Would you play in a campaign with racial/class limits of it fits the story?

[Thunderfoot]

I'm completely fine with these and many other sorts of restrictions just so long as (1) everyone is informed of this from the outset, and (2) everyone else buys in without any hidden sullen facial expressions. I'm even fine with scenarios like MGibster joked about so long as its purpose is to enhance the campaign's intended storyline (in my group, the actual storyline habitually diverges from the intended one).

What I would not be fine with is doing all of this while assuming everyone else is cool with it simply because no one openly objected when the DM floated the idea. Resentment and feeling demeaned rarely start at the mouth.

Good point, I assumed that this knowledge was upfront. But then that's my personal perspective, I wouldn't have thought of the, oh that's not allowed when it's put into practice angle. Thanks.

 

[J.Quondam]

What I would not be fine with is doing all of this while assuming everyone else is cool with it simply because no one openly objected when the DM floated the idea. Resentment and feeling demeaned rarely start at the mouth.

I don't quite follow. How is the GM supposed to know if a player is unhappy or uninterested unless that player speaks up?

Reading the table, player check-ins, and related skills are certainly helpful for a GM, of course. But the whole point of things like Session Zero, safety tools, etc, is to facilitate communication among a group of gamers.

Honestly, I would be a lot more irritated if a player was sullen throughout a campaign instead of just telling the GM (online or offline) that they're not enjoying it. That would bring down the whole group, and no one would necessarily even know exactly why! Which would be a shame, since I think most groups and GMs are happy to be accommodating for the sake of a better game.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I don't quite follow. How is the GM supposed to know if a player is unhappy or uninterested unless that player speaks up?

Reading the table, player check-ins, and related skills are certainly helpful for a GM, of course. But the whole point of things like Session Zero, safety tools, etc, is to facilitate communication among a group of gamers.

Honestly, I would be a lot more irritated if a player was sullen throughout a campaign instead of just telling the GM (online or offline) that they're not enjoying it. That would bring down the whole group, and no one would necessarily even know exactly why! Which would be a shame, since I think most groups and GMs are happy to be accommodating for the sake of a better game.

Well, this may be down to quirks of how I and my friends play, but we try to do it in person as much as possible. The DM and the other players around the table usually will be able to notice if one of us is looking distracted or perturbed; we've known, liked, and trusted each other for years now. In an online game with maybe half the players being people I didn't already know well, I imagine reading them would be much trickier.

My point there, though, was just that asking players if they're comfortable with something only once at the beginning and never checking back in with them as a follow-up--well, I wouldn't want to do that for the sort of game Thunderfoot has described. I'd want to check back with everyone during the intervening week and see how the whole idea was sitting with them, you know?

 

[nevin]

So, I love DMing campaigns that focus on periods of time gone awry or fantasy/history as a background to gameplay.

So if a DM said I have a campaign idea, but you can't play elves or mages or wombats in drag or whatever, is that a deal breaker or do you accept that the game can be fun within set parameters?

No wrong answers, just opinions. Understand this isn't about writing the DM's next novel or railroading just there is a reason that these don't exist. (Like no samurai in a Norse setting).

Alternatively, what would keep you from playing a situational campaign and why?

maybe depends on how restrictive it sounds and who I'm playing with. In general I find as soon as the DM starts saying he wants to run sci fi or no mages parties evaporate. Shame cause I love Sci Fi games.

 

[nevin]

Well, this may be down to quirks of how I and my friends play, but we try to do it in person as much as possible. The DM and the other players around the table usually will be able to notice if one of us is looking distracted or perturbed; we've known, liked, and trusted each other for years now. In an online game with maybe half the players being people I didn't already know well, I imagine reading them would be much trickier.

My point there, though, was just that asking players if they're comfortable with something only once at the beginning and never checking back in with them as a follow-up--well, I wouldn't want to do that for the sort of game Thunderfoot has described. I'd want to check back with everyone during the intervening week and see how the whole idea was sitting with them, you know?

this sounds like an experienced DM. some players will jump right in and tell you any thought in thier head even if they think you won't take it well. some will just shrug and roll with it even if they don't like it. Sometimes it's conflict avoidance, I've had players that were afraid I'd send them away and they didn't have another game to play in. it's really miserable to get 3 or 4 games into something new and find out everyone's not really onboard with it.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I've both played and ran campaigns with character restrictions, and ones without. I strongly prefer the ones with, but the ones without can be just as fun.

 

[J.Quondam]

Well, this may be down to quirks of how I and my friends play, but we try to do it in person as much as possible. The DM and the other players around the table usually will be able to notice if one of us is looking distracted or perturbed; we've known, liked, and trusted each other for years now. In an online game with maybe half the players being people I didn't already know well, I imagine reading them would be much trickier.

My point there, though, was just that asking players if they're comfortable with something only once at the beginning and never checking back in with them as a follow-up--well, I wouldn't want to do that for the sort of game Thunderfoot has described. I'd want to check back with everyone during the intervening week and see how the whole idea was sitting with them, you know?

Ah, gotcha! Yes, communication absolutely should be ongoing and in both directions, pretty much no matter the group or medium.

 

[Umbran]

"flawed reasoning" was the first personal stone thrown there.

Mod Note:
As Danny just told you in another discussion, you really need to familiarize yourself with the Terms and rules of this site. There's a link to them on the bottom of every single page of these forums.

Comments on moderation in the thread are apt to get you bounced with alacrity.

 

[FrogReaver]

This question greatly depends on individual circumstance. Generally I wouldn't play in a campaign that restricted content unless there was a very compelling reason. I like diverse options and not limiting possibilities in my fantasy. That said, I could understand why someone would limit such things if they were doing a historic fantasy or what have you. Those types of games are not my cup of tea though. If the DM/GM is enforcing limitations that impact player fun arbitrarily then I take that as a red flag.

I think alot there has to do with how much you trust your DM. I have no issue with the DM changing things up from campaign to campaign as it makes the game overall more interesting for me. It gives me a new unique and fun puzzle to solve at the start of each campaign - within these parameters what will be effective and fun to play.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I've never run a campaign in the last twenty years that didn't limit the races and/or classes listed in the core rules (regardless of system). Core rules are meant to be trimmed down to fit the setting and campaign.

I also have a house rule that you play your own gender.