Well the starter set is in the mail and I am on the fence about buying the PHB or not. Anyway another thread was talking about the numbers of options allowed and it got me thinking. With sub classes I do not really see the point in allowing a vast amount of classes into my game. For example ATM I allow 12/13 classes in C&C but a few of them are really sub classes (assassin, knight). Hell to keep thinigs simple I'll probably ban a few subclasses as well like the Battlemaster Fighter. Anyway I like the core 8 classes/ These are usually available unless something like a setting has removed them ie Paladins in Dark Sun.
Fighter
Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
Paladin (LG only)
Ranger
Bard
Druid
I may allow the Babarian class but I am not a massive fan of the class and feel it should be a fighter subclass or even a back ground. Did not like the class in 1st,3rd or 4th ed. The 2nd ed one was not to bad IMHO as it was not a rager or anti social aclass like the 1st ed one. So the Babarian is in the maybe list.
Maybe.
Babarian.
And this leaves the no list.
Warlock (did not really like the class in 3.5, seems silly)
Monk (wuxia, wrong genre as I run a Eurocentric game)
Sorcerer (should be a wizard subclass, annoys me only allowed in PF)
Any subclass I do not like (non LG Paladins, Battlemaster Fighter, anything looking like a Warlord)
The reasons are varied but really after a simpler game and after running and playing 3.5/PF for 14+ years less options are good IMHO.
Races.
Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
Half Elf
Half Orc
Gnome
So around 56 options maybe 63 if I let the Barbarian in. Probably a few more due to subclasses but you get the idea. Probably use feats and once a few games have been run I with a new edition I normally start allowing more exotic choices in like humanoids, genasi, or Aasimar. Running a new edition with all the options is usually a bad idea I find as in 2nd ed I gradually allowed in some core book options let alone splat books. I always DM so anything that make my job easier is fine by me andin the rare few cases I get to play I do not mind the core 8 classes anyway as they are all new to me in effect regardless of the edition.
I will allow everything at start from the PHB. I share your sentiments on the warlord and battelmaster but I am waiting to hold off on judegement. The dragonborn will be dissallowed as PC race simply because I play in DL and dragonborn really go against the grain as a good guy race in that setting IMHO. I could see using them in a Non-DL game but most of my crew wouldn't play one and the one who would would only do it to irk me.
Just give the PHB a chance. I don't see a problem with limiting classes untill you get your feet wet but I think that players should have options unless it is a huge philosophical difference.
Zardnaar wrote:
I'd much rather see a class restricted for story/setting reasons than DM bias. When it's my turn to run a game, anything goes.
Nautilus wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
I was thinking of removing spell preparation classes and out-of-setting classes and only keeping bard, fighter, rogue, and warlock for my basic 4 classes. Then I remembered I'm playing with other people too and thought I might actually let them play what they want to play with the understanding player characters can also be the exception to the rule and not representative of anything else in the campaign world. It might even work and everyone will have fun. 
It's campaign setting dependant for me.
Ashrym wrote:
The DM's boss, so what they say goes. However, "I don't like it" is the poorest reason to exclude a race or class. It's the "Because I said so" of justifications.
If you're running a homebrew or published setting where particular races/classes are omitted and there's sound in-story justifications for doing so, that's much better. You might be doing an old-fashioned Greyhawk campaign and decide to only include races and classes from the 1e PHB (and maybe the barbarian). Or you could be running a Game of Thrones style campaign where humans are the only race. In cases like these, the limits' intention is to enhance & focus the flavor of the setting, not to highlight the limitations of the DM,
Nautilus wrote:
It's funny but I had come here just now to post something similar. I really am getting tired of the mentality of entitlement amongst gamers these days where they constantly argue about rules and use rules as a justification for allowing them to do something stupid just because they want to and feel they have a right to do what they want. There's this pervasive attitude that a DM should bend over backwards to accomodate a player's wishes because somehow it's become their game.
I can't remember who it was but I blame the person who first chanted the mantra of, "Just say yes." Personally, I think just saying no is often more important.
I'm at a loss as to what this thread is getting at. "I don't like these classes, so they're banned." Okay, you can do that at your table, we all know that. And....? What now?
Even when the setting doesn't normaly have something I always make an exception for the player characters, they are the stars of the story. They could be the last member of a dying race, a recently freed member of the race that was turned to stone along time ago, from another plane or world, etc.. If it is a class they they are could be unique and be the only paladin in a darksun setting drawing power from an unknown force with some epic destiny, anything goes.
Keep in mind that "no" works both ways. Players are just as free to say "No thanks, that campaign doesn't sound like my style."
Both sides have to agree or there is no game.
akaddk wrote:
If I run Ravenloft, dragonborn go bye-bye and half-orcs become caliban. But no classes banned.
If I run Midnight, dragonborn and tieflings go away and clerics and paladins are not available.
MisterFurious wrote:
For me the reason I almost always would ban the barbarian and not the monk is the fact that my world is probably full of barbarians. They are either dissociative or magical. I'd prefer not to have half the fighting men in the north be magical. So I'd ban it. I realize I could reflavor but conceptually I'm not even that big a fan of the beserker concept.
Now the monk, I can at least reflavor it a little and it is already a very rare class in my world. So I don't mind making the ki magic or supernatural if that makes the point better.
I'll ban any dissociative class that isn't worth the effort to reflavor to magic. I will almost always include Elf, Dwarf, Human, and Halfling. All other races are subject to being banned depending on the setting. They are like guest actors who appear occasionally but not always. My current world has dragon born but if you choose that race you take on a lot of baggage that is pretty much forced. So it's a roleplaying challenge which is very desirable for some players but not for others.
Paraxis wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Fellstrike wrote:
Fellstrike wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
sounds really boring
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I find the power of yes to be the most fun for everyone at the table.
Want to reskin an elf as a half dryad and change cleric class to drawing power from alien tech that only works for you sure, sounds like the start of some crazy stuff.
Think about the D&D novels, there are tons of characters that break the rules Alias, Cadderly, Elminster, that Spellfire lady, tons of them.
Anyway for actual advice for the thread.
You should probbaly look at the classes before you say you're banning them and you should probbaly see them in play as well. I would give them free reign the first time to pick any classes or races they wanted. If in game they end up not working that is when you bring them to a ban list.
You also should not ban somthing just because of your impression of it in an old edition. The Monk you gave a decent reason for not allowing as he does not fit the setting.
I'll be running with the Basic Rules core four Race and Class options exclusively, but I may after a peruse of the PHB switch out a sub-class or two from the basic builds if I think I can get something a little closer to the B/X feel. Maybe they're already as close as they'll get though, and that's cool too. I'm guessing that the character backgrounds are going to be sufficient enough for any rules based character customization my group will have tolerance for. They're not into game mechanics for the most part and usually just leave it up to the me.
TheZigZagist wrote:
I totally believe in editing down options for specific campaign worlds. I DM Dark Sun, and keep to the 2e/4e rules of Dark Sun. It should be obvious that no one should ban anything if a player wants it, and it can be balanced. Especially in a generic world like Forgotten Realms; which is apparently the default setting now.
My homebrew world is as follows. (Obviously, I might have to adjust this for 5e, in November. Or, postpone running my world for 5e until I can do so how I like to.)
Classes: (Easy. All allowed, including multiclasses/hybrid classes, if it fits and the background/story is cool.) Why restrict that?
Races: (Not so easy; this world has what it has.)
- Human (typical, but not the dominent race.)
- Elf (Eladrin/high elf, aquatic elf, and wood elf. No Drow.)
- Dwarf (5e subraces OK, Tinker Dwarves, no Duergar.)
- Halfling (5e subraces OK)
- Dragonborn (reflavored as lizardmen with a spit instead of a breath weapon. They can hock a loogie that does either acid, poison, fire, or cold damage. With practice, they can spray it for short range AoE attacks)
- Hobgoblins (Pretend they are Klingons. It's easier to understnad then.)
- Warforged (A discriminated against race; many feel they are property, not sentient peoples.)
- Tieflings and Aasimar (a 'split' race; kind of like in the movie The Dark Crystal. They are missing their other half. One is stereotypically 'light'; the other 'dark'. No alignement restrictions, as I don't like alignments as mechanics.)
- Unbound (My own creation*, of sorts. Intelligent, free-willed undead. They tend to look like the protagonist in that AWESOME game 'Planescape: Torment')
*If you'd like their 4e stats, I have that. I'm still waiting to do 'official' 5e stats for them....November...November...November...Arg. 
)
Mephi1234 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
You're free as DM to ban whatever you like (or rather don't like), and I am free as a player to say "Nope. Your campaign sounds boring and too focused on an overly familiar niche. I was hoping you'd be someone who would embrace a sense of shared fantasy and empower your players to be truly unique in a fantasy world, but I guess that's not to be. Happy gaming. I hope you find a group who is content to play within the same narrow niche."
