D&D 5E "When Running a 5E Campaign I Always Ban at Least One Core Race, Class, or Sub-Class" (a poll)

[Hussar]

Other than a couple of times because of setting restrictions, nope. And certainly not in a long time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Haven't even had to ban Paladins for two editions now.

 

[cbwjm]

I'll sometimes limit stuff, but typically not the core races/classes unless I'm going for a very specific setting. For something more general though, the core options are typically all in.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have done, but certainly not always.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Still early days, and I've seen a situation like this completely reverse, but...

I'm real damn surprised to see a majority "no." Real damn surprised. I couldn't count the number of people over the years who have been so gleefully delighted about the stuff they're going to ban.

 

[Guest 7034872]

No way. My players' fun is the whole point of this entire thing, and my own sentiments about "game balance" or what-have-you really aren't relevant. The players' fun is my purpose.

 

[Hussar]

Still early days, and I've seen a situation like this completely reverse, but...

I'm real damn surprised to see a majority "no." Real damn surprised. I couldn't count the number of people over the years who have been so gleefully delighted about the stuff they're going to ban.

I think it's yet another example of the Gnome Effect. Whenever we talk about stuff getting banned, those of us that don't generally ban anything don't really have much to say. "What classes do you ban in your game?" doesn't get much of a response other than "none". Those that do ban material are generally doing so for a fairly specific reason which they will generally want to discuss.

But, overall? I doubt banning actually impacts that many tables. If curated class/race options were overwhelmingly popular, we wouldn't see a bajillion new races on offer. And, from the D&D Beyond factoids we've seen, none of the classes are overwhelmingly popular or unpopular, at least suggesting that class often isn't much of an issue either.

 

[John R Davis]

Only if it really doesn't fit the adventure.
For example I assumed clerics would be way to needed and busy to allow on to be a PC in ROTFM, plus added more peril that way.

 

[delericho]

No. Sometimes I'll ban some options (e.g. gnomes when running Dark Sun, half-orcs in Dragonlance), and other times I'll discourage some options (in my next campaign I'll be encouraging everyone to take a subclass we've never seen before). But those are reasonably rare - I certainly don't always ban something.

I am extremely limiting when it comes to non-core material, but that was specifically something the OP didn't ask about.

 

[Larnievc]

Once again. . .

The premise:
True or False: "When Running a 5E Campaign I Always Ban at Least One Core Race, Class, or Sub-Class"

Note, it says "CORE" for the purposes of this poll not allowing stuff from non-Core books is not "banning" it is "not using an option," which is different.

My players are all mid to late 40s so we rarely playing anything more exotic than a halfling or orc. I’ve never had to ban anything.

 

[Tonguez]

Yep no tieflings, no dracons.

depending on campaign I’ve also removed dwarfs (they didnt fit), and made half-orcs and half-elfs into human variants.
if a player has a good concept I might allow them to play a half-dragon or a fiend-tainted human

 

[Hussar]

My players are all mid to late 40s so we rarely playing anything more exotic than a halfling or orc. I’ve never had to ban anything.

I really don't know why people seem to think this is an age thing. My group is six players (including myself). Our current campaign line up is a tiefling, war forged, owl folk, dragonborn and the reified dream of an aboleth. The youngest member of the group is over forty.

Last campaign? We had a kobold, goliath, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't remember off the top of my head.

I can't imagine playing D&D as long as we have an still sticking to Tolkienesque races. Don't you get bored of playing the umpteenth thousandth elf?

 

[Larnievc]

I really don't know why people seem to think this is an age thing. My group is six players (including myself). Our current campaign line up is a tiefling, war forged, owl folk, dragonborn and the reified dream of an aboleth. The youngest member of the group is over forty.

Last campaign? We had a kobold, goliath, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't remember off the top of my head.

I can't imagine playing D&D as long as we have an still sticking to Tolkienesque races. Don't you get bored of playing the umpteenth thousandth elf?

Dunno. I’m the DM. Haven’t been a pc is years.

 

[Larnievc]

I really don't know why people seem to think this is an age thing.

