D&D 5E Restrictive DMs and player enjoyment

[Zardnaar]

Depends on the edition/theme and why they're there.

Eg banning all magic using classes is probably to restrictive for me personally.

So 6-8 races, 8 classes anything beyond that is a bonus. Current DM for CoS said traditional races are fine, Human derived preferred no flyers.

 

[MGibster]

I find the problem is that an unfortunate number of DMs think "a dragonborn, like, at all" is something that must be "forced" into the setting, to say nothing of much more creative stuff.

For the most part, I've never had a need to restrict character species in D&D because I don't really view it as a meaningful choice. The campaign and/or scenario will play pretty much the same no matter what species the player character is. The ony exception I had was when running Curse of Strahd where I restricted species to what was found in the PHB.

For me, D&D has always been a kitchen sink type of game, so I am fairly permissive. I do prohibit third party sources (classes, species, spells, rules, etc., etc.), but usually whatever WotC produces for D&D is fine. If I were to design a specific world I'd probably place some restrictions on species, but I tyipcally set my games in places like The Forgotten Realms or some other bog standard D&D setting.

 

[haakon1]

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.

You’re a dinner guest asking the host to make a special dish just for you.

Your DM isn’t a restaurant, but even restaurants have menus. Maybe your local Chinese restaurant will make a spam quiche just for you if you ask, maybe they won’t. If they say no, you have the choice to order from the menu, or go elsewhere, or learn to cook and make it yourself.

DM’s aren’t oppressing you by running a campaign you don’t prefer.

 

[Vaalingrade]

DM’s aren’t oppressing you by running a campaign you don’t prefer.

And players aren't oppressing DMs by not wanting to play under that DM's restrictions.

Almost like everyone should work together instead of one person dictating above all of everyone else because they volunteered to do some work.

 

[Zardnaar]

And players aren't oppressing DMs by not wanting to play under that DM's restrictions.

Almost like everyone should work together instead of one person dictating above all of everyone else because they volunteered to do some work.

That's fine. More players than DMs cya. Here's what I'm offering up to you to play or not.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Exactly why I champion more people being encouraged to learn to DM.

 

[Clint_L]

I restrict stuff that doesn't go with the setting I want for the campaign, or that I think is unbalanced, but generally I'm pretty laissez faire. No aarakocra - I find flying at level 1 allows one player to dominate the session too much unless I am at pains to build around it, but then I am just sneakily undermining the player's choice, so I'd rather be up front about it.

I don't allow overt meta-gaming, especially telling other players what to do on their turn. Eberron content is disabled. No meme characters (inspired by is one thing, but I'm not interested in running a game for a player who wants to turn it into a joke).

 

[aco175]

I never had to specifically say, but enough table discussion says no monsters as PCs. There may be a way for a player to work with me and allow a goblin or even an orc- maybe, but a snakeguy or hippoguy- no. If the whole table wanted to play a one-off with a slew of Mos Eisley then fine I can make something and have fun but not for a campaign. We tend to stick with PHB for races. I do not think my backwater peasants have caught up with the more cosmopolitan Wizards.

Classes and other stuff I'm way more open with. 3pp spells tend to be found or researched rather than just taken because you went up a level. Items are from books or made up with extra powers as a more unique item. Same for remaking a PC if something does not work out.

 

[Reynard]

Aesthetic preferences are an interesting thing in the context of permissiveness, monster PCs being an obvious example and anthropomorphic animals being another.

Since so much of RPGs happens in our heads, it makes some sense to not want to embrace Aesthetics we have trouble visualizing, but at the same time it seems a pretty thin reason to say "no" assuming no unbalanced mechanical benefits. Ruby wants her character to be a manticore person but is happy to use the dragonborn racial abilities to represent it [ETA: ex use piercing damage type for breath weapon]? Why say no?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I prefer DMs who have an established premise or idea for the world / setting / locale we are playing in, so that I may create a character that makes sense to be there. One, so that I don't need to make the DM or myself jump through hoops to justify why my character is actually going out on the adventure in front of us... and Two, because having a character that is actually connected in some way to the situation at hand is actually selfishly a benefit-- the DM will assume/decide my character has knowledge and connections just from proximity if nothing else and I'll gain privileges I might not otherwise have if I play some out-there, weirdass PC that is just there for the sake of it.

Playing into the tropes of the campaign will only help in the long run, rather than constantly trying to run counter to it.