/passive-aggresive
akaddk wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
All my games are run in my own setting, which includes the following playable races, depending on the point in the timeline:
• Human (and Belenian, a human subrace)
• Elf (and half-elf)
• Orc (and half-orc)
• Dwarf
• Changeling
• Thriss (wolf-folk)
• Meccyran (winged humanoids, only in post-Demon War)
• Polaris (bear-folk, only in pre-Demon War)
• Dragonborn (only in post-Demon War)
• Tiefling (only in post-Demon War)
• Gith (only in post-Demon War)
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
I don't outright ban any race or class, and definitely won't with 5e until I've had a chance to see the rules for them. My custom world was made for 4e (but due to firstworld obligations never got going) didn't allow kobolds as a PC race but it was story driven. I'm likely going to adjust the world to 5e and hope to get it going this time around.
There's space in my world for most of the races from all the editions and I may convert non-5e races should a player request it and be able to provide me with the source and only make the character after I provide them the conversion.
As for classes those are harder for me to justify any bans on since I have a campaign world that's not tied to a single Earth culture. It may mean a character isn't from the same area as the rest depending on their class choice, but that'd affect their race choice as well (no uber melting pot cities in my campaign, various races still have their empires, strongholds, and continents they call home).
I very likely will provide some optional custom backgrounds and subraces and subclasses. Possibly even custom races. I'm not likely to add any fully new classes unless they take too long to put out psionic classes.
My goal with all the players though is that they do some story background based on the materials I provide them (since it's a custom world it'd be unfair to expect them to do any sort of reasonable background without some "general knowledge" of the world). I'd likely start with some 101 level knowledge to start, then once they've picked a race / class provided them some more detailed knowledge based on those choices. This way they can have knowledge that their character is likely to know but not have too much knowledge of the lands their character hasn't been to yet. Of course if they want to make them an off-worlder I can work with that as well on a one-by-one case. My start point for the campaign doesn't require the PC's to know each other before hand and rips all of them out of their homeland to an area none of them would have a chance of being familiar with.
I'll reserve my veto powers for specific abuses or things that just absolutely won't fit (inbalanced, overpowered, too disruptive to the campain or the party cohesion), or bad player behavior (extreme hack'n'slash mentality especially).
Novacat wrote:
Luciender wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
I for one use a ton of names that NPCs will be calling them, but if the PCs call them by their common D&D names, the NPCs will understand – though possibly look down on them for using a vulgar, human-word for their noble race.
Azzy1974 wrote:
All classes and races welcomed at my table. No restrictions. Only requirement is imagination and allowing everyone to have fun playing what they want.
I really don't understand how people dislike Gnomes, unless they mean the tinkerer variety.
The idea of super intelligent small people strikes me as a hell of a lot more creative than Halflings which are nothing more than short humans.
Anyway, I feel sorry for any players who have to play with any GMs like the OP who is on an absolute ban fest and hates any and all creativity, simply caught in a Groundhog Day-like loop of playing the same Lord of the Rings story over and over and over and over...
I mean, I can understand reflavoring classes. I mean, maybe Monks are really just a stand in for bare-fist brawlers who focus on perfecting their bodies. And Warlocks that utiize demon magic are... well... not going to find acceptance in most campaign worlds. Their powers are probably going to destroy the world.
But no Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil Paladins? No Berserkers? No Warlords?
No Hobgoblin or Orc or Tiefling mercenary PCs?
Just because he is vanilla and boring? Glad I am not playing with that guy.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Grazel wrote:
I have no sympathy for this want to ban this or that, especially for such petty reasons of "I never liked them in 3.5 they seemed silly".
It isn't your character! You're not the one playing with those mechanics! DMs have control over the entire cast of the story, keep your mits off of the PCs.
It is trivially simple to change the flavour of any class/race/whatever a player wants to play to fit whateverthecrap setting you're currently using that there is never any reason to ban anything. Dragonborn in Ravenloft? The mists suck creatures from across the multiverse into Ravenloft ALL THE TIME. That's literally what they do. Dragonborn to Deathknights they all can get caught in the mists and stuck in Ravenloft.
As others have said, the PCs are special, they are unique, they are the heroes of the story and most importantly DMs, their character is the ONLY thing they have in the game. Stop saying no and learn to say yes. It's not your show, it's EVERYONE's show.
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Nothing wrong with banning races/classes if it supports the world, if I run a 2nd Ed Historical Reference Greco-Roman campaign, shardminds and Incarnates are off the table.
Kinda makes me want to ban the "classic" stuff.
No fighters, clerics, rogues, or wizards.
No humans, elves, or dwarves.
You have to play something different.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I have always wanted to run an all anthropomorphic animal campaign, like Wind in the Willows, but with an edge.
You could have your fox wizard, owl druid, badger fighter, mole monk, could be a blast.
Brock_Landers wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
Novacat wrote:
I keep trying to get people to play an all elf game (high, wood, dark, half-), or an all monster game (tiefling, drow, half-orc, dragonborn).
Brock_Landers wrote:
EMR wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Novacat wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
mellored wrote:
Novacat wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Some of you act like you are stuck in a bad game for years if you enter one.
If someone has put a lot of effort into a campaign and prefers I not play a monk for whatever reason or asks us all to play dwarves, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I normally enter into a new game looking for something that fits into the group, the world, and the campaign the DM has prepared. Poorly designed or poorly executed campaigns rarely last for more than a few sessions anyway and we can move on to something else as a group or I can move on to a different group!
As a DM, I always run my own homebrew. There are some races that don't fit well and a few race/class combos, but I will generally allow players to run them (though it can be tiresome roleplaying the reaction every time the group enters a new town and the dragonborn causes a stir). I guess I am lucky in that I share my game table with the same core group of players who have been adventuring in my world for 30 years. There's enough trust there that we can usually sort out differences. The players have done a lot to shape the world over the years and have an investment in maintaining the character of the campaign. If something seems offbeat, they normally ask how it might fit into the campaign. Again, I normally allow most stuff, but things like dragonborn, drow, warforged, etc are rare and we need to work together to figure out why these folk are tramping around the countryside. Other players have come and gone over the years, but I've never had someone rage quit because I wouldn't let them play a halfling barbarian...
In the end I DO reserve the right to veto something as the DM, but MY players have always been ok with that...
Novacat wrote:
My feelings on this topic are expressed thusly:
Novacat wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
seti wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Especially for races I think no is really important for a DM to say. Classes I think you can re-flavor enough to fit most settings, but races are a lot harder because there is only so much space in the world. Eventually with all the race bloat from supplements the world wont make sense to include them all. Hell its hard to buy with just he players handbook races. Sure some settings like planescape you can have a anything goes attitude. Most other settings don't work like that though The DM is spending dozens of hours preparing a world, setting up adventures and you want to bitch because you lack the creativity to make a character out of 5-6 races, you need to be your special little snowflake shardmind or whatever. Jebus show some courtesy to the person busting their ass so you can play a game. They have enough on their plate without having to cater to everyone's petty whims. Now if you want to spend dozens of hours working with the GM before the campaign is built I doubt he would have an issue integrating shardminds into the game world with you. You want to come in after the fact, I say tough crap I have enough on my plate making the next adventure, fleshing out the NPCs in the town etc without having to add a plausible reason to have shardminds in the campaign.
Novacat wrote:
mellored wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
So I guess we have come to the conclusion that you can run your game the way you want to regardless of gender, race, national origin, religion, age, marital status or disability?
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
mellored wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Sling617 wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
I wonder, Gizmoduck... do you have the same problem with githyanki, ilithids, aboleths, and drow? All of these are classic D&D monsters whose names inform us of nothing about the creatures, and which (to my knowledge) have no real-world etymology. They were made up, arbitrarily, by game developers, because they had a creature that needed a name. And yellow-psychic-alien-folk just doesn't have the same ring.
Novacat wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Players ruin worldthemes. That's just something they do.
The "integrity" of any given world is going to get wrecked pretty badly, whether or not any given player is allowed to play a totally-not-a-robot or one of those hippo-people.
Qmark wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I am sad that happened to you. Did you ever speak to the DM about what was going on or did you find a new group? One of my old gang of players admitted to being gay years after our last campaign and said he was gay at the time but didnt think we needed or wanted to know. I always assumed he just could not get a date... turned out he was getting more dates than I just that he ran in different circles. Still the same guy, still part of the crew. Thing is If he didnt tell you you would not know... or i wouldnt. My Gaydar is non-functioning. I can only imagine your situation must have been much more difficult.
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Grazel wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I have a standing "no gender-bending" rule in my games, simply because 9 out of 10 times that I've seen it, it's pointless and insulting (to both sexes). That said, I've never had anyone press the issue, or have a compelling reason to make an exception. I think I would probably allow it if a player felt very strongly about it.
