D&D 5E Restrictive DMs and player enjoyment

[Warpiglet-7]

I have just been exploring this more as I DM more. I still play over 50% since we have at least 3 DMs in my group.

I basically have people tell me what they want to play and then make a reason for it. For example, I am not into Dragonborn but if a player wants to play that, I roll with it.

I might just say they are a rarity—-I don’t necessarily fill cities with such exotic being…but if “Jane” wants to play a Dragonborn, I want to say yes.

Probably the biggest issue is that my campaign world has a prominent monotheistic religion when “Bob” wants a cleric of Pelor, I have an answer for that and a way to incorporate it.

i have found that players usually have something they want to “try” and excluding it does not improve buy in—-but my sample is surely biased.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I basically have people tell me what they want to play and then make a reason for it.

And that, to me, is exactly what you should do. As I said above, "Sell me on it." If the player is sincerely enthusiastic about a character concept, you'll know in how they sell it to you. It will be obvious whether they're in it for the joy of the idea, or in it for mere power without personal investment. It's hard to feign sincere interest in things that you only care about instrumentally.

 

[Reynard]

I think some degree of limitation is healthy for creativity, for both players and GM. And I think that a GM should be free to create as restrictive a setting as they like, but it is on them to pitch that setting to players and get buy in.

When it comes to agency and action, though, I think the more permissive the better. I don't mean "the rule of cool must always prevail." Rather I mean that players should have the freedom to choose their own paths. They should follow their characters' motivations and it is incumbent on the GM to answer the questions posed in them seeking their own goals. If the party looks at the GM and says they want to take over the thieves guild even though the GM would rather do a long dungeon crawl, the GM has to shift focus. Player agency is paramount IMO.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think some degree of limitation is healthy for creativity, for both players and GM. And I think that a GM should be free to create as restrictive a setting as they like, but it is on them to pitch that setting to players and get buy in.

I find that the real problem here is, people think "limitations breed creativity" justifies literally any and all limitations ever...and it doesn't. In a creative space where it is humans who define the limitations, not technology or the like, you can have the possibility of good limitations vs bad ones. Good limitations breed creativity. Bad limitations shut down creativity. It can be difficult to tell the difference.

When it comes to agency and action, though, I think the more permissive the better. I don't mean "the rule of cool must always prevail." Rather I mean that players should have the freedom to choose their own paths. They should follow their characters' motivations and it is incumbent on the GM to answer the questions posed in them seeking their own goals. If the party looks at the GM and says they want to take over the thieves guild even though the GM would rather do a long dungeon crawl, the GM has to shift focus. Player agency is paramount IMO.

Though if the GM absolutely loathes the idea of running such an adventure, I think a frank out-of-game conversation is mandatory. "I understand that this is the kind of game you want to play, but it would be utterly unbearable for me. Let's talk about it and try to work something out."

I say this because there is one bright line I have, which I would refuse to cross (and have, thankfully only once, had to tell a player I wouldn't cross). I won't run games for evil PCs. Neutral PCs, criminal PCs, PCs with dark and troubled pasts, currently Evil but sincerely trying to reform PCs, PCs that have fallen to temptation but know they need to reverse course? All of those are fine, most are wonderful even. But outright unrepentant evil is not welcome at my table. This is not, at all, because I want to limit what my players can do. It is because I, personally, cannot do that. I cannot run a game for such characters at anything near the level I can for good, neutral, dark-and-troubled, etc. characters. I just don't have that in me.

I made this very clear to my players from the outset, and none of them had an issue with it (though, as stated, one player needed a...reminder, shall we say). As long as limits like these are either expressly stated in advance, or openly discussed in a frank but responsive way when they come up, I see nothing wrong with them.

But such serious "I can't do this" moments should be very rare. Just going off the beaten path to do something unexpected? There I'm fully with you. Doesn't matter if I prepared six pages of notes for the mountain adventure, if the players want to go to the ocean, we're going to the ocean.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Are my wants and desires worth more than everyone else's at the table?"

Always a good question, on either side.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Always a good question, on either side.

Sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

And sometimes, the many declare that the needs of the one outweigh their own.

Context. "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."

 

[Reynard]

I find that the real problem here is, people think "limitations breed creativity" justifies literally any and all limitations ever...and it doesn't. In a creative space where it is humans who define the limitations, not technology or the like, you can have the possibility of good limitations vs bad ones. Good limitations breed creativity. Bad limitations shut down creativity. It can be difficult to tell the difference.

That's where the "buy in" comes in.

I have a probably unfounded belief that GMs that inflict a huge number of arbitrary limitations are just being control freaks, but that's just me. I do think the idea of saying "This game is about humans on a weird alien plant full of monster, so no alien PCs" is totally okay, though.

 

[pogre]

It varies by the game I am running and the players. For my D&D games it's fairly wahoo anything goes. My WFRP games are typically more restrictive, but I think that meets the tone of the game.

I have loosened up a lot on how "strict" I am while DMing. Tired of playing a PC in a campaign and want to try a different character - no problem. Want to switch up feats because the one you picked isn't working the way you hoped it would - go right ahead. I just want you to enjoy playing your character at my table. Missed a few sessions because of other obligations and want to play at the same level as the rest of the party? Level her up.

What's interesting is that I have players who refuse to do these things and these players would never switch characters, redesign a PC, or jump levels without earning the XP. In fact, that is the majority of my players at my table.

 

[haakon1]

"Are my wants and desires worth more than everyone else's at the table?"

I figure the DM’s do far, far more work, so their wants and desires are indeed worth more. If nobody is willing to do that work, no game for anyone.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I figure the DM’s do far, far more work, so their wants and desires are indeed worth more. If nobody is willing to do that work, no game for anyone.

Or someone who isn't going to force their desires on everyone else because they feel the need to be 'compensated' for the privilege of creating an enjoyable experience for their friends can do it.

Just like how someone hosts a dinner party and doesn't put out a tip jar.