"Shinies!" "Didn't we ban kender?"

[Dragonhelm]

Do you think The Ban List is a good idea for a group or a setting/campaign?

I think that what you include and what you exclude can help to define a setting. Part of Dragonlance's charm is that it doesn't have orcs or lycanthropes. I think psionics can enhance some settings (i.e. Dark Sun) and may not fit others (possibly Dragonlance).

Bans should have good reasoning behind them. Bans on classes beyond the core, for example, might be due to lack of funds to buy all the splat books. Bans on certain character types might be due to the character type being disruptive (i.e. evil characters).

What you should avoid are bans based on forum rumors, heresay, etc. Kender have a bad rep, unfortunately, and that's largely due to a few people who played them as kleptomaniacs who just took the party's stuff and generally disrupted the game. Before you ban a character type based on these rumors, ask around. What you may find is that kender can be great characters to play, especially in the hands of a mature roleplayer.

The key is to find what works for your group. If nobody in the group likes X rule, throw it out. If some people in your group would like to import a new race, such as warforged, then feel free to add them in. Gaming is all about the fun. This should be your guiding light as you decide what to include and what to exclude.

 

[hong]

First, we ban halflings.

 

[charlesatan]

The guys at Fear the Boot often refer to a social contract, called a Group Template, made at the table before you start playing. It's a concept I whole heartedly endorse. You sit down, before character creation, heck before you even decide what game you're going to play and you lay out in clear terms what is expected in the next game.

A lot of podcasts actually talk about this as well. You can call it your "Session 0" where you have your pre-game talk. Pre-game talk might include what characters each one is going to play, setting expectations for everyone involved ("this is going to be a dungeon crawl", "this is going to be a politics/intrigue game"), what kind of game you're looking forward to or what direction the game will take, do's and don't of the gaming table, etc.

If you don't have a setting, some even go as far as asking everyone in the gaming table to determine the setting, who the important personalities are, etc.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm fine with that. Most groups have unofficial ban lists anyway, imo. Like if you say you want to play a spiked chain wielding half-dragon and everyone throws d4s at you.

Yeah, I don't think that I have ever played in a game where the group was absolutely compelled to allow every option from every supplement or rule book into the game*. In point of fact, pretty much every group I have ever played with had some list of restrictions or additions based on the game setting we were playing in (e.g., if we were using D&D to play a Dying Earth game, there weren't going to be any Toklien Elves, Dwarves, or Hobbi. . . er. . . Halflings prancing about).

*Other than some nightmarish Rifts or oWoD crossover games, the memories of which I have tried to suppress.

 

[jdrakeh]

The guys at Fear the Boot often refer to a social contract, called a Group Template, made at the table before you start playing. It's a concept I whole heartedly endorse.

When I wrote Formless back in 2003, it was one of the first gaming products to specifically address the concept of a social contract in concrete terms and conditions that you could actually put down on paper (up until that time, it had widely been discussed as an implied agreement, rather than an explicit one). You can read the full text of Formless here, complete with a simple, universal, template for social contracts.

[Edit: Download the PDF -- it's free and it reads a lot better than the web page.]

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yes and no. I say "X isn't available around here," constraining what's available, both for sanity's sake and to create flavor by what's left, but I've come to realize that saying "no, X doesn't exist ANYWHERE IN THE MULTIVERSE" is both kind of extreme and also shuts the door on someone coming up with a really good take on X later on.

(Plus, saving some concepts for later nicely works with "hey, you're a big boy now, moving out of your hometown, now let's have you meet a githyanki for the first time as emblematic of things being bigger and weirder than you know!")

 

[ST]

Yes, I think making sure everybody at the table is on board with the campaign setup (including "must haves" and "must not haves") is essential.

I've found that kind of thing extremely helpful in campaigns in the past. Sometimes it's just a flavor thing and doesn't affect what rules get used, but still, anything that's going to really ruin someones enjoyment gets tossed.

 

[NilesB]

Kender have a bad rep, unfortunately, and that's largely due to a few people who played them as kleptomaniacs who just took the party's stuff and generally disrupted the game.

Unfortunately, these people are playing Kender as recommended by the setting books.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Unfortunately, these people are playing Kender as recommended by the setting books.

Yeah. I banned Kender for life before the Dragonlance books came out (in fact, I've never read them) because that's how they were described in a Dragon article. The article even strongly suggested that everyone go along with such idiotic nonsense. That was when I made a mighty vow that any character I ever played would kill any Kender who showed up, on the spot, regardless of the consequences. (Of course, I warned every gaming group I've played with since then about this. So far none have had any problem with it. But then, I've never seen one to kill, either. )

 

[Timeboxer]

First, we ban halflings.

I thought you banned death.