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
I will wait to see if the DMG will have any options as far as alternate leveling systems and multi classing HOWEVER the one thing I do not like is the current system of muticlassing and am currently thinking on either:
A) Arranging classes into subclasses of one another and not allowing to multiclass with a subclass
or
B) Once you switch a class you cannot return ro it
Just hate the idea of Paladins who became Thieves once they left the monestary to go to wizardry school
Thunaer wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I think my dislike for version 3+is it tends to turn into how can I make my character uber as quick as possible. While i like the idea of "Rules should never get in the way for a story or entertaining situation" it stops becoming fun for me as a DM when i have to craft a story when characters constantly abuse brokem mechanics.
quindia wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Novacat wrote:
I fully agree with restricting players' options as much as possible based on my own tastes and preferences. I also don't much like it when my players talk, since it disrupts the flow of the carefully crafted narrative I am trying to weave. Lately, I make them all wear ball gags when we play.
Grazel wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
I need to figure out a way to incorporate the mechanical and aesthetic aspects of the drow into my setting. I'm running Mystara, so the local evil underground elves are profoundly different, but someone might want to use the drow stats and look.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
On the whole naming debate, I fall into the side of having original names for uncommon things. For example, I find Novacat's names to be quite good. Where my gears get ground is when authors go out of their way to provide a glossary to replace simple words. Like calling children younglings or making up words for simple concepts like that.
Novacat wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
EMR wrote:
I have never heard of a DM restricting gender, never thought about it, or seen it enforced.
I say we all contribute to a new lexicon of names for all D&D monsters/races based on Gizmoduck's absurd and hostile reasonings (there have been some gems already).
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Novacat wrote:
How about CSI: Waterdeep, NCIS:Sharn, and L&O:Tyr, to highlight three separate, important settings? Maybe even a Say Yes:Sigil for kicks and giggles, complete with cross-species weddings. and outlanding planar wedding dresses.
Novacat wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Artifact wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Yeah Novacat, Grëtkin is good stuff. I have my own stories for Goliaths (they're sort of Norse Giant-men, one of two major human-like races alongside the Tuathan-Half-elves), but I really like the flavor you've got going on there. :D
Brock_Landers wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Y'know, there was a time I cared about worlds
This was before I realised my favourite worlds were the one where there was a failed elven expedition to the moon, a flying battleship powered by dark gods, and a gigantic cathedral of Every God which constantly grows like the House of Leaves. Also the Elf Queen (Queen of all the elves. High, Dark, Wood, all of them) was elbow deep in assassination conspiracies, the Empire is toying with annoying the forces of nature to the point it will end in some horrible war, and demons run a casino where they gamble away souls
If you can make something work, do it. I've heard of more elves ruining campaigns than I've heard Warforged doing the same
You know, I'm thinking now... what if I do a world where the core races aren't allowed as PCs?
The Elves are extremely rare an extremely socially powerful. The High Elves in fact rule over everyone as royalty, with 90% of them living in the inner most district of the city in the center of the world and others being recluses in the lord's towers in the middle of major cities, interacting with outsiders only through their agents. No one who is not an artistocrat or royal agent ever sees them. Wood Elves basically live in the fey wild or deep, deep in the forests surrounded by fey and forest goblins and other wild creatures that ensure that no average person ever comes close and they have no interest in interacting with the High Elves' peasants.
Halflings just never existed in the world. Period.
Gnomes are generally agents of the Elves, though there might be the rare free one.
Dwarves, as far as anyone knows, went extinct centuries ago.
Half-Elves and Half-Orcs really aren't so much a thing...
Tieflings and Warforged are rare and generally disliked. They are playable, but be prepared to be run out of town by an angry mob.
Dragonborn are alien enemies likely to kill you on sight and Kobolds are their minions.
Orcs and Goblins are generally slaves or savages. They would be playable, but you generally wouldn't be highly respected among civilized society, kind of living in the gutter and the first to be accused whenever something goes wrong.
Hobgoblins are split between being being the military strong arm of the High Elves or whipping the savage races into a rebellion against them. So they are playable, but generally not trusted as they are either enemies of the state or corrupt lackies of the oppressors.
So basically the choice would be human or be saddled with some serious social disadvantages.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
You want a game without core races, yeah, humans have to be the first to go
And naturally the solution to your conumdrum would be a Thrii-Kreen hunting party and destroy the Elven empire. If there is a despotic Elven empire, the answer is always "Go Thrii-Kreen and see how many elves we can kill". Sow the seeds of revolution. Free the orcs and goblins from their chains and lead a bloody spearhead into the traitor Hobgoblins. Feast upon the first High Elf who you see, but not his head. You leave the head as your war banner, even as the carion birds peck at it. Conquer more land like an unstopable wave of locusts. Give arms to the conquered ones with the simple promise they will be free if they help you destroy the elves. Break free the Ancient Ones and strike at their citidel.
Sunder the very world apart.
Zardnaar wrote:
Gatt wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
We have been quite insular it seems. I'm careful who I invite into my house to play with and we do not play at gamestores even when we had them. Never had those type of problem players and I will generally know someone for months before I invite them to a game.
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
CelticPaladin wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Just as a humourous aside. When I first saw this thread, I misread it. I missed the first period, so I thought it said, "The Power of No Allowed Races and Classes." That's powerful enough to stop a game cold. Then I clicked the thread to see what such a thread was trying to accomplish and was like......AHA!
Orethalion wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Swede1985 wrote:
Swede1985 wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Qmark wrote:
I do human only settings. I have done others in the past. I remember a guy that used to come play with us 20 years ago. He would pick up the monster manual to find what race he wanted to play. That just did not fly with us. Additionally, the elves and most monsters have very different abilities or the way their abilities work are different than in the monster manual or book. The typical elf in my campaign has a movement of 300, can lift a ton, and cast many 1st to 6th level spells. It's a different type of setting.
I try to offer alternatives to the races from the getgo, I have a changeling race, Sorcerer with a dragon bloodline, or eldritch feats to simulate characters that are still human, but with an otherworldly background. This particular setting new people are not invited to play. We do a typical Pathfinder adventure path game and sometimes play M&M where just about anything goes. And those type of settings are very cheesy to me, I play them more for the company.
I don't enjoy players that want to play owlbears, Golems, Skeletal Warriors, Grimlocks, and Drow. Drow were badass villains before they were made into PC races. I can tolerate elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, orc, but after 20+ years I really enjoy different settings.
dmgorgon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Bottom line for me is I don't need your permission nor your blessing to leave something out of my campaigns.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
akaddk wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
In the end, "no you can't play a drow soulknife", doesn't really change a whole hell of a lot. All the table will get out of it is a temporarily disatified player at best, or an absent player at worst.
Qmark wrote:
Last night in a dark fairy tale adventure one player played a swashbuckling-romance character, another an amazon out of Hyboria, and a third a warrior from a swordfighting tribe called "Bangerang". It may have added something had we worked together to make the characters and setting complement each other ahead of time, but it was a sudden one/two-session affair.
Usually our players and DM discuss what to do beforehand; getting the characters and adventures to agree in flavor means the players start with a concept that fits, and we see what class and race rules to use for it on a one-by-one basis. If the players can make them fit, with some thematic adjustments, even a paladin could mechanically enter ancient China as a demon-queller sworn to hunt down the supernatural ills of a kingdom, and a monk could enter ancient Rome as an pugilist.
I did have a 3e space fantasy adventure where I replaced all but humans with homebrewed races (more than "mutant humans"), and the players actually liked them better. Dropping options (and/or adding new ones) is less about restricting players from doing something they want, and more about changing the paradigm of the campaign. It's supposed to be new and fun.
Azzy1974 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
It's interesting how this thread mirrors so many things in American culture. The push towards polarization. Certain people have strong views about "DM final say" and "players get final say" ends of the spectrum and if anyone falls in between they get relegated to the opposing extreme by these people.
Yes the DM has the final say, but the player should get a say at least, just not be guaranteed to get their way. The DM should also be flexible enough to change their mind if the player can provide a good reason.
Yes the DM makes the campaign usually (or at least provides a framework for it) but the players live in it and can change it. If a DM comes across as heavy handed in class/race options what does that indicate about how the campaign will play out. Many players will see this as meaning they can expect a minecart ride of a campaign where jumping the rails means a crash and burn. If the DM is seen as willing to alter their mind with a valid reason (or just a novel character concept) then that would indicate the campaign could very well end up lasting longer and being more interesting because the player/character actions actually impact the way it develops rather than following a script with only an illusion of impact (aka video games).
Yes this places me pretty close to the center between the extremes. I've gotten this way from being a player and a DM in many TTRPG's over a 30 year span of time. I've rarely ruled out an option for players (and when I did it was for a story-driven reason with the possibility the players could "unlock" the option during the campaign for adding in future characters) and when I had DMs who were too strict about what was allowed I found the games ended up not being a lot of fun and stifled my creativity and tendency to play unique and unpredictable characters (satyr bard/skald with displacer beast companion as a recent example). I also found that having DMs that tried to railroad the party down a certain path wasn't enjoyable either as it removed most of the decision making for character actions from the players (the better written adventures/modules at least had some flexibility in how they were done or were good about 'nudging' a party towards a certain goal).
