D&D 5E Restrictive DMs and player enjoyment

[payn]

I dont mind a restrictive GM if they can explain the context of the confinement. As a player I really like building and fitting to specific campaign ideas. Sometimes, I might push the boundary a little but will come with a reasonable explanation and discuss it with the GM.

As a GM, I also like building around campaign ideas and offer some restrictions. I'm fairly open, but if you insist on playing a druid with a shark companion in my fantasy Egypt tomb raiding campaign, we are not going to work out.

 

[Reynard]

While I know you mean well, I honestly couldn't disagree more with this as a blanket statement. The GM doesn't always "have to" automatically change the campaign focus to suit the players.

In a situation like you describe, there should be a dialogue about that, out of game, between players and the GM to find a compromise everyone is happy with. Player agency is not always paramount. The GM isn't obliged to run a campaign or style that they don't want to run.

Obviously, to the point of it not having to be said.

But if the players don't want to play the game the GM envisioned, either the GM chooses to run a game more in line with his group's preferences, or the group finds a different GM. I don't understand what is controversial here.

 

[Burnside]

Obviously, to the point of it not having to be said.

But if the players don't want to play the game the GM envisioned, either the GM chooses to run a game more in line with his group's preferences, or the group finds a different GM. I don't understand what is controversial here.

Well, what you said was this:

"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."

If I'm the GM and I've prepped a dungeon crawl, and the players "look at me" and say, "no, we're gonna take over the thieves guild instead," what I'm saying is that the outcome of that situation is not that I "have to" shift focus and scrap what I've prepped because their "agency" is "paramount". The outcome of that situation is we have a conversation and there is probably some give-and-take.

 

[Reynard]

Well, what you said was this:

"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."

If I'm the GM and I've prepped a dungeon crawl, and the players "look at me" and say, "no, we're gonna take over the thieves guild instead," what I'm saying is that the outcome of that situation is not that I "have to" shift focus and scrap what I've prepped because their "agency" is "paramount". The outcome of that situation is we have a conversation and there is probably some give-and-take.

Let's look at the entirety of the relevant quote, shall we?

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.

That bolded part is the part you left out and it quite informs the sentence that follows, don't you think?

 

[Velderan]

I dont mind a restrictive GM if they can explain the context of the confinement. As a player I really like building and fitting to specific campaign ideas. Sometimes, I might push the boundary a little but will come with a reasonable explanation and discuss it with the GM.

As a GM, I also like building around campaign ideas and offer some restrictions. I'm fairly open, but if you insist on playing a druid with a shark companion in my fantasy Egypt tomb raiding campaign, we are not going to work out.

And for that campaign, there's only 1 way to make the concept work..

 

[Oofta]

I think too often people focus on very specific types of restrictions and desires. Does it really matter all that much if you can't play a Tabaxi? I had fun with a certain PC that my or may not have been, shall we say, heavily influenced by Puss-in-Boots. But if the DM didn't care for anthropomorphic characters, I could just have easily played a human with the same (badly copied) accent and attitude. I didn't have to be a cat person to have a cat person personality.

In the same way, I run very open campaigns with a variety of styles and directions I work with my players to determine. But I also have an established world with existing lore, races, restrictions. I don't want to play a game with evil characters whether I'm running the game or playing so that's limited.

But what's more important? That the players get to play a loxodon or that they get to decide whether this campaign will, at least initially, start out as a privateer campaign, a dungeon crawl, searching for a lost city, city based or edge of the wilderness, a fair amount of political intrigue or just kicking bad guy posterior? That at a certain point they can choose to engage with eldritch horror, gothic horror or something else entirely?

I'd rather have restrictions on mechanical bits and have an open world to explore than play a module with their inherent linear path. Obviously that's just my preference, but any time we join a D&D group there are going to be some restrictions on what we do. We aren't going to sit down at a D&D table and play Superman, we always have to choose what restrictions we're okay with.

 

[Oofta]

And for that campaign, there's only 1 way to make the concept work..

View attachment 295623

But do Candygrams exist in that campaign world?

 

[Clint_L]

As far as character behaviours go, we establish our boundaries at the first session/session 0/whatever. I don't DM random murderhobo-style campaigns, I'm not comfortable with running a story about psychopaths, and I'm not running a campaign with explicit sex. No judgment on those who prefer different things - Joe Manganiello seems to run a super testosterone-infused campaign where all the characters are evil and everyone has a great time - more power to 'em! It's just not for me.

Edit: as a player, I don't really care, as long as the GM is upfront so I can decide in advance, but generally speaking I only care whether the group is fun. Otherwise, I don't even really care what RPG we are playing, so whatever restrictions the GM wants to have, or house rules, or whatever, are all good.

 

[ninjayeti]

Personally I enjoy making a character that is tailored to the game world and campaign more than just completely open ended character creation. Ideally that process is not just restrictive, but one that provides interesting ideas for character creation as well - for example, organizations that a character could be part of, history that has shaped the character's world view, or ongoing conflicts that could serve as a character's motivation.

RPGs are collaboration between the GM and players. Why shouldn't that collaboration start with character creation?

 

[Velderan]

But do Candygrams exist in that campaign world?

No, but dolphins probably do!