Is campaign flavour sacrosanct in your game?

[Gold Roger]

I have put only one restriction into my game. This restriction is based on flavor.

I want my game to be very standart D&D-ish in flavor. I've found that a multitude of feats, PrC's and even races easily works with this, but non-core baseclasses really hurt the setting, so base classes are Core only, maybe with the XPH (I'm still thinking about it).

 

[Rel]

My answer is that it is fine to restrict player choice in the name of flavor. However I also think it's critical that everybody have a clear conception of what that flavor is, how it restricts things and still want to play in that game.

We have a talk at the outset of any campaign (typically on a night when we're making PC's) that I've come to call "The Buy In Conversation". This is where the GM explains the setting and the themes involved in it and what kinds of characters will be appropriate. The players can ask all the questions they want about the setting in general and themes described. Once all that is hashed out, we have a tacit understanding that the GM is agreeing to run a certain type of game and the players are willing to play that sort of game. Everybody has "bought into" the campaign.

As an example, our current game is Warhammer FRP, pretty much right out of the box (though there isn't actually a box) but with the theme being "zero to hero". That is that all the PC's start out in lowly, crappy professions but gradually rise above that to become heroes of note. It was also understood that this campaign would have a heroic bent to it. In other words, when deciding what careers to move into, we avoided stuff like Assassin and Crime Lord. When faced with choices in the campaign we were not expected to be Lawful Good or anything like that. But we were expected to generally behave kind of "Good".

Since everybody is on the same page about this, we seldom have any problems with the GM having to disallow anything.

 

[Herobizkit]

I blow the roof off all my games. No matter the setting, era, or whatever, I always find a way to include what a player desires. In this way, my campaign world is encouraged to develop from the original model.

 

[Psion]

That really depends.

My favored setting is a Planehopping affair with dozens of worlds as potential homes for PCs. There's a lot of latitude there. But nonetheless, if I decide that something you want lies outside of what would exist in any of those (a rarity for any player with any credible attempt at being reasonable), I wouldn't allow it.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

True Dat!

We have a talk at the outset of any campaign (typically on a night when we're making PC's) that I've come to call "The Buy In Conversation".

Social Contracts anyone?

-Samir

 

[Finster]

I will restrict classes and races based on campaign flavor, but have an open-door policy concerning the players' wants and needs.

The last campaign that I ran, started off with a NO MONKS policy agreed on by all the players. The setting had a quasi-celtic flavor, and the monk class was seen as anathema to this.

Later, one of my players invited a co-worker over for a stand in. This guy wanted to play a monk. He really wanted to play a monk. I told him, if he could create a rationale for the Monk's presence in this setting (Outside of "He's a freak of nature") I would allow it.

Two days later the guy hands me a backstory sheet where he describes the Monk as a travelling performer, like a mummer, who specializes in a unique form of "dance". Problem solved. Monk accepted. Future plot hooks noted

 

[Arnwyn]

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, absolutely.

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

Of course not.

Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

Beats me. I don't game with strangers.

 

[Bardsandsages]

I can't see how you can run an effective game WITHOUT placing restrictions. It's not even about flavor per se. It's about holding onto some semblence of believeability and keeping your sanity. Just because something can be found in print, does not mean you must allow it or that you even should consider it. If your party never comes in contact with divine emissaries, there is no reason you have to allow a Divine Agent prestige class. If you don't use psionic monsters or NPCs, there is nothing that says you must allow psionic PCs. If you are running a campaign in a stone age setting, you surely are not obligated to allow guns and gunpowder.

Not only is it your right as a DM to place restrictions on what is and is not useable, but it is also an obligation to insure the game is functional.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I think whenever I run a game next I'll share my ideas with my players through a series of emails and one session devoted to campaign discussion and character creation.

I think Bardsandsages makes a good point; there's just way too much material to track and if I want to maintain some kind of sanity, I'm probably going to need some restrictions, even if it's the simplest: "You may not use books the DM doesn't know or own." But I think players should know that going in and it certainly isn't my intention to surprise anyone about setting or rules restrictions.

 

[TerraDave]

Yes, the restrictions are:

-A limited set of "starting classes" based on race and region (all have fav. race as human)
-Weapon and armor lists for each race and region

The great majority of race&class combos (in the PHB plus a few others) are still possible. It is all presented upfront, and is all in the sig.