Of course the DM has to have the ability to veto anything and have it stick (to avoid god-killer 1st level characters like I had some players try to bring in from other campaigns) but the DM should be careful about pre-emptive vetos (as in banning too many races/classes). Any character creation restrictions should also be given to the players at the time they're invited to play, before they create a character. Nothing stings more than getting invited to play a game, making a character (or even just a character concept) and then just before play get told you can't have that character, especially if the character fits the RAW of the rulebooks so is normally expected to be allowed.
Grazel wrote:
Grazel wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Gatt wrote:
To be fair, the materials provided so far did say optional races and classes. It said so right in the playtest. I just don't understand a reasonable request for an exception with a good backstory as to why we're doing something different.
emwasick wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Qmark wrote:
ittyan wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I tend to find that when i engage in any activity as an adult, with other adults, i like to communicate with others about what we want out of the activity. It's not some artificially extremist "player entitlement" or "DM entitlement' gargage. There's no need for anyone to be pushing their ego on anyone else when you can sit down and have a rational discussion like mature human beings and figure out what works best for everyone.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Qmark wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
emwasick wrote:
[quote="Emerikol."] I think in general though players do a lot of tolerating. [/quote]
And I think that's a shame. Everyone is putting in time. If the DM loves to draw maps, create charts, build NPCs, and write detailed histories, cool for him. He's having fun doing that, so I don't see why his sense of style or his preferences or his habits are sacred. It's really no trouble to say that some nomadic goliaths roam the foothills or that a nearby tribe of advanced lizardfolk often serve as mercenaries and laborers. It's not a huge stretch to say that a little while back someone opened the tomb of the first emperor, releasing 10,000 warforged who had waited patiently within for millennia, or even that a rift into an elemental demiplane spat out a massive city full of genasi a few centuries back. As long as a character isn't taken as a license to ruin everyone's fun (e.g. kender, in some players' hands) then there's no reason not to fit it in. "Yes there is - I just don't want to," is a possible reply, but that sounds a lot like the 'sense of entitlement' Xun complains about or the 'toy-throwing' that Zardnaar attributes to bad players.
Emerikol. wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
emwasick wrote:
emwasick wrote:
I just don't see why any DM would not want to talk to their group first about what they're interested in before designing a campaign. It's simply a matter of communication and knowing your audience—the goal a game (any game) is to ensure that everyone is having fun (DMs and players alike).
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
emwasick wrote:
emwasick wrote:
I personally feel like this is more a case of someone having a party and offering dozens of snacks but they left potato chips off the menu so you throw a fit if I don't run to the store and buy a bag. Sorry. I am as a DM more than willing to tell you the details of the party before you come. You are invited to attend but you are not invited to take over the party and impose your own agenda.
World creation is the DM's job. I think I create some really interesting worlds. If you don't then I'd find another DM. I personally find these weak knee'd DMs who allow anything and everything no matter what have very shallow worlds that lose me quickly. I far prefer a DM who really puts in the effort to build a great world. If he does I'll find something to play in that world.
I'm a big proponent of player agency but I want that agency to be about playing their character and not reshaping the world outside their character.
The idea that a DM would come up with a (non-standard) campaign idea, show up expecting the players to have made characters, and only then revealing the restrictions he wants, is alien to me as well. Of course he's going to talk over the framework and/or setting restriction with the players in advance. Why wouldn't he?
Semi-Tangential Anecdote:
I recall years ago, we were all discussing character ideas around the table for the new campaign (this was early 3.5). Of the five players, three of us expressed interest in playing a dwarf. So this got us all talking. Before we knew it, we decided on the all dwarf party. The other two had quickly jumped on board--along with the DM frantically scratching notes to tweak the story on the spot--and we got started.
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
emwasick wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
emwasick wrote:
emwasick wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
One thing the thread proves is that some people can't handle even a theoretical "no."
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I'm reminded of a scenario in one of Terry Pratchett's books where the Archchancellor laments that he could do a great job of running the Unseen University if it didn't have to accommodate those confounded students. Similarly, a DM can put together a beautifully intricate campaign world, but wince when those noisy, entitled players show up, eating chips and putting their feet on the furniture.
To which I say: tough. Players have their own ideas, they will not treat every aspect of the setting as reverently as you might wish, and they will want things not on the initially prescribed menu. The vast majority are there to have fun, run PCs they enjoy playing, and be inspired by your material. No one (or hardly anyone) wants a DM who's out to teach them a lesson about their 'entitlement'. I don't see athe point in treating the players as troublemakers by default, and automatically vetoing any suggestion that might modify your original concept.
Players are, in fact, a valuable creative resource. Being flexible and working with them leads to a richer gameworld and a better gaming experience for everyone.
The one thing I don't get it as I skim these arguements (because in all honesty all the vitrol and back and forthing wears on me after a time) is this idea of "but it doesn't fit my 'theme'"
Firstly, as a newer DM, if I have an idea for a "campaign" I plan some of it out, and then introduce it to the players. If most of them say "No" I change the concept. Why? Because I don't have a surplus of players pounding down my doors and I just want a good story so I'll compromise.
Second, if most of the people agree but one person is a little reluctant or wants to play a different concept I'll work with them. I'll use dwarves since everyone seems to love them on this thread. So let's say I create a campaign world where everything takes place in the underground kingdoms of the dwarves, so I'd prefer everyone to play a dwarf. But one player wants to play an elf, or a warforged. I'll work with them to see if we can get it to fit. Maybe the elf is a diplomat or a trader from the surface. Maybe the warforged was recently crafted as a smith's masterpiece. Why do I do this? Because as long as he isn't trying to disrupt the group out of spite I don't care. I'll bend the world a little to make it more enjoyable to them. Heck, they may have inspired an idea or twist to the world that makes it a better story.
If they are just trying to be disruptive, I'll say no. Heck, for the 4e game I just started I laid out a few of the races and classes I'd prefer if people didn't play. Psionics because I was running it for a lot of new players and I didn't want to teach them two seperate systems, and things like Devas or shardminds because I had difficulty with their flavor. If someone had really insisted, I probably would have let them, but everyone seemed cool with it.
I think in the end, this is why I can't understand this thread.
Saying "I'll never allow dragonborn in any game at my table" sounds inflexible and controlling to me. If you aren't willing to compromise I can't imagine trying to make something or do something that hasn't been laid out in your plan.
On the other hand, every time I've seen a DM lay down restrictions on race or class, the players have been cool with it. I've rarely seen people leave if the DM let them know before character creation is over.
Also, what is wrong with trying to make a character who is special in some way? I've heard this "no special snowflakes" line so many times, but the players are special, aren't they? Read the class descriptions. Paladins are those whose oaths and convictions are above ordinary. Bards are the few who know the magic in the music. Ect, ect ect. The fighter isn't just Joe Schmoe, or faceless swordsman #1. I get not liking the over-the-top stuff "My soul was infused with the essence of a dying god on the eve of a great battle and I slew 6 giants when I was a babe" is ridiculous, sure. But sometimes when people say these things on the forums I get the feeling people want their players to be no more than extras on the movie set and it confuses me.
Chaosmancer wrote:
autolycus wrote:
It's not really a debate. It's more of a "who can scream louder on the internet" contest.
The cure for this is to avoid the scream-fests.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Players... the DM is your friend. She's someone you're deliberately choosing to spend a few hours with every week. Perhaps the campaign she's suggesting has been brewing in her mind for years. It's her opus, her greatest idea ever, and she's understandably a little protective of its core tenets because she wants to make sure it's as good as she planned, that everyone enjoys it as much as she wants, that the story is talked about for years to come and the encounters just knock people's socks off. Keep that in mind when interacting with her and discussing ideas. People are more important than games.
DMs... the player is your friend. She's someone you're deliberately choosing to spend a few hours with every week. Maybe that character idea she just brought to you has been squirming in her head for weeks. Maybe she's been itching to play it for months. Maybe that detailed backstory that doesn't account for your world's themes is there because it's the only outlet she's had for this character who sprung fully-formed into her mind and is demanding to be played. Maybe she's tried to use the character at two other tables, assuming she has access to other games run by DMs as skilled as you who she trusts with this character she already cares deeply for in spite of having never actually played her, and been turned down because one table's doing all dwarves in a civil war and the other's playing Heavy Gear. Or maybe you're the only DM she trusts to makethe story this obviously-compelling-to-her character deserves. Maybe you're the only DM she has access to at all. Keep that in mind when interactinf with her and discussing ideas. People are more important than games.
To claim that either side ought to get all of what it wants every time is selfish and, frankly, mean-spirited. It prioritizes story over people, self over others, and game over friends. Sit down, understand that everybody's invested in this and if they're not you probably want them at your table less than the ones who are, and work out how to get the most important parts of what everybody wants without making the game unfun for anyone. Trust me, it's nearly always possible, as long as people are willing to remember that people are more important than games.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I wonder, which is better.
Scenario 1
DM: I'm running a game that features a grim gothic setting, where townsfolk lock their doors in fear each night and wolves howl in the distance. That means no gnomes; they're too goofy.
