Several related questions

[Raven Crowking]

None of the things you describe are bad DMing.

DMing a particular playstyle is not bad DMing, despite what some may say, and regardless of what the edition is normally geared for.

Nobody magically knows what is best for you & your group, regardless of what they might say. However, I certainly believe that running a game you don't enjoy is liable to lead to bad DMing, whether you want it to or not.


RC

 

[WayneLigon]

1) Is it bad DMing to out-and-out refuse certain character concepts or classes?

Not at all, as long as all that is laid out up front and above board. I have done several games where I won't let a divine and arcane class multiclass together (which also cuts out a handfull of prestige classes that assume you can do this), there were no gnomes or dwarves, etc. In general, I won't allow something (especially a spellcaster) from a book I don't own and I don't own all that many.

2) Would it be bad DMing to let the players know ahead of time that this is going to be a low-magic game, and that the treasure guidelines in the DMG are not going to be followed?

Not at all, if you have a plan for dealing with the disparity. Now me, I'm not one for thinking that not following this is a bad thing. I've found that 3E was almost the opposite of previous editions on the magic item front: people don't require items to be successful. They just don't; many years of campaigns prove this otherwise to me.

If PCs have to be thankful for whatever magical resources they can lay their hands on, villains are much the same way.

They had best be or people will get up from that table and leave.

This means that things like smokesticks, tanglefoot bags, and thunderstones are not available for general use, either. On the other hand, that means the bad guys won't be able to use them, either.

You know, those aren't magic items and PCs can make them fairly easily with crafting skills.

Hence, it'd be meat-and-potatoes low fantasy; many of the base assumptionjs about 3E are gone.

As long a the players know what they are getting into up front, it's no problem. What I despise is a GM that pulls the rug out from under you, or changes basic campaign assumptions in mid-stream with no warning or input from the players. Now, this would also depend on how much I trusted the GM to actually run low fantasy D&D - if he's gonig to use the same encounter assumptions as he would in regular D&D then it's not really going to work that well.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

1) Is it bad DMing to out-and-out refuse certain character concepts or classes?

Nope. What I've been doing recently is asking my players, "Why do you want to play this character." If the answer is, "He'll have some cool abilities and I really dig the concept," then I OK it. If the answer is, "Because at 7th level, I can do 18,796 damage! OMG!!!!!!1111," then I deny it. Of course, my players know better than to lie to me .

2) Would it be bad DMing to let the players know ahead of time that this is going to be a low-magic game, and that the treasure guidelines in the DMG are not going to be followed?

No, but I've done this in the past and you will find that the CR guidelines start to break down after 5th level. When my last campaign ended, I think the party had less than 5,000 sp (we used a silver standard, rather than gold, from the Black Company CS). If you're interested in keeping the CR system on the level, might I suggest Mythic Heroes (http://enworld.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=6026), which was a lot of fun in my low magic campaign and helped out the poor, magic-item-less fighters.

3) No magic shops.

Perfectly fine. I hate magic shops.

Would this be bad DMing, in essence putting your foot down about the style of play you want to run? Needless to say, the players would have free reign to make their own personalities and backgrounds, and in any event they'd have a major role in shaping the plot, too-telling me what they want and I'll get it all together, to say nothing of what they might decide to do during a plot or a campaign-if the PCs come up with an alternate approach to a situation, who am I to judge, right?

Thoughts?

All of that sounds 100% reasonable to me. Like I said, just be aware of the imact on the system once you yank the magic items out of it.

 

[billd91]

1) Is it bad DMing to out-and-out refuse certain character concepts or classes? I freely admit to being an old-school grognard despite my young age, and I intensely dislike the trend towards all kinds of prestige classes, multiclassing, min/maxing, and magic supermarkets.

This, as with many other questions, is more a question of how you do it rather than whether or not you do it at all. If the players know up front and that there is a particular campaign-based rationale for it, then it's fine. If it's just a question of arbitrarily not liking it, even if it fits in the campaign just fine, then I think there's a problem.

2) Would it be bad DMing to let the players know ahead of time that this is going to be a low-magic game, and that the treasure guidelines in the DMG are not going to be followed?

