either...only that standard/non standard is something that should be pointed out to new players well ahead of time. Preferrably right on the sign-up board.

But that's just me. Ultimately, the answer still lies with the particular group you're talking about.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Shadowslayer,

I agree completely. My preferences often lead to non-core D&D, but it is very important to let Players know about it up front for me. I wouldn't like a nasty surprise like alternate rules come up when I am expecting the core rules (this happened to me recently, actually).

Since most of my games are non-standard, I always let people who I am gaming with know. I have been known to change things on discussion, though. A mistake I've seen some people make is claiming that their "visionary" game is better than the core, which would rub people the wrong way very easily. I'm sorry that things turned out poorly for you.

For the game I'll be running, the only things I am changing are the D&D things that mesh poorly with the campaign flavour. It may, however turn out that no one is interested in the campaign anyway with its various house rules. And that's fine. Thanks for your (very carefully worded ) response.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I did a poll about this a while back asking how many people had actually seen a player demand to play something in a game. About 20 to 1, no one had ever seen it. If there is a notion of player entitlement out there, it's a very endangered beast.

Well that's good to know, I had been worried about it. I'd met a couple of gamers who seemed to talk largely about the virtues of one or two classes and rubbish everything else. I found it rather annoying, and wondered if the view was prevalent in the larger community as I came from a mostly isolated gaming community originally.

Obviously I won't be inviting those guys.

Thanks!

 

[wayne62682]

Oh definatly yes. Whenever I come up with a campaign idea (as I have yet to actually RUN them...) I decide beforehand what flavor I want and plan to restrict access to things that fit that flavor.

My former group did no such thing, and that was part of the problem with it I think.. we had weirdo characters that were somehow working together because nobody followed a set theme (or made PCs that fit in with each other, but thats another problem entirely)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Personally, I don't disallow anything based on flavor (though I will tweak for balance ala frenzied berserker). It's one of the things I like about Planescape. Want a barbarian from the frozen wastes to adventure with a Thrikreen weapon master and a janni traitor running from the City of Brass? No problem! And it makes sense.

I tell my players to go wild. I have trouble getting them to go wild enough!

 

[WayneLigon]

Is it a bad thing to restrict player choice to enforce a campaign's flavour? Or is it best to allow things in, and see how the campaign adjusts? Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

Not at all. D&D is a toolbox, but you don't use rakes and spreaders to put a roof on your house. Almost every campaign will change something or have something specific to it that doesn't appear elsewhere. Even Ptolus and Eberron change things and they were specifically designed to be as inclusive as they could be.

 

[kigmatzomat]

In your campaign, do you have rules about what kind of characters are allowed? Are certain magic item types or technologies (smokepowder for instance) banned? Do you place other limits on PCs and NPCs due to them being culturally inappropriate for the setting?

Yes, yes and yes. I run a 5th Age DragonLance variant that started long before the new DLCS with 1st level characters in a small town in Solamnia. You could play all the PHB classes but some were restricted to specific backgrounds (e.g. barbarian, monk, etc). Magic items, beyond basic +x items, were horribly expensive since most could not be made anymore.

Is it a bad thing to restrict player choice to enforce a campaign's flavour? Or is it best to allow things in, and see how the campaign adjusts? Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

No. Maybe. A very small minority.

I've found that a bit of restriction forces players to actually put some effort into their characters. If they have to justify how a monk will be found in a village two weeks' ride from Solanthus then they have a much better understanding of the character, both in history and in how they fit into the world. I also tend to put some of the onus of team-buidling on the players. They have to provide reasons why they are both adventuring and adventuring with these people.

On the flip side, I've been in games where the GM overly restricts options; one guy handed out premade characters. Badly built premade characters, I might add. What elven rogue with a dex of 12 (?!?) gets combat reflexes? That didn't go over well.

One caveat when running a game with a distinct feel & flavor is to not simply say "no that doesn't fit" but to say "yes, but only if.." Someone wants to pick up Pyrokineticist, fine, make them venture to the land of the efreet and pass their tests. Someone else wants to be a Knight, they have to actually be knighted in a particular kingdom.

There will always be a few "absolutely nots." The rogue IMC wanted to be a fang of Lloth. First off, it was a bad idea since the rest of the party would have had a hissy fit about a spider freak in their midst. Second of all, there's no Lloth, no spider god and absolutely no easy way to justify a class like FoL. The closest notion I had would be for them to defeat a powerful spider demon in a particularly contrived fashion, especially since demon summoning and gating was virtually impossible at the time. I gave him the DLA and told him to see if he could find a spider-being that could justify the FoL but that otherwise it was verboten.

He was disappointed but not upset and is now quite pleased with his dragon disciple.