D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[GobHag]

I do not believe anyone has said anything about banning classes. It has focused on race/species mainly and that is my main restrictions on a campaign setting because I just cannot see a world with 100 different intelligence species all vying for resources.

I never restrict classes although my games usually have a western feel and that tends to make default monk flavor problematic.

I always make sure that each species has a space, culture, and ecosystem so unless the player wants to write all the material to add their choice, then they should either be fine with the 20 options open or find a game that makes them happy.

I have burned out too many times trying to accommodate the wishes of everyone and losing the thread that made it fun for me to run.

I personally am just fine as a rootless man-creature of the reptile variety but as I hope you've intuited that setting coherence isn't important to me. I think it's fine that races are just rubber ears and foreheads characterisation or even lore-wise, @Minigiant talked about how minimized race/ancestry is already in 2024 and like I said, it's like saying that you don't want your PCs to have pompadour or born with green hair.

tl;dr 'Wehweh I don't wanna see a green dude as a hero in my brain theater wehweh'

 

[Tigris]

So how much is a DM allowed to ban before they get to a point where they should not be using D&D as the RPG of their choice in order to get that low fantasy setting?

The answer to is is and should always be nothing. D&D is a group activity of diffetent people playing together.

However, as a group, you can decide to pick as much raisins as you want.

And of course as a DM (and as a player) you can search others wanting to play your specific homebrew, if you are honest about it and search players specific for this. (So like looking for players for a "Heavily Modified 5e game" (and not just calling it 5e))


In the end RPGs are just much closer to toolboxes than to meticoulosly designed games. (Even PF2 has many optional rules and uncommon options etc.)

 

[Scribe]

But on the other side like I said a player should not be forced to play the character designed by the DM.

Granted, its near impossible for me to follow discussions now but I dont believe anyone has said anything close to this. Nobody is being forced to play a DM designed character and it is the same kind of goal post shifting, strawman hyperbole like 'oh you banned a single species? whats next, no Wizard or Bard either?'

 

[Remathilis]

It doesn’t matter. I have been told consistently from the folks arguing in this thread that any restriction on the player is bad.

If I do not allow Goliaths and Orcs but I do allow Lizardmen, Minotaurs, Satyrs, and Faeries, then I am still wrong for restricting any options.

Well, by MY standard, which Scribe was disagreeing with, you're fine. You limited two options but replaced them with four, two of which can fill a similar design niche. What I object to would be if you didn't add those extra species and limited my options overall.

 

[Remathilis]

'oh you banned a single species? whats next, no Wizard or Bard either?'

Well considering your Platonic Ideal, what was next was banning four species and eight classes, so I think my judgment call was spot on.

 

[Scribe]

Well considering your Platonic Ideal, what was next was four species and eight classes, so I think my judgment call was spot on.

Again, just because it may be the ideal foundation (it is) does not mean its not possible to add to it when/if appropriate.

I've got 4 extra Ancestry options, 5 different Classes, and there are over 10 official additional Class options as well.

That also does not mean every single option should be available if not appropriate for a given setting (which Shadowdark really only has one anyway) or that Ancestry options could not be pulled back from 6 to 4 or whatever.

Restrictions are not a problem.

 

[Remathilis]

Again, just because it may be the ideal foundation (it is) does not mean its not possible to add to it when/if appropriate.

Ok, so we're talking minimums again.

I've got 4 extra Ancestry options, 5 different Classes, and there are over 10 official additional Class options as well.

Which is more than the minimum.

That also does not mean every single option should be available if not appropriate for a given setting (which Shadowdark really only has one anyway) or that Ancestry options could not be pulled back from 6 to 4 or whatever.

Which actually wasn't my point. My point was Shadowdark has 6 ancestries and four classes, so I expect a minimum of 6 ancestries and four classes. I don't care if they are the six from the core book or if you replace some with others.

And honestly, your option list is larger than that so I'm even more confounded by your argument. If you had been arguing that your game was only human fighters due to your well crafted vision, I'd still think it was too limited. But your not. You are allowing 10 species and 9 classes, above and beyond what the core book allows. That's not a limited vision, that's bog standard play.

Restrictions are not a problem.

Apparently they can be.

 

[Scribe]

Apparently they can be.

Not really.

My point was Shadowdark has 6 ancestries and four classes, so I expect a minimum of 6 ancestries and four classes. I don't care if they are the six from the core book or if you replace some with others.

My point is that if I drop Goblin (from Shadowdark) or Dragonborn (from D&D) and add nothing, that is not some catastrophic removal of player options, that is not the DM 'forcing players to play a specific PC'. There are still hundreds if not thousands of possible combinations.

If that single removal is just too much to bear, the issue is not with the restriction.

 

[Remathilis]

Not really.



My point is that if I drop Goblin (from Shadowdark) or Dragonborn (from D&D) and add nothing, that is not some catastrophic removal of player options, that is not the DM 'forcing players to play a specific PC'. There are still hundreds if not thousands of possible combinations.

If that single removal is just too much to bear, the issue is not with the restriction.

Like I've said, it's principle. If you are removing my options without considering alternatives, how about I do the same for you? Let me ban a monster type from your game we will never encounter and has no place in your world? You ban Dragonborn, I'll ban beholders. You ban PC goblins? I ban monster goblinoids. Seems like it would be fair; you are giving me restrictions to narrow focus and enhance creativity, I want you to have to same focus.

But I'm probably going to hear how unfair it is for players to ruin a DMs world and limit his ability to run the game he wants, aren't I?

 

[Minigiant]

Granted, its near impossible for me to follow discussions now but I dont believe anyone has said anything close to this. Nobody is being forced to play a DM designed character and it is the same kind of goal post shifting, strawman hyperbole like 'oh you banned a single species? whats next, no Wizard or Bard either?'

Im not shifting goalposts

People have mentioned human only low magic settings.

Complaining about a single class removal especially in 5th edition is too much.

But someone mentioned settings where 7-10 classes might be banned.