In fact, I would consider notifying the players ahead of time a requirement for such decisions. It's bad DMing to spring it on them without warning.

3) No magic shops. PCs can't simply expect to stroll into town and plunk down some gold for a magic wand or suit of armor-they'd be laughed out of the shop.

Meh. This isn't very different from a lot of campaigns, even ones that use 3E magic item crafting rules. I make PCs commission things if they want them other than than relatively low-powered potions, scrolls, and utility wands.

Would this be bad DMing, in essence putting your foot down about the style of play you want to run?

Again, it's more how you do it than doing it. Letting the players know ahead of time is paramount. Then they have the choice whether or not to play your game.
It is bad DMing if you put your foot down, won't budge it, and your players still aren't interested in playing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know, those aren't magic items and PCs can make them fairly easily with crafting skills.

Not if the DM says otherwise.

 

[Shadeydm]

As long as these things are communicated up front, its all good.

 

[bento]

As always, the game is a compromise between the GM and player's vision. It's good to set the expectations (no ninjas, no fantabulous magical stuff everywhere, etc.), but if one of your players comes to the table really wanting to play a ninja, its your job to mediate some kind of compromise.

When I first started my most recent campaign, one of my decisions was this world has no orcs. Well of course one of the players wanted to play a half-orc ranger, so I asked him what he really wanted. He said he wanted his character to be really strong, gruff, but a good cook. I suggested he might want to play a half-ogre, and he ended up getting what he wanted, plus some!

There are so many options in the game that you can say still say "yes" to most character options. Maybe magical items aren't hanging off trees, but incarnum exists. When you tell your players "no" to one set of options, be sure that other fun options are available. When you come up with suitable options that your players will agree to, you both win.

 

[RFisher]

1) Is it bad DMing to out-and-out refuse certain character concepts or classes?

Nope.

Yeah. But I hate the look on the player's face when they find out that the concept they've been dying to try isn't allowed. (u_u)

 

[Raven Crowking]

As always, the game is a compromise between the GM and player's vision. It's good to set the expectations (no ninjas, no fantabulous magical stuff everywhere, etc.), but if one of your players comes to the table really wanting to play a ninja, its your job to mediate some kind of compromise.

I disagree. If you want to have that player in your game, and if that player only wants to play something outside your vision then it is in your best interest to mediate some kind of compromise.

That said, I believe that compromise is good. It just isn't a requirement.


RC

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

1) Is it bad DMing to out-and-out refuse certain character concepts or classes? I freely admit to being an old-school grognard despite my young age, and I intensely dislike the trend towards all kinds of prestige classes, multiclassing, min/maxing, and magic supermarkets.

One thing in here that trips my "The DM might not understand the game" warning system is the dislike of multiclassing.

I mean, let's face it: multiclassing has been in ever since the concept of race-as-class was divorced. (And, some would argue, was present before that: if you wanted a Fighter-Mage, you took Elf, etc.)

There is nothing inherently wrong with multiclassing. The system is specifically built to encourage it (and later iterations of the d20 system have encouraged it even more).

The reason for this is that a Fighter / Rogue is not necessarily a soldier who gives up his commission to go steal from people for a bit (and, generally, I've always hated that hold-over from the 2E dual-classing system). Rather, he's usually something more like a Spec. Forces operative, or a swashbuckler focusing on light weapons and armor and derring-do, or a Thieves' Guild Enforcer, etc. A Barbarian / Bard is a skald, inspiring others with his disregard for his own life. A Fighter / Cleric is a temple guardsman. Etc.

In other words, these characters aren't so much "multiclassing" as taking levels in the "My character idea" class.

A DM who straight-out disallowed multiclassing (or allowed it with "in-game repercussions") would definitely get the cocked eyebrow from me, and while it wouldn't necessarily stop me from playing in his game, it would cause me to stop and wonder a bit.

The other issue I see looming on the horizon is that if you're going to be running an extremely low-magic and low-gear campaign*, you are actually boosting the power of the spellcasting classes relative to their mundane counterparts. It's something to watch out for.

* - Depending on how you handle the "permanent and non-permanent goodies," of course.

Anyway, just some friendly advice.