Player: I want to play a gnome and nothing else. Can't I be the only gnome around, say, a lost traveller?
DM: Absolutely not. My game has no gnomes, and that's it. Either play something else or don't play at all.
Player: All right then, I won't. Goodbye.
DM: Goodbye.
Scenario 2
DM: I'm running a game that features a grim gothic setting, where townsfolk lock their doors in fear each night and wolves howl in the distance. That means no gnomes; they're too goofy.
Player: I'd really like to play a gnome. Can I be the only gnome around, say, a lost traveller?
DM: Sounds a bit too contrived. Do you have a better idea for your gnome PC?
Player: Hmm .. What if the gnomes here were sinister, like the Trust secret police gnomes from the Eberron setting?
DM: Yes, that might work. People here could whisper about how the gnomes who live in the forest steal children and waylay travellers. OK, then. There are no rock gnomes, but you can play a forest gnome.
Player: Sounds good! In fact, I'd like to be a gnome who grew up in the house of a couple who had their child stolen. He has a Bond to his lost 'sibling', who he's vowed to find.
DM: Excellent - let's play!
Nautilus wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Grazel wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I used to like class/race restrictions because it gave each campaign a mechanical flavor instead of just storyline flavor.
Now, 20 years later, either I'm getting tired of defending my position in a game and just allow everyone to play what they want, or I'm just becoming creative in other ways to make the game feel special.
I can't tell which.
Probably just old and crotchety and don't like arguing with young wippersnappers over what they can and cannot play at the table.
#BookofNineSwords
ivstin wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Grazel wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Grazel wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I hope I didn't come across as saying that players should never compromise or work with the DM. Sometimes I get a bit heated when I see these, "Players are spoiled children" rants. Every group I've been in has had multiple DMs, so I don't think there's even a distinction except for whose turn it is to DM.
When my campaigns have been limited in the past, I've always found a way to add what players want. "Hey I don't see goliaths in here - could one of those tribes be goliaths?" "Sure, good idea." "I want to play a changeling - is there a way they could fit in?" "Yeah. Hell, you could be a changeling and I wouldn't know." To some DMs cooperative world-building is apparently a challenge to their authority or an insult to their ability. I don't get it.
Grazel wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
emwasick wrote:
I'm totally open with players running their characters how they want. Those characters though have to originate in my campaign world in a sensible way and they have to abide by the laws of that universe.
When I invite people to play in my campaign, I do spell it out up front what the game is about. They can join the game or not. I don't force anyone to join. If it ever happens that I get no one accepting my invite then I'll reconsider my campaign concept. I consider that hypothetical because so far it has never happened. The opposite in fact.
I object to the idea that only one single character concept will suit you. There is an entire world full of concepts. If you insist on something not relevant to the world then I already know the kind of person you are and I don't want you in ANY of my games. I'm just thankful that I found out sooner rather than later.
I don't run blank slate world. I don't want to accomodate anything. If I did there would be no point in ever having any kind of campaign setting but one. The all inclusive D&D implied world. I just don't want that every single time.
Emerikol. wrote:
emwasick wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Am I the only person who doesn't understand why people care about what other people do in their games they're not playing?
Thalion94518 wrote:
In my campaign, Next World, the only way for the adventurers to get to Immersion is to take the Maiway Highway. The ditches on either side of the road are littered with the rusted parts of warforged.
Orethalion wrote:
emwasick wrote:
When I DM a game the goal for me is too have the whole group enjoy it, having said that there are definatly times that I have said no to a player. When I DM I tend to try new or different things, campaigns, and styles for that matter. One thing I always keep the same is the final say. Ive had players come up with some stupid ideas that when I said no they got offended so I left them too their things and guess what, time after time their group either broke up or they came back and acknowledged that they where wrong. Does that mean I dont listen too my players, no it doesnt, like I said my goal is for group enjoyment. but some people can be good players but get out of control if you let them. So I will back every DM on this matter, because the simple thruth is if they abbuse this they will lose their group. I know I wont stick around for a DM that sucks. Ill strait up walk out on them and let them know they suck.
Thalion94518 wrote:
Gatt wrote:
kev777 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Thalion94518 wrote:
Gatt wrote:
One of our homebrew settings used D&D Essentials exclusively. Only the races and classes that appeared in those books were 'on the table'. In addition, the setting was a nod to old-school D&D, So, no dragonborn, tieflings, or warlocks (these were off the table). Just humans, dwarves, eladrin, elves, and halflings. We did eventually 'expand' the list with classes from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms (one player had a druid PC-- introduced outside the city).
That all said, if a player had came to me (as DM) and really, really wanted to play a warlock, I would have worked with him or her to make it happen. For one thing, it was an evil campaign (we played corrupt city guards). So I could imagine there being warlocks, somewhere in that world. Tieflings, same thing. Dragonborn would have been more of a challenge.
As DM, I don't want to ever squash player fun. I have mine squashed a few times in the past and it sucks* ;). If they're insisting on something just to be difficult, that's another thing (and it happens sometimes). For the most part though, people are reasonable if you give 'em a chance (don't cold block 'em). 'Specially my gaming buddies.
= = =
* One of my favorite classes in early editions was the paladin. I was so surprised at how many people thought I was out to cause trouble by choosing that class. I just enjoyed playing the cheerleader, motivating others, healing when necessary, able to hold my own in fight**. I didn't wanna be some stick in the mud, I wanted to be 'Captain America' . A lot of times, the DM would flat say no (like I was asking to play some PvP backstabbing thief). Or, just as often, they'd look for any chance to play Gotcha! Some assumed being a LG paly automatically meant the PC was destined to 'fall' (Darth Vader style) So I learned, don't squash fun if it can at all be avoided.
** This is prolly why warlord was my favorite in 4e.
emwasick wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thalion94518 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
"An inability to make a unique setting while still allowing players to play the characters they're passionate about is, simply put, a failure of imagination."
stinging.
bawylie wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
bawylie wrote:
emwasick wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Gatt wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
cranebump wrote:
Melwick wrote:
Rottle wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ivstin wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Rottle wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
#1. I don't have any friends that are so creatively broken that they have to play exact this one character concept this time even if it means ruining the world flavor.
#2. I give the same respect to the DM as a player that I demand as a DM. I find DMs who won't stand up and roll over are almost always providing a lousy world to begin with. I usually move on.
#3. As DM, I work very hard to provide a flavorful world full of adventure. My players respect that and feel that those efforts are worth far more than any one character concept that is very moment.
#4. I don't play the same world every single time. If I did then I'd probably run a world that had mostly everything. World creationg though is one of the things I bring to the table as a DM. Even if your half drow half pixie vampire warlock doesn't fit this time maybe next time.
I give to the game what I would want as a player. In fact if I had myself as a DM, I'd play a lot more. I realize my approach is not for everyone. I don't need everyone. I just need enough players for all of us to have fun. Right now I have a full group any time I want one. In fact I could run a game practically every night of the week if I was a masochist. I do have to turn players away for no reason other than the group is full. I have ran nine player groups before and I don't like to do that anymore.
I tend to favor traditional campaign themes overall but I always put in a few oddball twists. I have included dragon born and warforged in my current campaign because they fit the theme of what I was doing though the backstory is very different from Eberron. I have no tieflings or gnomes. Next time I might have a different mix. I mostly include the core four but again they are so radically reflavored in some cases that perhaps they are that race in name only.
Halflings in my current world for example do not live in hobbit holes. They travel in great caravans that circle the known world on a trail known as the great path. They are continuously making this circle and they count their lives by how many circuits they've made. They are entertainers, storytellers, and news carriers. They've been known to carry letters as well.
I've never had a player refuse to play in a game with restrictions. And this includes public games run with strangers at the FLGS.
This player who can't have fun unless they play a setting-breaking character is a rare outlier at best, a strawman at worst.
Emerikol, could you tell me more about your halflings?
I always like to hear about people's halflings. Halflings are hard for me to integrate elegantly - they alway have been.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Thanks, Emerikol. I may steal some of that in the future for a setting... it's really neat. Also, I'm going to talk a bit about the situation you have in your local gaming culture, which isn't common but I've seen versions of before, in the other thread soon - it changes some things pretty heavily in the player/GM relationship that I want to explore.
Grazel has the right of it on my "people are more important than games" line.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
cranebump wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Core Classes: Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer.
Clerics are defined by race. Sorcerers lose familiar, gain metamagic specialist class feature (as seen in PH II).
Prestige Classes (optional): As DMG plus Prestige Bard, Paladin, and Ranger (as seen in Unearthed Arcana).
Expanded Classes (supplemental): Hexblade, Knight, Scout, Spirit Shaman, Swashbuckler, Warlock.
Unavailable Classes: Monk, Wizard.
It's a 'knights in shining armor' setting, so monks are outta place.
Available Races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-orc, Mul.
Muls replace half-elves (in theory).
Unavailable Races: Gnome, Half-elf, Halfling.
