D&D General What is your default approach to the rules, permissive or restrictive?

[Kannik]

Edit to add: There are games that are built out of permissiveness, because they give solid frameworks for it - Fate being a prime example.

This was one of the 'hurdles' for us to overcome when we started playing FATE (and primed us for additional similar games, such as Mouse Guard and Cortex Prime-based campaigns). We were used to games that had many heavily siloed or restricted areas and it was a shift to go to one that said "here are the keys to the kingdom -- what's interesting is how you limit yourself."

 

[greymist]

I voted permissive, because of the two choices it is closer to how I aspire to run my games. Like Lanefan, I don’t generally discourage a player from trying anything, but I do try to temper their expectations (the level 1 fighter is NOT going to cast a fireball by waving their hands) as needed.

I try to be a Yes, and… and a No but… DM, but I know I fail regularly. Since I generally run D&D 5E, my biggest concern is to get the players from self-restricting because they look to their character sheet for possible actions. Having cut my teeth on D&D in the old days, when I play, I tend to determine a potential action, check for equipment that I might be able to use, and look at skills only if the DM wants a roll. I want my players to do the same. So, I think that is permissive.

On the other hand, I don’t allow multi-classing, I limit PC ancestries, I allow only a few archetypes from the post-PHB books, and I outright ban stuff. That sounds very restrictive!

 

[Argyle King]

If you come to the table with the worst of all possible intentions, in the baddest of all possible faith, maybe. The book also doesn’t say you can’t roll a d4 or a d100. But it does say you roll a d20. If you need the book to list every die you can’t roll along side the one you should, that’s not a design problem, that’s a malicious player problem. The solution for that is simple. Show them the door.

I don't disagree with that.

Other things I've encountered include things such as the Ultra-Murder-Hobo Paladin: "no, see, I'm not violating my Oath because it doesn't specifically say..." [proceeds to murder an orphanage for the 'greater good']

Okay, yeah; maybe the rules don't specifically say that you can't do that and retain Good standing with Tyr, but I'm inclined to rule otherwise. Or, at least I would have, if it was a game I was DMing at home.

To be fair, I don't recall it being murdering an orphanage. If I remember correctly, it was crippling a child (by stabbing them in the leg) so that [I don't remember what the monsters were] would stop to devour the child and they (the paladin) could flee.

It was an Adventurer’s League game.
I wasn't the DM. Other players at the table (including myself) were less-than-enthused to play an entire session at that particular table.

Anyway, my point is that, I'm open-minded and like to encourage creative thinking. So, I want to say I'm "permissive," but there are alsp reasons why things like verisimilitude, shared race/class archtypes, and etc are important guiderails for what I believe to be an enjoyable D&D experience. In the context of this thread, some of those reasons come from having encountering scummy players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find it quite funny, honestly, that this poll is SO heavily skewed toward "permissive." My experience of discussing things like this with folks on this board has very much not reflected such a perspective. Like...pretty much precisely the opposite.

Though I suppose this could be due to the "well I said you could TRY, I didn't say you had even the slightest hope of SUCCESS" problem.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Permissive ... Except with respect to spells where I'm pretty restrictive. The casters don't need help