Probably an age thing.

 

[Mercurius]

I take issue with the word "ban," because it implies that D&D is one, set thing and all campaigns are, at core, the same -- a simulacrum of the core rules.

I have always followed the premise that every campaign is different, every setting is different. To some extent, D&D is D&D - and every D&D campaign draws elements from the same tool box. But not only are there other possible tools in a given campaign (house rules, unique elements to the setting, etc), but every DM will utilize different tools, based upon the setting they've put together.

So it isn't banning, because it there's no one-size fits all version of D&D that we all play. Certainly, the official rules provide a default, but that doesn't mean that every game should assume to include everything in the official rules.

Maybe I'm nitpicking on semantics, but I think "ban" has certain connotations that implies that if a DM doesn't include certain elements in their campaign world, they're being restrictive.

I mean, it isn't unlike cooking - say, a soup. If you don't include every spice and ingredient in your cupboard in the soup, you're not "banning" anything. You're just making a soup with specific elements towards some kind of theme or flavor.

 

[Cadence]

Sometimes. One recent game didn't allow the players to have any of the classic Demi-Human races in 5e. (The LNish humano-fascists were one of the enemies).

 

[Mercurius]

I really don't know why people seem to think this is an age thing. My group is six players (including myself). Our current campaign line up is a tiefling, war forged, owl folk, dragonborn and the reified dream of an aboleth. The youngest member of the group is over forty.

Last campaign? We had a kobold, goliath, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't remember off the top of my head.

I can't imagine playing D&D as long as we have an still sticking to Tolkienesque races. Don't you get bored of playing the umpteenth thousandth elf?

I think age is a secondary factor that may or may not impact a more primary factor: To what degree the players have been exposed (or are interested in) what we could call "non-traditional fantasy ideas" and other aspects of geek culture.

A lot of more casual players, and especially players that don't play video games or engage in a wide range of "geek culture," associate fantasy with Tolkien or Conan, or other more traditional, classic forms. So a dragonborn or warforged is exotic. Whether that is perceived as a good or bad thing, depends on the individual. Some are interested, some not - and the determining factor might mostly be a matter of subjective taste.

Even some long-time D&D players just never got into certain aspects of geek culture, be it World of Warcraft or anime or steampunk or whatnot.

And of course there's the matter of taste - different strokes for different folks.

 

[Reynard]

More seriously, I need to get better at "saying No" to players in order to achieve and/or maintain a certain tone or theme. I generally don't view it as the Gm's job to make character decisions, but at the same time I don't want funny talking bird people in my grim and gritty fantasy world.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Each campaign may have specific options allowed or banned so it depend. My courrent GREYHAWK campaign for exemple didn't have dragonborn available as a race. And tiefling is an extraplanar race most commonly found in Sigil and very rarely found on Oerth.

 

[iserith]

I take issue with the word "ban," because it implies that D&D is one, set thing and all campaigns are, at core, the same -- a simulacrum of the core rules.

I have always followed the premise that every campaign is different, every setting is different. To some extent, D&D is D&D - and every D&D campaign draws elements from the same tool box. But not only are there other possible tools in a given campaign (house rules, unique elements to the setting, etc), but every DM will utilize different tools, based upon the setting they've put together.

So it isn't banning, because it there's no one-size fits all version of D&D that we all play. Certainly, the official rules provide a default, but that doesn't mean that every game should assume to include everything in the official rules.

Maybe I'm nitpicking on semantics, but I think "ban" has certain connotations that implies that if a DM doesn't include certain elements in their campaign world, they're being restrictive.

I mean, it isn't unlike cooking - say, a soup. If you don't include every spice and ingredient in your cupboard in the soup, you're not "banning" anything. You're just making a soup with specific elements towards some kind of theme or flavor.

Completely agree. I don't really care about "balance," for example, so I'm not banning anything for that reason. I'm choosing which options are available based on the setting, tone, theme, etc. These are meant to enhance engagement and the play experience, not take away the players' toys. Creativity is also helped by reasonable constraints in my view.