Gnomes and Half-elves are (more accurately) supplemental races (available at the DM’s discretion). “Half-elves” are actually reflavored humans or elves (player’s choice).
autolycus wrote:
Let me address two issues here.
The permaban and the setting specific ban. In the case of a permaban, for example if I permabanned the warlord which I would if it existed, the DM will not have fun without that permaban. I think some DMs perhaps are too inflexible but I am very sure that if the DM is not motivated the game will never be good. I can have one or two semi-motivated players and the game can still work out as a fun game. I've yet to meet a semi-motivated DM that I didn't think was terrible. I don't know that I would permaban a race though I support any DM that does if it really bothers him that much.
Now the setting specific ban. The point of the ban is to engage in a setting without something. Putting that something back in even on a one by one basis ruins the whole attempt. Sure some things may not engage you but the DM has went to the trouble to develop a world concept. If the concept appeals then buy into it and find something that really resonates with the campaign. If the concept leaves you cold then don't play. No one is forcing anyone to play something they don't like. The difference is that the "campaign" is the DMs. The players join into that campaign or don't. If some don't others will if the game is good.
Now to address a separate subject. Everything in life is the weighing of opportunity costs. I run a heavily developed living world approach to D&D. It does require perhaps the most effort of any playstyle. The rewards to me are worth that effort. It does though require a DM and players who are really invested in the setting. That is okay to me because that is the only kind of players I'm looking for anyway. If the first thing someone does when they show up is ask to play a banned race even after seeing it on the campaign sheet I sent out earlier, then I really wonder what their agenda really is towards my game. Are you here to disrupt it? You saw what was sent out. There are a ton of choices you can make. Yet you want this one I specifically bothered to ban on the campaign sheet. That is not a good sign. It's actually a warning signal.
So sure. The DM is more important than any single player. The DM is more akin to being as important as the other players combined. You need both. As a player I totally recognize this so it is not a valuation of each of us as human beings. I've never ever seen a good campaign that didn't have a good DM. I've seen plenty with some average players. If I could find a really good DM, I would almost certainly agree to any limitations she put on the game. When I say "really good" I'm saying "for my playstyle". Basically - does my playstyle well.
autolycus wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
This is a long thread.
I think players should be given freedom when possible, and that DM's should work with players to help them find a place in the world. It's why I like to have a hand in the generation of the characters in the games I run. Not to tell people what they have to play, but to help them find their backstory more easily so they're better bonded to the world.
I'm a pretty decent storyteller (I write, I've DMed for decades, I grew up around the theater) so it's not too difficult for me to allow players their freedoms while still holding together the thread of the tale. I know that not everyone is able to do that with such ease, and I can understand why some people might like to keep a tighter rein on their settings.
But the worst possible thing you can do to your players is stifle their imaginations, and limit their explorations of these personas they're creating to act out.
In my opinion yes is the right answer to almost everything, only followed by a "but how about if we do this..." when there's a sticking point with the setting which means modifying things a bit for a character.
Ever notice that in the Lord of the Rings (which many people like to emulate) that there are nearly no "magic users" to speak of? Those that do exist are in many ways so far beyond the power spectrum of the other inhabitants of the world that it makes about as much sense as letting a level 20 hand around with a group of sub 5th level characters. Yet if you were to be running a game in a setting very similar to Middle Earth and had a character who wanted to be able to use magic, what, precisely, would be the deep harm in allowing that they have acquired some of the hidden knowledge of the Valar/Istari/Maiar? (Whatever name or source of power you wish to use.)
Yes, magic is rare indeed in Tolkien's world, and powerful at that, but player characters are generally not run-of-the-mill folk. They're filled with potential to become great heroes, and perhaps even to pass into legend one day.
Mass Effect III incorporates the last of the Proteans into the game as a character you can have in your party. Why is there no room for an unusual race in a fantasy campaign? Now, if you're all Game of Thrones and human only, that's potentially something that you can express plainly to your players (in advance, preferably...when you start talking about the game) and hopefully avoid any instances of a Legolas or Gimli wish, but in almost all fantasy there's a great deal of room for the strange and unusual. In fact, I think much of the greatest fantasy is moving away from the common.
Everyone has their preferences, sure, and DM's are free to express them. But listening to the desires of the players is part of the "job" each DM is taking on. It's not "my world" that the group is playing in. It's "our world" and we define it together, even if I'm the one who did the lion's share of the work to craft the setting...
[As for the entirely ridiculous sub-discussion about race names, you may as well start howling about things like Thay, Cormyr, Westeros, The Fingers, Candlekeep, Greyhawk, or any other made-up place name. Invented places/races/words is what fantasy is for a vast number of people. There are only two literary fantasy genres that do well consistently at this moment: Epic and Urban. The former, in particular, is generally rife with invented things. Many gamers are, as such, entirely used to such conventions and won't bat an eye at the gaming table when they encounter them. Some poor, illiterate gamers may. The rest of us pity them. ;) ]
Nautilus wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
autolycus wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
For all the options, I think most people stick to two or three types of characers they always play.
Everyone knows this to be true. There's always that one player that ALWAYS plays a wizard. Nothing else. There's always that player that always multiclasses into a Ranger to get all the benefits.
Think about your own charactes Of all the options, did you ever play all of them? Or did you gravitate towards just a few?
Gatt wrote:
Webster wrote:
Webster wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Webster wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The ultimate upside of the DM's ability to say no is that we get to have a lot more options in the game books that we can choose to use or not, and they can give us those options without having to make them fit a specific theme or feel.
Emerikol. wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
iserith wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Gatt,
You and I are as opposed as any two around here, generally. But I'll say that I respect your opinion in this instance. And I do not begrudge you the desire to exclude something you feel is disruptive to your campaign setting, verisimilitude, sensibilities, or playstyle.
(Just don't expect me to admit to saying that in public...)
Shasarak wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
I didn't think the purpose was that anyone was better for not allowing this but that a DM had the right to limit some classes and races if it upset the balance of the campaign they had crafted.
The attitude of I can play and do what I want because anyone can do what you do is NOT the way to play/run this game no matter what some people believe.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
I'm a fan of subtractive design and restrictive worldbuilding. It's mentioned several times in my book/blogs.
I don't like adding new content and options just to add new options, especially if the option doesn't fill a niche or work with the theme of the world.
Unless you're explicitly setting out to create a kitchen sink world (which is totally fine) then excluding some options is a good idea. Especially new options added in later splatbooks.
I'm fully in support of demystifying DMing, and encouraging more people to take the plunge and get in front of a group. There's no great barrier to doing it - if you have a workable grasp of the rules, enough enthusiasm and some material, you're golden. Putting an adventure together takes less work than writing a three page essay.
I'm seeing a lot of a One True Way attitude and "your doing it wrong if you do that" and it's not coming from the people who are talking bout restricting what can be played at THEIR table.
Azzy1974 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I believe for myself and my players, my approach produces the best result. I'm being the best DM I can be by not allowing players to change the fundamentals of the worlds I create. I believe that is absolutely true.
In my area there are many DMs. A lot of them in my opinion are jokes. They don't prepare their worlds at all and they wing it left and right. Now that is my personal assessment of their game as it relates to my enjoyment as a player. If that DM's players are enjoying the game then great. What I find though is that the players in those campaigns are there because they are desperate. They can't find a good DM. Bad or at best mediocre DMs are everywhere. You can hit a tree with a ball bat and three will fall out. Great DMs are rare. They though advance the hobby. They energize players and they inspire other DMs who hopefully go on to be good themselves.
My players know I am committed to a fun and deeply immersive well designed world. I could change almost anything and they'd accept it. Why? Because what is left is still going to be a lot of fun. They trust my judgment that if I've restricted something it's for a reason and it is part of what makes the world interesting. While I don't ban tons of races all the time, I do change their fundamental story a lot. I expect my players to learn the stories of their race and integrate that into their background. So the PHB description of a race is often varied somewhat in each campaign I do. I am not going to rewrite a race even if it is just back to the PHB definition to get a player into my game. Especially not when I've got people upset because I just told them the game is full and they can't play but they can get in my next campaign.
So if I run into a player that demands I change the world for him or her, I can't say "get out of my house" fast enough. First they've been dishonest if they didn't call me on the phone ahead of time and just showed up. I sent the campaign sheet out. If you didn't like it you could say your not interested or at least call first. Then I could invite someone else. So that person is wasting everyone's time.
The truth is as far as my personal reality goes a player like I just described is a hypothetical being. Never ran into a player that insisted he get to play a particular race or class.
As a player, I would never ever choose a race and class before I checked out the world or at minimum at least talked to the DM.
Good points, Emerikol.
To me the most important thing you mentioned was trust.
If a player trusts his DM to create a consistent and fun world then there is no issue at all.
All elves are extinct? Fine. I know the DM has a good reason and the game will be a blast. Can't wait to find out what happened to the elf race.
No dragonborn? I like playing them, but can certainly have fun without. The new twist on Dwarves looks interesting...
