Verboten! What do you NOT allow in your campaigns?

[The Kender]

Not allowed:
-The Monk Class (It doesn't fit well with my campaign, so its out...)
-Elves (They're evil and vampiric, IMC)
-Halflings that act like Kender (Do I need to actually explain this one?)

Talk to the DM first:
-Gnomes (The Gnome society is heavily modified, too long of a story to post here.)
-Anything not in the three core rulebooks plus my list of house rules.

 

[Desdichado]

Hey, if that shocks you, try my historical campaign on for size: no spellcasters and no non-humans.

Yeah, my campaign setting is so divergent in terms of what it removes from the game (and then substitutes) that I hesitate to even call it D&D anymore at all; it's just a d20 fantasy game.

No non-humans (technically)
No magic
Only three PHB classes allowed (but some other 3rd party classes to replace them).

 

[chris7476]

Not much love for paladins, gnomes, or monks. How sad.

For the DMs out there: do you think you're more likely to make restrictions based on campaign concept/flavor, personal taste or out of reaction to past campaigns?

My decisions are mostly based on bad experiences in past campaigns which is why I tend to be pretty open to what my players want to play. I've been in groups where low-magic and restrictions were an attempt to thwart "supposed" min/maxing and force people to role-play.

After that it's mostly personal taste. I run a traditional FR game so I don't really have any wacky variations. I like the core races and some of the +1 ECL races and that's about it. There are already too many nutty races out there for my taste.

I also see a lot of people like AU. Other than the faeries, I was very disappointed with the book. From what I read, I seem to be the only one that was. I do like the faeries though.

 

[Desdichado]

Not allowed:
-Halflings that act like Kender (Do I need to actually explain this one?)

I'd have said no, except for your username being what it is...

 

[BryonD]

No non-humans (technically)
No magic
Only three PHB classes allowed (but some other 3rd party classes to replace them).

fighter, rogue, .... barbarian??

 

[billd91]

1. The Vile Greyhawk Campaign (Vilehawk for short) - Yep, we're playing the bad guys. No good-aligned characters, no paladins, no bards, no halflings (well, no normal halflings anyway...) and no gnomes. I'm not sure gnomes even exist in the DM's version of Greyhawk. Everything else goes, with DM's approval.

No gnomes in Greyhawk? I find that kind of curious. That's one campaign where I always thought gnomes fit in reasonably well.

 

[Ourph]

Frenzied Berserkers.

 

[Desdichado]

fighter, rogue, .... barbarian??

Good call, yep.

 

[dave_o]

I'm running a game set in an alternative history 1840s America, so it's like the Weird West. But it's more of a Tank Girl Weird West than a Deadlands Weird West. So, thus far, I have these restrictions:

!There are no Gnomes, Dwarves, or Half-Orcs. Halflings are just an off-shoot of the human race, and Elves replace the Asian races.
!No metagaming, on pain of death.

That's pretty much it. Any feat/spell/prestige class/class/item that someone is interested in, I take a good look at, and think about. I guess my game isn't very restrictive at all.

Maybe we should start a "What weird stuff do you ALLOW in your campaigns?" thread.

 

[Thanee]

Playing D&D 3.5.

So, what don't you allow in your games?

Evil PCs - because it doesn't fit our playing style.
Pure Powergaming PCs - because it doesn't fit our playing style. Powerful, sure, but not without some reasoning and common sense.
Spiked Chain - because it is just silly.
Psionics - because we consider them completely unbalanced.
3rd party rules - not a general restriction, but we are reluctant to add anything. It's not like there aren't enough "official" rules already.

Hmm... I think that's about it.

Bye
Thanee