The Power of "NO". Banned Races and Classes?

[Ruin Explorer]

If we were playing 'Family Feud', and asked about the character of Tuck in Robin Hood, I'm pretty sure that we'd get back answers like

a) Friar - Not a monk, a Friar. Incidentally, this is an anachronism in the modern setting of the tale (Prince John's rule, Richard I's imprisonment), because the order of Friar's wasn't yet established then.

b) Fat - Friar Tuck is most known for his belly and his fondness for food. This is a common medieval trope on Friars generally.

c) Fond of Ale - I can never recall Tuck being portrayed as a drunk, but he's certainly fond of ale.

Friar and Monk are used interchangeably. I've heard tons of people call him a monk. He wears a monk's habit, for god's sake, this isn't hard. Otherwise I agree that those are his main traits (that and fighting).

d) Swordsman - In for example the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, Robin encounters the fat friar asleep and decides to have fun with him. This proves to be a mistake, because the other Merry Men (Alan a Dale IIRC) recognize him as the fighting friar who is known as one of the most dangerous swordsman in the British Isles, but decide to conceal this information from Robin for their amusement. The result is the famous battle of wits at the river crossing which eventually results in a duel with longswords before the Friar recognizes his tormentor as Robin Hood. This is almost a direct port of the 16th century ballads and stories concerning the character.

Haha, no, I don't buy that this is what would come up on Family Feud in a million years. That's ridiculous.

"Bald" or "tonsure" or "shaved head" is much more likely.

If all the media you are exposed to is post about 1990, then all that exposure is actually working against you in terms of your familiarity with the traditional stories.

My exposure is since the 1980s and onwards, because, like most RPG players, last I checked, I wasn't alive much before that. You seem to be under the bizarre misapprehension that films from the 1930s and ballads from the 1600s have anything to do with how most people, i.e. the public, and by extension, gamers, see Friar Tuck.

It's not like Robin Hood isn't still a frequent subject of TV/Movies etc.

 

[Emerikol]

Reply to OP:

For reasons that are situational to the campaign, I could ban any class or race. Generally though I have never banned the core 4 classes or races.

I get the impression though that the question is not about what you'd do for a specific setting but rather what you'd avoid no matter what. So given that criterion, I don't know necessarily anything that is absolute. The tiefling is probably one I would ban *most* of the time. I don't like the race.

It is a standing rule in my games though that only the core 3 books are allowed by default. Someone bringing me something in another book, has to get it approved. If I feel strongly enough about something in a core book I will present it to the group before they even join my campaign.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Seriously? We're having a historical debate about Friar Tuck??

My original point was that Yes, there is a Western archetype for the Fighting Monk. Is that archetype historically accurate? Who cares and entirely beside the point. This is D&D, it has armored clerics and elven rangers. It draws from folklore and fantasy literature and pop culture. I would argue that monks who fight or brawl or whatever have as much a place in it as anyone. If you dislike the wuxia flavor, don't explain the monk that way, but don't claim that you're banning it because it "doesn't belong."

 

[Celebrim]

Friar and Monk are used interchangeably.

I rest my case.

"Bald" or "tonsure" or "shaved head" is much more likely.

Bald is certainly a good answer as well.

My exposure is since the 1980s and onwards, because, like most RPG players, last I checked, I wasn't alive much before that. You seem to be under the bizarre misapprehension that films from the 1930s and ballads from the 1600s have anything to do with how most people, i.e. the public, and by extension, gamers, see Friar Tuck.

If Ivanhoe, the Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, Robin Hood and His Merry Outlaws, the Adventures of Robin Hood and the like have so little influence on how the public and particularly nerds sees the character that they think he's a kung fu style martial artist, then I want nothing to do with their influences whatever they are. I'd at least expect nerds to recognize that Friars are not Monks. I'll take my jolly fat swordsman that uses a steel cap as a begging bowl any day. I know that the story is decaying under the weight of parody, deconstruction, and reimagination for fantasy settings but I would have liked to believe that the situation is not as bad as you say.

"Presently the willows parted on the other bank, and Robin could hardly forebear laughing out right. His mystery was explained. It was not two men who had done all this singing and talking, but one--and that one a stout curtall friar who wore a long cloak over his portly frame, tied with a cord in the middle. On his head was a knight's helmet, and in his hand was a no more warlike weapon than a huge pasty pie, with which he sat down by the water's edge. His twofold argument was finished. The meat pie had triumphed; and no wonder! for it was the present witness, soon to give its own testimony.

But first the friar took off his helmet to cool his head, and a droll picture he made. His head was as round as an apple, and eke as smooth in spots."

- From 'How Robin Hood met Friar Tuck', by J. Walker McSpadden

 

[Kobold Stew]

Bald is certainly a good answer as well.

Yes. Also: "quarter staff", "glutton", and "Slim Pickens"

(My information comes from Porky Pig,
Rocket Robin Hood, and Disney. Kids these days have no respect for the source material.)

 

[Celebrim]

Seriously? We're having a historical debate about Friar Tuck??

My original point was that Yes, there is a Western archetype for the Fighting Monk.

But not for the monk as it is mechanically depicted in D&D. Just because they share a name doesn't make them interchangeable.

Is that archetype historically accurate? Who cares and entirely beside the point.

Well, I care, but yes, it is beside the point. The point is that the monk as depicted in D&D isn't historically accurate for Korrel, the world I run games on. So far as I know, there is nowhere on the whole continent of Sartha that has a culture appropriate for the D&D monk class.

This is D&D, it has armored clerics and elven rangers. It draws from folklore and fantasy literature and pop culture. I would argue that monks who fight or brawl or whatever have as much a place in it as anyone.

You don't get to tell me what D&D is for me at my table any more than I get to tell you what it is for you at your table. If your D&D setting has Monks, great. If it's also thoughtful, artfully done, internally consistent, and imaginative then even better. But don't you don't get to tell me how to run my table no matter how well done yours is. You have a kitchen sink setting where that makes sense - Planescape, for example - then that's a great setting. But I'm in no way required to accept it as mine and run games there.

If you dislike the wuxia flavor, don't explain the monk that way, but don't claim that you're banning it because it "doesn't belong."

I don't know about 'wuxia flavor', since one of the current PC's is a Sidhe rogue that bounces around like Yoda in the prequels during combats doing summersaults over and under foes while slashing them with his rapier, but the Monk class just doesn't belong.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes. Also: "quarter staff", "glutton", and "Slim Pickens"

(My sources include Porky Pig,
Rocket Robin Hood, and Disney. Kids these days have no respect for the source material.)

LOL.

Also traditional, in their own way. The modern stuff tends to be parody of a parody, which renders it self-parody in my opinion. The sad thing is apparently people no longer are aware that they are watching parody.

 

[Emerikol]

Seriously? We're having a historical debate about Friar Tuck??

My original point was that Yes, there is a Western archetype for the Fighting Monk. Is that archetype historically accurate? Who cares and entirely beside the point. This is D&D, it has armored clerics and elven rangers. It draws from folklore and fantasy literature and pop culture. I would argue that monks who fight or brawl or whatever have as much a place in it as anyone. If you dislike the wuxia flavor, don't explain the monk that way, but don't claim that you're banning it because it "doesn't belong."

Hey it's a fantasy world so if you can fit it then it fits. The question is for most people would the monk as mechanically defined in D&D fit a traditional western european medieval setting. I think not. I though being DM and creator of my own campaign setting have added monks and it didn't make my campaign feel necessarily broken flavor wise because of it.

I tend to make my monks a secret order that trains like the Shao Lin temple of China. They "appear" to be normal monks. They instead are a secret society that serves some greater cause. They are often spies in the high courts of the world. Their grandmaster is thought to be a mastermind who is secretly manipulating half the thrones in the world. These monks always appear as normal monks and thus they get access to areas that are not available to a heavily trained and armored knight. When you need poisoning or knife work, the monk is often a capable agent. If you want the secrets to the Kings defense of the city, then perhaps a monk can find that too.

See... I just added monk back into the world.

I do have to agree though that there is nothing obvious in history that tells us such a thing as the D&D monk really existed in western Europe.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I rest my case.

So you agree? The words Friar and Monk are used interchangeably.

Bald is certainly a good answer as well.

It's a lot better and far more likely than "swordsman". Non-specific "warrior" or the like is also more likely.

If Ivanhoe, the Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, Robin Hood and His Merry Outlaws, the Adventures of Robin Hood and the like have so little influence on how the public and particularly nerds sees the character that they think he's a kung fu style martial artist, then I want nothing to do with their influences whatever they are.

I think you're somewhat confusing my argument with someone else. I'm not saying people see Friar Tuck as a D&D-style Shaolin-type Monk. I'm just saying that they absolutely do not see him as some sort of master swordsman-type. Fat, jolly, drunk, bald, he does fight - these things yes. But a "swordsman"? Not really.

Your 1938 film (which I have seen, but remember nothing of), 1940 book (which I have never even come across, despite liking Robin Hood, being British, and my mum being from right by Sherwood, I note), and 1820 book, yeah, they're not longer direct influences on the image of Robin Hood. Though that cute hat Errol has on still appears from time to time, usually to be mocked (I love those hats though!). Being annoyed by this will not change it.

I'd at least expect nerds to recognize that Friars are not Monks.

Not Shaolin-style Monks? I think most nerds recognize that, but I know not all of them do. Sometimes it's even the other way around! I remember being introduced to 1E (post-2E) and being very confused that there was this class called "Monk", by which I, with then zero-exposure to Kung Fu flicks, assumed meant "A fat bald religious dude in a habit", but this class was some sort of weird mystic. He did remind me a bit of Friar Tuck because he was unarmed and unarmoured, like most depictions of said Friar I'd come across, but he seemed pretty odd!

What I'm saying re: Friar/Monk is that the WORDS are used interchangeably in day-to-day English, or just monk is used.

I'll take my jolly fat swordsman that uses a steel cap as a begging bowl any day. I know that the story is decaying under the weight of parody, deconstruction, and reimagination for fantasy settings but I would have liked to believe that the situation is not as bad as you say.

I'm not trying to harsh your groove, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this. The only thing you may be thinking that I'm saying, but I'm not, is that people think Friar Tuck was a Shaolin-style Monk. It's not that bad! But they sure don't think about pre-1940s depictions of Robin Hood much when they have a wealth of post-1990s depictions.

I tend to make my monks a secret order that trains like the Shao Lin temple of China. They "appear" to be normal monks. They instead are a secret society that serves some greater cause. They are often spies in the high courts of the world. Their grandmaster is thought to be a mastermind who is secretly manipulating half the thrones in the world. These monks always appear as normal monks and thus they get access to areas that are not available to a heavily trained and armored knight. When you need poisoning or knife work, the monk is often a capable agent. If you want the secrets to the Kings defense of the city, then perhaps a monk can find that too.

See... I just added monk back into the world..

This is a cool take on D&D Monks, I have to say.

 

[MoonSong]

It is not because I am a control freak DM. after 12 years of powergamers in 3rd ed a few weeks in 4E before I binned it I got sick of the min maxing and most of it was due to player options. Feats, powers, ability to easily aquire magical items and combo them with feats and/or powers. Just makes DMing a pain in the ass. Basically you spend hours developing a world and story and the players like turning up with some cheeseball combo and ruining it IMHO.

But, not all combos are min-maxed by necessity. I'm not a power gamer, I'm bad at optimizing for maximum kill capacity, but I am a tinkerer, and something of a rules lawyer, I don't enjoy that kind of spotlight, but I like to get my characters just right, many of them aren't very conventional but I don't think they are exactly cheesy. And that is my problem with DMs that just make blanket bans, they take away my fun off the table which translates on me being less funny at the table.

As a player, seeing a DM with a shopping list of banned stuff does set off alarm bells in my heed. If the DM is, in my view, micromanaging the campaign to this degree, it's a sign that my playstyle will likely conflict and I should be asking a lot more questions before joining the group.

At least those DMs telegraph their intentions, but yes it is never a good sign. I have banned or modified some stuff in the past because it is overpowered, but beyond that I don't micromanage. I hate some classes, but ultimately each player is responsible for their own character and I won't hold it against them. I really don't enjoy micromanaging DMs.