If you don't trust your DM to run a game that you can enjoy despite any limitations, then what are you doing at that table?
autolycus wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
It's been my experience that there are far more people willing to play then willing to DM. It's not a matter of ability, talent or anything other than desire. In college we had a small number of DMs but a huge number of players, same in high school, same post college years. I was not living in a rural area but the NYC/NJ area where if you went into a gaming store there was a board of dozens or more listed games hosted by various DMs but the number of players are usually ten times that or more. I met some truly terrible DMs and players and some great ones. I've seen bad DMs who thought they were gods and bad DMs without the stones to control the game at a minimum level. I've seen bad players who always had to be that special snowflake and bad ones that would dominate a table.
Ive been a bad DM and a bad player. I ain't perfect my style isn't for everyone and it never will be. But at my second college I join the gaming crowd quietly and then after a few months offered to run a game if people wanted it. I had over a dozen regular players and nearly twice that in people who would join when they could. It ran for two years I never lost a player and I was asked serval times to run other games using other rules. I tried it never worked as well if I wasn't excited about the game I was never as good as a DM and the game as a whole suffered for it. I did two or three other games that went really well but for me to DM at my best I need to be all in. Have I had to deal with a player who only ever plays the same type of character, yes, a wonderful girl I game with only plays elven characters and usually archers( not rangers) or priestly healers( not Druids). When I build a game I take that into consideration I want her to enjoy the game so make her type of character possible, even in a hero system superhero game or a Star Wars d6 game. My current group are all friends, not just friends but great friends whom I treasure. I would never turn them out of a game or make a game they would not play in. Part of gaming espically with such close friends is trust, they trust me to DM a game they want to play in, if I make what seems like a silly rule there is a reason and they go with it they don't try and skirt it or ask me to allow them to be special snowflakes, which would be silly as they already are to me at least...
From here on out I am supporting gaming however you want to game without being judgemental about it or trying to dictate how you do it. DM as you like play as you like. If you attack others for doing what works for them expect I will speak up in their defense. Enough of the one true way to game bull, it's time we all grew up a bit and accept that our way ain't the only way or demand it be recognized as the best way. If you don't want to be judged for your choices you'd best learn to stop judging others for theirs.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
autolycus wrote:
MusicOfCreation wrote:
First of all from my perspective this is not about human beings. This is about roles those human beings play. Whatever attitude I have about the role of the DM, I accept it as a player and as a DM. My players feel the same way. I really don't have any conflict on this stuff.
I feel the role of the DM is to create a campaign world. That world does not necessarily have to include everything that exists in D&D. No race or class in my opinion is sacrosanct. I do believe a DM has the responsibility to be open and explain the nature of his world in advance so people can choose to play or not. It's as simple as that.
The players have the job of making decisions for a character in a campaign world. The character creation process is still subject to the limitations of the world designed by the DM. Once created though the DM should respect the players decisions about what his character chooses to do. This is why I hesitate to directly oppose what I call subtle metagaming. Monster knowledge is a good example. I just make the world to combat it because that is where my responsibility lies.
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
CorwynnMaelstorm wrote:
Here is minimally what I would do before day one of a game. In fact before I ever send out the first campaign invite.
1. Come up with a theme for my world and any restrictions that might entail.
2. Draw at minimum a continent sized map. My current map is about the size of the europe, asia, and africa.
3. Write out the basic cosmology.
4. Write some history of how the world began including how it relates to the cosmology.
5. Write out a detailed description of each of the Gods. Typically I'll have anywhere from 15 to 30.
6. Write out the major religions based upon the gods and the religious practices of said religions.
7. Write out the history of the races, write a unique fluff for some of the races like their distinctive culture. Determine human cultures as well.
8. Write out a history of the development of civilization.
9. Detail out the political boundaries for the nations on that map at the current point in history.
10. Write a description for each of the nations. Think Greyhawk Gazetteer.
11. Detail out the major political persons in each of those countries. Including the rulers.
12. Determine the major trade routes like the silk road.
13. Determine the role of magic in the world and how it is taught and where.
Next
1. Find a particular region where the campaign will start.
2. Detail out a starting base. Is it a small city or town? Maybe a castle. Also determine why it exists and the trade and political situation if there is one.
3. Detail out the NPCs who live in and around this base.
4. Determine the villians in the area including the monsters but not limited to just the monsters.
5. Come up with plans for each of these villians and put them on a calendar of events. Unless the group interferes these events will happen.
6. Determine wandering monsters for the area based on prior information.
7. Detail out a variety of basic low level to mid level adventures including the home bases of the villians.
8. Work with each player on his backstory so that it fits with the world and his arrival in this region.
Fact is I'm sure I'm forgetting some things that I just do as a matter of habit. A DM using my playstyle is going to do the above as prep for his game. He could use a published setting and eliminate most of the first part but I generally don't. I did when I first started. A DM could also find a good staring sandbox module as a baseline for the second part. I don't but I did when I first started.
If you do it all from scratch though I seriously doubt any player is going to put that effort into their single character.
Orethalion wrote:
MusicOfCreation wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
cranebump wrote:
Grazel wrote:
MusicOfCreation wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Best way to ruin a game is demanding all gamers follow the one true way.
DM or play how you want. You do not have to defend your gaming style here or anywhere. Those who cannot accept your style don't matter, you wouldn't enjoy gaming with them anyway.
Honestly, this whole situation boils down really simply - DMs are allowed to include/exclude anything they want, but they should be open with their players about it and discuss it beforehand. That's it, that's all it takes.
Sometimes, anything goes is fine (I know I tend to lean on that, and if someone picks a weird race, I'll figure out what they're doing there. I still am not a fan of things like Wilden or Deva, or psionics for that matter lol). At the same time, restrictions can breed creativity as well - Dark Sun was eye opening for me conceptually. By seeing a setting that had no Divine characters, that opened the door to settings where the other power sources weren't around: a dead world with no nature spirits where the Primal power source isn't allowed; a world where nature and divine magic exist, but no one has the ability to harness the Arcane; or even a world so suffused with mana/magic that there are no Martial characters - everyone uses magic in some way.
Sometimes restricting races works too. If I were to run a campaign in the Magic the Gathering Shadowmoor setting, for example, Elves there are wicked evil, so I might discourage anyone from playing them (though, depending, I could be convinced of someone trying to play against their nature, etc); certainly a Game-of-Thrones-esque setting would be human only; and if a setting was exploring demi-human racial tensions, that might restrict choices.
On the other hand, back in 3rd, I had a player that LOVES dragons, and he wanted nothing more than to play a half-dragon. Those things were a noticeable level adjustment, and would have made things awkward. However, math-hammering a bit, I found that if I restricted him to the commoner NPC class, that brought him more or less in line with the fighter (I had not run numbers vs casters to discover caster supremacy yet hahaha), and he was so excited and loved it. It even worked great for fleshing out the character, since he was little untrained and wild, off on his own.
In the end, it's all about discussion. Would it create a fascinating setting running a campaign with no Arcane magic around? Yes. But if most of my players were bummed and had been looking forward to playing wizards/warlocks/sorcerors/swordmages? I would broach it, but more likely than not I'd pick a different setting. But that's my table. People like Emerikol spend a lot of time building the entire world before showing anything to the players, so that could be tougher. However, it seems like if someone messaged him beforehand with a concept that wasn't totally part of the setting, at least he'd talk to the player - while reserving the right to say sorry, that really doesn't work here.
For a game of pencil and paper roleplaying, at times it can seem like there is a stunning lack of communication that occurs, because that's all it takes. If you want to exclude stuff, talk to the players beforehand, and if someone is really dissapointed, explain the decision - if the DM is being legit, then it should be simple to point out how the race/class/spell/whatever doesn't fit the setting or how it is disruptive to the game (got I HATE rez magic lol, for example to both). What the people opposing restrictions are against (and likely have faced under past DMs) are restrictions simply because a DM doesn't like something - "oh, I think sorcerors are silly cuz they're just reflavored wizards, so no sorcs;" "halfling look dumb cuz they're tiny, so no halflings;" "I don't like that this new martial class is as badass as the wizard, no it gets banned;" etc. It seems like y'all would never ban things for such arbitrary reasons - which is wonderful - but plenty of others have, thus people's reactions to the idea.
TLDR: Both freedom and restrictions can work well, as long as there is open communication beforehand between the players and DM and they are all okay with it (and preferably if a player wants something and the DM says no, the DM can allieve some of the player's dissapointment by explaining the legitimate - setting/balance - reason for its exclusion). It really is just that simple.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
viper5 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
viper5 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
It must get really tiring having all your campaigns start out with, "OK, who, what and where are your characters, what are they doing and what would you like them to do? Cuz I don't have anything. I wouldn't want to assume for you or tell you what to do. Go!"
Azzy1974 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
autolycus wrote:
It wasn't about the things that naturally evolve during the course of play. The point was about the opening scene of a campaign. How a game kicks off. And you both should know that. Because I was quite clear on that.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Depends on the campaign. If it's heavily themed, it's probably because I have an underlying story arc in mind. So that might lead to an in media res. Or a catalyst of some sort. Or something else entirely. All my campaigns have started out differently. I can't say I have a "way". Just depends.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
autolycus wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
iserith wrote:
LOL
I don't care wether or not you think me pointing out that his post takes specific aim at denegrating a fairly common playstyle and manages to toss in a needless reference to a common activity which muddies the waters is something you like.
Am I, in your world, supposed to care that you disaprove of me calling into question the structure of the post?
Are you, in some way, his keeper, that you need to defend him?
He appears to be capable of typing all on his own.
Foxface wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
So I'm lying in bed this morning, reading the forums on my iPad, when a realization strikes.
This is the closed source v open source debate all over again, with the context moved from software development to running D&D games. For those who don't know, closed source software is built by a select team, usually within the confines of a company or department specifically tasked with doing so. There's a clear separation between builders and users. Open source software is built by everyone who chooses to contribute to the project. While most users of open source software don't actually contribute to it, there's nothing to stop them getting involved besides learning to code.
How does that relate here? Representing for the 'closed source' team are the DMs who view putting together a game as all up to them. They build the campaign themselves, decide what's in it, generally with the attitude that if they didn't place an element themselves, it's not there. Player interaction with the world tends towards the limited side, and PCs are expected to fit in with what the DM's presenting.
On the 'open source' team, we have DMs who view a campaign as a collaboration between themselves and the rest of the group. Everyone has the option to contribute to discussions about what the game should involve, and the goal is to run a game that both DM and players enjoy. DMs are often far more relaxed about players influencing their campaign world - if they didn't place it, but a player suggests it, it just might be there after all.
Most DMs don't fit squarely into either of those camps, and they can be seen as points on a continuum. Both are legitimate play styles, and if a group is having fun with a highly restrictive version of the 'closed source' style, I'm not going to tell them their fun is bad and wrong. But here's a question. Which style would you recommend to a new group?
For me, it's option 2, collaborative style, all the way. The closed shop, DM-as-god style is fine for existing groups that are used to it, and have grown comfortable playing that way. But a newly formed group using the second option is more likely to stay together, thanks to the increased involvement of everyone round the table.
Brock_Landers wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Suggesting that a DM discusses campaign creation with their players, and takes their ideas on board, is extreme?
You had to work a lot harder to be extreme, back in my day.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
And so we can get the record made clear, let us all remember the following post (by you) which prompted my respond (to which you took such offense)...
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I've just learned over the years that a player who is sent a campaign sheet in advance that shows up wanting to deviate from that sheet is not the sort of person I want in my games. They are going to be disruptive on so many other fronts that it's good to avoid them from the get go. If the person just doesn't show up because the subject matter of the campaign doesn't interest him is someone I can respect.
If I had only five players and no others then sure I'd float ideas by them. If though I found that most of the time my restrictive ideas were getting shot down I'd probably stop DMing. I don't care to deal with petulant spoiled entitled people. I'm not a slave.
The reality is that those players who have actually experienced my campaign versus hypothetical people on the internet have never ever insisted on playing anything. They are happy to have a DM willing to put forth the effort to create a deep immersive world. That effort is respected. So they find something interesting to play in what is being offered. If they have some great idea for a character they throw that out and I try to fit it into the next campaign if it resonates with me. A demotivated DM will NEVER be a good DM. A campaign with a single demotivated character can still be a success.
Personally I never want to play in a campaign where a player could put in more effort than the DM. That tells me the DM is not doing enough.
MechaPilot wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
At our local Pathfinder Society game, one of our players happens to be Vietnamese. The other day he was playing a summoner, but that's not the funny part. We have a young, white male player who loves to play samurai. It was quite entertaining seeing him constantly, and consciously, curb the way he usually plays his "asian flavor" character when the Vietnamese guy was at the table...
True story.
I find a good strong DM is appreciated. There are always disruptive players. When a DM deals with it quickly and efficiently, everyone at the table suddenly begins to believe that this campaign can go somewhere a be a lot of fun. It is why I don't tolerate rules lawyering at the table. It just ruins the game for everyone.
Zardnaar wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because Trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
I don't have the time, nor the energy (devoting most of that to reading, re-reading, oggling, admiring, fawning over, pawing at, and discussing with friends this new PHB I picked up today) to go point-by-point through all of your misunderstandings and biased readings of my comments, but there is one that I have to respond to or I will lose my mind over it:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
From the 3.5 DMG.
THE DUNGEON MASTER
We’ve distilled our knowledge of the D&D® game into the material
that follows. Whether you need to know how to design an
adventure, a campaign, or an entire game world, the material in
this book can, and will, help you.
You’re a member of a select group. Truly, not everyone has the creativity
and the dedication to be a DM. Dungeon Mastering (DMing)
can be challenging, but it’s not a chore. You’re the lucky one out of
your entire circle of friends who play the game. The real fun is in
your hands. As you flip through the Monster Manual or look at published
adventures on a store shelf, you get to decide what the player
characters (PCs) take on next. You get to build a whole world, as well
as design and play all its nonplayer characters (NPCs).
It’s good to be the DM.
The DM defines the game. A good DM results in a good game.
Since you control the pacing, and the types of adventures and
encounters, the whole tenor of the game is in your hands. It’s fun,
but it’s a big responsibility. If you’re the sort of person who likes to
provide the fun for your friends, or to come up with new ideas,
then you’re an ideal candidate for DM.
Once your group has a Dungeon Master, however, that doesn’t
mean that you can’t switch around. Some DMs like to take a turn
at being a player, and many players eventually want to try their
hand at DMing.
FINAL NOTE
The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and
leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the
game—the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun.
This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely. This book
shows you how.
THE BOTTOM LINE
You’re in charge. This is not being in charge as in telling everyone
what to do. Rather, you get to decide how your player group is
going to play this game, when and where the adventures take
place, and what happens. That kind of being in charge.
Thunaer wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
We all have access to the same basic rules which (as far as we know) come from the PHB, and yet when I quote from them and explain in fairly clear terms how 5e treats the concepts of players and DM, some people can't seem to get over their 3.5e selves.
I don't realy see the need to quote huge chunks verbatim from a freely downloadable PDF that is prominently hosted on this domain. Unfortunately, I don't see having any choice. Not that I hold out much hope of actual progress in getting the point across even with a big old Fisk, but here we go:
The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about
storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares
elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like
those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about
picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night
sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react
to the challenges that scene presents.
Part two of epic Basic PDF Fisk continues. In part one the first part of the introduction was broken down, and the gist was this:
DM takes the lead in storytelling by setting the scene and narrating the results of actions taken by the players who drive the action with their choices. Following on after player input the DM is the final arbiter of how an action will be resolved or how the rules apply.
Now, we continue on in our quest to disabuse folks of the notion that the "DM is Boss"... ;)
***
The many worlds of the Dungeons & Dragons game
are places of magic and monsters, of brave warriors and
spectacular adventures. They begin with a foundation
of medieval fantasy and then add the creatures, places,
and magic that make these worlds unique.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Situation 1: With my 4th ed group (same players every campaign, fixed 4 people plus DM) I'd change things to make the players happy. This is a group where no matter the campaign, the players are fixed. If my players didn't like something about the campaign world I'd change it or simply pick a different world.
Situation 2: With my Pathfinder group we had a total pool of 12 people. In that case I'd put together a campaign setting and campaign and then put out a call for interested people. Only if we failed to get 4 players would I consider running a different campaign or campaign world.
Situation 3: I've lost both groups having moved cities. I got a group by advertising and had to turn away an entire table worth of people. Again I have no incentive to tailor the game to the group given I can instead find a group that would enjoy the game I've come up with. At any given time this group has 5 games going at one time.
i think the main problem is people accustomed to situation 1 are trying to apply their situation/perspective to people from situation 2 and 3.
Throw in quite a few posts advocating their One True Way and you get a fairly antagonistic thread.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
"DM is boss = bad" is no more true than "any boss = bad". I've had bad bosses and good bosses in my life. I stuck around and enjoyed working for the latter.
Rottle wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Rottle wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Grazel wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Rottle wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Ghaliyah wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
I try not to DM with an iron fist. Running a game with with the Tyranny of Whim™ is a real buzz kill IMO and is generally the egotisitical stuff of immature teenagers. The way I handle it is that I explain that certain classes do not fit im my game and why, and that I don't want them in my game. However, if they really have their hearts set on using one, we can make it work. This usually goes over pretty well.
There is one exception (and a clichéd one I admit): I will have no "music as magic" (capital "B") Bard wielding a lute and belting out show tunes in battle. If you wanna be a bard, choose whatever class or multi-class that says "bard" to you, take the performer background and call yourself a (lower case "b") bard. That being said, I haven't read the full 5E Bard class description yet so this may be a moot point. If it consists only of out of combat musical charms and aids I may be able to grit my teeth and deal with it if a player insists on playing one (and unfortunately I do have ONE who loves Bards).
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Gatt wrote: