I probably should ask on an AL forum but I am here and some one may knoe

[ZorroGames]

So, I know the one local shop adamantly pushes MCing, Feats and Variant Humans as AL given but still, are they optional? I need to reread the appropriate parts of the PHB, DMG, and the Al guidance again but a digression on another thread made me wonder.

If they are optional should not an AL campaign DM be allowed to just say, “Nope, not here.”

I mean I like players having choices but I am about the only MC playing AL player I have seen at a table doing MC locally and the only one doing it consistently it seems. And optional rules should be, well, optional for the DM as well as the players, right?

Digression follows: It really affects play as there are next to never session zero at the local AL tables because it is open sign up for priority and Players at tables sometimes “pray”for an 8th player, and someone to be convinced by the AL coordinator to DM, to show up to avoid the seven player logjam in games. The class mix has never led to a TPK though skills, play styles, and rampant murderhoboism has so I have no problem with 4 players (or three experienced ones.).

[Quietus]

The entire point of an AL game is that everyone is using the same set of rules, so that characters are portable between tables. The answer to your question is literally listed in "Step 1" of the ALPG :



Forgotten Realms characters can choose race and class options from the Player’s Handbook and one other resource—a rule called “PHB+1.” Additional resources include the following products:
•Elemental Evil Player’s Companion (EEPC)
•Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide (SCAG)
•Volo’s Guide to Monsters (VGM)
•Xanathar’s Guide to Everything (XGE)1
•Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes (ToF)2
Additionally, when selecting an additional source,the following variant or optional rules are available when you create your character:
•Variant Human Traits (PHB)
•Half-Elf and Tiefling Variants (SCAG/ToF)
•Option: Human Languages (SCAG)3
•Blessing of Corellon (ToF)3

TL;DR is that if it's in the list, it's AL allowed, or else that game is not AL legal. Multiclassing and feats are both not optional or variant rules, so they are inherently allowed.

[LtPowers]

That said, there's no AL rule that says a DM must accept any legal AL character at his or her table. That's a rule some game stores and conventions may set up, but it's not an AL rule. That means a DM is free to say she only wants to DM for non-multiclassed characters.


Powers &8^]

[da newt]

MC-ing, Feats, V. Human are all AL legal and encouraged, and the PHB states all are variants requiring DM's permission.

I believe the INTENT of AL is to be fun, inclusive, non-competitive, and introductory so I think they would prefer DMs allow the cool variants, but I believe the DM retains the right to control their game.

On the other hand, the AL DMG v 9.1 does say that DMs are empowered, but "You can't implement new rules."

I think of it this way - imagine that you have an AL legal PC that is MC and has feats, you sign up online for an AL game, drive all the way to the host shop only to learn the DM runs a no MC / no Feat table, and there are no other openings for you to move into ... That would suck and leave you with a less than positive opinion of AL and the host store. Nobody wants that.

[ZorroGames]

MC-ing, Feats, V. Human are all AL legal and encouraged, and the PHB states all are variants requiring DM's permission.

I believe the INTENT of AL is to be fun, inclusive, non-competitive, and introductory so I think they would prefer DMs allow the cool variants, but I believe the DM retains the right to control their game.

On the other hand, the AL DMG v 9.1 does say that DMs are empowered, but "You can't implement new rules."

I think of it this way - imagine that you have an AL legal PC that is MC and has feats, you sign up online for an AL game, drive all the way to the host shop only to learn the DM runs a no MC / no Feat table, and there are no other openings for you to move into ... That would suck and leave you with a less than positive opinion of AL and the host store. Nobody wants that.

I get that and just wanted to know where the line was exactly if possible.

I mean I do not want to be that guy but the warforged in ALFR game the DM allowed just started me thinking where the lines in AL existed.

[kazaryu]

So, I know the one local shop adamantly pushes MCing, Feats and Variant Humans as AL given but still, are they optional? I need to reread the appropriate parts of the PHB, DMG, and the Al guidance again but a digression on another thread made me wonder.

If they are optional should not an AL campaign DM be allowed to just say, “Nope, not here.”

I mean I like players having choices but I am about the only MC playing AL player I have seen at a table doing MC locally and the only one doing it consistently it seems. And optional rules should be, well, optional for the DM as well as the players, right?

Digression follows: It really affects play as there are next to never session zero at the local AL tables because it is open sign up for priority and Players at tables sometimes “pray”for an 8th player, and someone to be convinced by the AL coordinator to DM, to show up to avoid the seven player logjam in games. The class mix has never led to a TPK though skills, play styles, and rampant murderhoboism has so I have no problem with 4 players (or three experienced ones.).

While i agree that generally a DM should be able to choose who they play with. i.e. they can voluntarily choose to DM at a particular table. The issue, when it comes to AL, is that you have a few different ways that AL works.

1. you have AL home games: which are identical to normal home games, except the DM isn't allowed to houserule/homebrew as much, and you have to keep track of what happens.
2. then you have minor organized play: i.e. people sign up as players/dms at a local game shop and the game shop is the one that kinda works people into groups. note: this is not the same as a home game that simply is played at a local game shop.
3. sponsored events: these are, well sponsored. and as such are similar to the previous, but...just moreso.

so for number 1: while there's not a problem, specifically with a DM not allowing MC/feats at *their* table. It still requires player buy in. because the point of AL is that the characters are portable. and as such, the DM doesn't really have full control of the options anyway. Because, if the player takes that character to an event, they may get things like a magic items that the DM can't prevent, and shouldn't deny. SO, basically it boils down to, having a session 0 and coming up with a social contract for the table.

for numbers 2. (and to a greater extent number 3) you're actively engaging in a community thats larger than your table. You're going to have to deal with things that, as a DM, you don't prefer. Thats the definition of a community. you accept some rules that are not preferential to you, because the benefits of the community outweigh those negatives.

[sithlordnergal]

For the purposes of AL, MCing, Feats, and Variant Humans are not considered optional. Now, a DM is free to make a gentleman's agreement with a group that the players don't use those, but ultimately the DM has little say.

This can be a boon and a hindrance. If you're a DM that dislikes feats or multiclassing, then it kinda sucks to be you...sure you can technically refuse to let a player join your table, but that's generally only for problem players. And if the character is AL legal, then the player you're refusing could potentially get that DM in trouble with an AL coordinator.

On the other hand, players and DMs who enjoy MCing have a far better and easier time because its exactly the kind of rule set they enjoy. I personally fall squarely in the "enjoy MCing" category, as I will happily MC just to test out a build. I enjoy that I don't need a reason to be a Barbarian/Warlock.

[Quietus]

That said, there's no AL rule that says a DM must accept any legal AL character at his or her table. That's a rule some game stores and conventions may set up, but it's not an AL rule. That means a DM is free to say she only wants to DM for non-multiclassed characters.


MC-ing, Feats, V. Human are all AL legal and encouraged, and the PHB states all are variants requiring DM's permission.

I believe the INTENT of AL is to be fun, inclusive, non-competitive, and introductory so I think they would prefer DMs allow the cool variants, but I believe the DM retains the right to control their game.

On the other hand, the AL DMG v 9.1 does say that DMs are empowered, but "You can't implement new rules."

I think of it this way - imagine that you have an AL legal PC that is MC and has feats, you sign up online for an AL game, drive all the way to the host shop only to learn the DM runs a no MC / no Feat table, and there are no other openings for you to move into ... That would suck and leave you with a less than positive opinion of AL and the host store. Nobody wants that.

Disclaimer : I am withholding personal judgement with the following, and merely answering the strict rules of the matter.

The bolded are both incorrect. If you are running an AL game, feats and multiclassing are allowed. That's one of the big differences between an AL game and a home game; in AL, everyone plays by the same set of rules, so that you can take a character from one table to another. If you start declaring that you do not allow XYZ at your table, then your table is no longer AL legal.


I get that and just wanted to know where the line was exactly if possible.

I mean I do not want to be that guy but the warforged in ALFR game the DM allowed just started me thinking where the lines in AL existed.

Giving the same disclaimer as above...

The lines in AL are pretty well defined. You can use the sources listed in your PHB+1, and you can only choose your +1 from a shortlist of allowed sources. None of those sources involve Warforged, and therefore, that character is not AL legal. And if the DM is allowing it, then that table is not AL legal. Either the DM is unaware of the warforged not being allowed in FR, in which case that's excuseable, or they're aware and don't care, in which case they really need to make it clear to everyone at the table that it's not an AL legal game.




Ending that disclaimer - I'm not against people having fun, and I'm in favor of DMs having a certain level of control. I don't mind if an AL DM asks their players to choose one of their characters that doesn't involve multiclassing or feats, and that would still be a completely legal game, as that is an informal request rather than a formal requirement. I've also been that guy at an AL table who pointed out that a player's tabaxi gloomstalker was not legal because it used two sources (Volo's and Xanathar's). It doesn't feel good to do that, but if you let these things go, then when your Warforged player attempts to take a character they thought was AL legal to another table, and gets turned away because that DM follows the rules, that feels so much worse.

[Keravath]

I get that and just wanted to know where the line was exactly if possible.

I mean I do not want to be that guy but the warforged in ALFR game the DM allowed just started me thinking where the lines in AL existed.

A DM shouldn't be able to deny an AL legal character the chance to play. AL legal characters include feats, multiclasses and a variety of races as long as they conform the to PHB+1 rule. The DM does NOT get to choose who plays based on any criteria including the choice of character. (Though the DM can ensure that the character is AL legal by asking to look at the logs and can deny play to a character that is not AL legal where the player is unwilling to correct the issue).


However, that said, a warforged is NOT an AL legal character for play in the Forgotten Realms AL campaign. It is only legal in the AL Eberron campaign. If a DM ever checks they can deny the character the rewards from the adventure played that was not AL legal for the character.

The list of sources cited above for the creation of Forgotten Realms AL legal characters does not include the Eberron source book. Similarly, the ALPG for the AL Eberron campaign does not include the Forgotten Realms specific source books.

[Ogeeogelthorpe]

That said, there's no AL rule that says a DM must accept any legal AL character at his or her table. That's a rule some game stores and conventions may set up, but it's not an AL rule. That means a DM is free to say she only wants to DM for non-multiclassed characters.


Powers &8^]

This isn't how AL works.
If a player has an AL legal character, whether they like them or not, then too bad for the DM. If they say, "Well I really don't like Half-orc barbarian paladin/barbarians so I won't allow them at my table..." they need to get back to playing homebrew. It's completely against the spirit of adventurers league, as well as the inclusivity that AL encourages. I DM adventurers league and if I heard from a player at the store that the DM at the next table over was turning people away because he didn't like their character I'd let the coordinator know so they could either straighten them out or give them the boot.

[Yakmala]

There are a lot of things in AL I would not allow at my table were I doing homebrew; combinations of multi-class and various magic items and downtime activities that can make for super optimized characters that completely throw off the power curve for a module or hardcover.

But AL is not homebrew, so when I'm running AL at my local game shop, if a character is AL legal, regardless of my personal opinions, I'll allow it.

That being said, when overpowered characters show up at my table, like Tier 2's with three very rare magic items, I'll make the player get out their log sheet and show me how they managed to acquire the items.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think there's a bit of misinformation in this thread.

Yes, there are optional rules to 5e. No, optional rules are generally not accepted in AL, EXCEPT:


Variant: Customizing Ability Scores (PHB)
Variant Human Traits (PHB)
Half-Elf Variants (SCAG)
Option: Human Languages (SCAG)
Tiefling Variants (SCAG)
Variant: Playing on a Grid (PBR)
Blessing of Corellon (ToF)

As those are explicitly pointed out in the AL FAQs.

AL DMs have to abide by extremely strict rules for their tables in order for the sessions to be AL sanctioned, and that includes the optional rules.

The weird thing about this is that it's implied that these are optional for the table itself. That is, you could technically have an AL table that doesn't use a grid, or doesn't allow Variant Human.

However, the player-side of the rules states the player may choose these optional rules for character development, with no caveat that the DM may rule otherwise. There's also no mention of rejecting a player, unless they're problematic (I.E. "cheating").

So it's overall implied that "optional" is only "optional" for as long as it's not relevant. That is, you can choose not to play with feats, until someone wants to play with them. Similarly, I'd assume the same is true for grid rules or Variant Humans.

[Ogeeogelthorpe]

There are a lot of things in AL I would not allow at my table were I doing homebrew; combinations of multi-class and various magic items and downtime activities that can make for super optimized characters that completely throw off the power curve for a module or hardcover.

But AL is not homebrew, so when I'm running AL at my local game shop, if a character is AL legal, regardless of my personal opinions, I'll allow it.

That being said, when overpowered characters show up at my table, like Tier 2's with three very rare magic items, I'll make the player get out their log sheet and show me how they managed to acquire the items.

I'll be the first to admit that a lot of adventurers league modules after season 7 are too easy. Season 8 mods in particular are a cakewalk for even a brand new player to AL. The T4 mods in season 8 had pitiful DCs of 10, 11, 12 for most traps and saves across the map. It flat out ruined immersion and a sense of danger that you're supposed to have while playing at such a high tier.
The inverse of this is that a lot of CCCs (convention created content) are super unbalanced and super tough for players of any level. There is a specific T1 CCC adventure published during season 8 that's APL 2 but drops a CR6 creature with resistance to non-magic weapons in it. In season 8 nobody could afford a magic weapon until they hit level 5.

That said, they allow adjustments in the mod based on the strength of a party's APL (very weak/weak/average/strong/very strong)
And the thing is, even if they're at APL but there are 6 or 7 players at the table, you can still make it strong or very strong if the players are steamrolling their encounters. I do this all the time to give my players a challenge. Also, if you're given a caster with some crappy spell lists you can swap them out (to a degree) to make the encounter tougher. That 5th level caster you've got? Well his 3rd level spells changed from dispel magic and hypnotic pattern to counterspell and fireball. Make the players think more strategically, and if they want to keep bunching up then they eat a fireball.

[Quietus]

However, the player-side of the rules states the player may choose these optional rules for character development, with no caveat that the DM may rule otherwise. There's also no mention of rejecting a player, unless they're problematic (I.E. "cheating").

So it's overall implied that "optional" is only "optional" for as long as it's not relevant. That is, you can choose not to play with feats, until someone wants to play with them. Similarly, I'd assume the same is true for grid rules or Variant Humans.

This is ultimately the crux of it. The ALDM doesn't get to decide what rules the players have or do not have access to - they cannot add Warforged, or take away multiclassing, without making that game non-AL. And your observation regarding rejecting players is spot on, the only acceptable reason to eject a player is if they are either blatantly cheating or otherwise causing a problem at the table. Trolls should not be tolerated.

[LtPowers]

This isn't how AL works.
If a player has an AL legal character, whether they like them or not, then too bad for the DM. If they say, "Well I really don't like Half-orc barbarian paladin/barbarians so I won't allow them at my table..." they need to get back to playing homebrew. It's completely against the spirit of adventurers league, as well as the inclusivity that AL encourages. I DM adventurers league and if I heard from a player at the store that the DM at the next table over was turning people away because he didn't like their character I'd let the coordinator know so they could either straighten them out or give them the boot.

I disagree. There's no rule in AL that a DM has to accept anyone who wants to play at her table. That's a local rule specific to the venue. If you insist there is such rule, please quote it to me.


Powers &8^]

[sithlordnergal]

I disagree. There's no rule in AL that a DM has to accept anyone who wants to play at her table. That's a local rule specific to the venue. If you insist there is such rule, please quote it to me.


Powers &8^]

Looks like you are correct in that. You would be free to refuse a player if they multiclass, though I suspect DMs who do that wouldn't be seen in a very favorable light by players

[Keravath]

I disagree. There's no rule in AL that a DM has to accept anyone who wants to play at her table. That's a local rule specific to the venue. If you insist there is such rule, please quote it to me.


Powers &8^]

ALFAQ 9.1

"What Rules Do I Use?
All Adventurers League games are played using the fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons rules—house rules and Variant and optional rules, except those listed below, aren’t permitted for use. As an Adventurers League Dungeon Master, you are empowered to adjudicate the rules as presented by the official materials (PHB, DMG, MM, etc.). Run the game according to those rules, but you are the final arbiter of any ambiguities that might arise in doing so. House rules aren’t permitted for use in play; the campaign uses the rules as presented in the PHB."

AL games are run using a specified set of rules. As an AL DM these are the rules that you implement. You are allowed to adjudicate ambiguities but you can not choose to use house rules.

Feats and multiclassing are BOTH part of the fundamental AL rules. The DM is obligated to run the game using these rules based on the "What rules do I use?" DM section of the FAQ. A DM that refuses to allow characters into a game due to multiclass or feat choices is NOT implementing the rules as listed under the defintion of Adventurers League and is NOT running an AL game.

A DM can not use character choices that are within the rules as a basis for refusing play to a player.

A DM can refuse a player entrance into a game if ...

- their character is not tier appropriate for the adventure

"Requisite Character Level
Each adventure lists a minimum and maximum character level (typically expressed as a level range, such as levels 1-4, or levels 1-15; but may be expressed as Tiers). Whether or not a character outside of this range can participate in the adventure depends on the adventure, itself." ALFAQ

- cheating where the player refuses to modify their character to conform to the AL rules. Address the situation politely and if the player fixes the issue with the character and it is AL legal then they can play.

"Cheating
D&D Adventurers League play is meant to be fun and inclusive—not competitive. As the DM, correct cheating players quickly and discreetly (if possible) by resolving the issue and making a fair ruling on what happens. You can review paperwork (character sheets, adventure logsheets, and certificates) at any time. If something seems amiss or inappropriate—either with the paperwork or during the game—discuss it with the player and resolve irregularities. You can disallow something that seems outside the rules or have a player reroll dice. Be professional—make every effort to avoid embarrassing the player or assume wrongdoing. We’re all here to have fun and enjoy the challenge!" ALDMG

- disruptive play

"DM’s Discretion (use sparingly). This includes truly disruptive things; such as hostile behavior against faction members, overtly evil acts, etc. If this type of behavior persists after this penalty has occurred, the DM’s has ultimate discretion to excuse you from the game—in which case you forfeit all rewards for the session. If excused in this way, you can’t replay the adventure with the same character." ALPG (renown section - the penalty for poor behaviour starts off as losing renown benefits and escalates)


That's about it. The DM can refuse a character play if they are cheating or tier inappropriate and they can kick them out of a game for disruptive or anti-social play that the player doesn't fix after being warned about it. A DM can't refuse AL legal characters just because they don't happen to like the feat or multiclass choices. Any DM who chooses to do so is not running an AL legal game.

[kazaryu]

I get that and just wanted to know where the line was exactly if possible.

I mean I do not want to be that guy but the warforged in ALFR game the DM allowed just started me thinking where the lines in AL existed.

there is no line.

AL games are so modular, that you can even drop a brand new character right smack int eh middle of a dungeo with no real narrative pretext. just, boom. 'im here now'.

the 'campaign' aspect of AL is generally overarching, not individual tables. this is especially true if its an organized event. Home (AL) games may be more internally consistent.

[Arkhios]

Multiclassing and feats are both not optional or variant rules, so they are inherently allowed.

Wrong. PHB is quite clear that both multiclassing and feats are optional sets of rules.

Chapter 6: Customization options (PHB, page 163)

"-- This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. --"

That said, as mentioned above, both are encouraged in AL. Thus, they are not fully optional in it. It would seem that AL assumes their DM's to have at least skimmed these rules through.

[Keravath]

Wrong. PHB is quite clear that both multiclassing and feats are optional sets of rules.

Chapter 6: Customization options (PHB, page 163)

"-- This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. --"

That said, as mentioned above, both are encouraged in AL. Thus, they are not fully optional in it. It would seem that AL assumes their DM's to have at least skimmed these rules through.

Apparently feats and multiclassing are considered part of the core rule set for AL play. Some of the AL documentation refers to which "optional" rules are included in play but feats and multiclassing are both considered to be part of the core rules and not constrained by the limitations on "optional" rules usage. I think you have to go to the official facebook group if you want proof of that statement.

However, I wouldn't say that either feats or multiclassing are "encouraged" by AL. AL doesn't care less how an individual player builds their character as long as they are created using the allowed set of rules. AL doesn't encourage feats or multiclassing, it simply allows these as choices for the players. I have seen a lot of single class builds as well as a wide variety of multiclass builds. In many cases the multiclass builds aren't as strong as a single class of comparable level but they provide some aspect of play or characterization that appeals to the player.

[Arkhios]

Apparently feats and multiclassing are considered part of the core rule set for AL play. Some of the AL documentation refers to which "optional" rules are included in play but feats and multiclassing are both considered to be part of the core rules and not constrained by the limitations on "optional" rules usage. I think you have to go to the official facebook group if you want proof of that statement.

However, I wouldn't say that either feats or multiclassing are "encouraged" by AL. AL doesn't care less how an individual player builds their character as long as they are created using the allowed set of rules. AL doesn't encourage feats or multiclassing, it simply allows these as choices for the players. I have seen a lot of single class builds as well as a wide variety of multiclass builds. In many cases the multiclass builds aren't as strong as a single class of comparable level but they provide some aspect of play or characterization that appeals to the player.

To be fair, I don't know (or care) if AL factually encourage either. But I assume that to be the case according to the multiple occasions I've seen this being talked about before. I don't play AL myself, so if I said something that's not correct in regards to AL rules, then my apologies. But the part I quoted from Players Handbook is still a fact. Players Handbook mentions both rules to be optional and that's how I treat them myself.

[Hail Tempus]

Out of curiosity, are AL DMs allowed to set a limit on the number of players at their table, or is there a built-in limit in the rules?

[Keravath]

Out of curiosity, are AL DMs allowed to set a limit on the number of players at their table, or is there a built-in limit in the rules?

AL modules are usually balanced around 5 players of a particular level. Guidance is usually provided for stronger and weaker parties. In the past, AL tables were limited to a range of 3 to 7 players. However, they changed the wording for season 9 such that numbers outside this range are strongly discouraged but they don't say they aren't allowed.

ALDMG 9.1

"Players. Adventures League play is designed for a table of five players but can be adjusted for as few as three to as many as seven players. Tables smaller or larger than those limits not recommended as they promote an extremely sub-optimal play experience."

The sentence stating that numbers outside of the 3-7 range are not recommended was added in season 9 which presumably makes larger or smaller tables AL legal but not recommended. I think this may have been done so that a game store would not have to turn away an extra player if someone turned up, the table was full, but the DM was willing to run a larger group. It also might allow them to run a game if several people signed up but fewer than three actually turned out to play.

Sometimes seating space or epics or other adventures may impose different number of player limits. However, these are all set usually by the store or the module. Typically, an AL DM can expect 3 to 7 players for a module they are running. They can't suddenly say the module is limited to the first five people unless there is a space limitation or some other issue limiting the numbers.

[LtPowers]

A DM that refuses to allow characters into a game due to multiclass or feat choices is NOT implementing the rules as listed under the defintion of Adventurers League

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. Being selective about which characters you want at your table is not a house rule. A DM who allows characters with a multiclass must ensure the multiclass rules are being followed as written in the book, but there is no rule that says a DM cannot be selective about what players and characters come to the table.



A DM can not use character choices that are within the rules as a basis for refusing play to a player.

Says you. You haven't quoted a rule that says otherwise. You've only pointed out the rule against "no house rules", without showing anywhere that says a DM can't be selective about characters or players.



The DM can refuse a character play if they are cheating or tier inappropriate and they can kick them out of a game for disruptive or anti-social play that the player doesn't fix after being warned about it. A DM can't refuse AL legal characters just because they don't happen to like the feat or multiclass choices.

Are you suggesting that a DM can only exclude a player for a reason explicitly listed in AL documentation? That if I show up with a legal character to a random DM's table that she has to let me play?


Powers &8^]

[Man_Over_Game]

If it helps, here's the word (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/97779/45619) according to the D&D Adventurers League Community Manager, Robert Adducci:

"The D&D Adventurers League does not dictate who can and who cannot sit at your table. All games are organized by the owner/operator of the location. In a home game, that's the home owner. In a store or convention setting, that's the store/con owner or organizer as dictated by the owner. Most stores or conventions have a desire to sit everyone and take care of the community, but at the same time they should also take care of their DMs and arbitrate disputes."

Now, this was in regards to a heated personal issue between the player and the DM, but it basically boils down to this:

The DM plays as an ALDM because he has the approval of the store owner and because the DM obeys the AL rules. AL does not dictate who can or cannot play at your table, so the store owner should.

Considering AL is something of an advertisement event for both the store and DnD products, most store owners would be in support of allowing more players, just as long as it doesn't ruin the experience for everyone (as having 8+ players can).

A DM rejecting a player isn't so much of a dispute as opposed to an opinion. The DM chooses to reject the player, instead of having reasons for the player not to join. The player did everything he was told he could do, and telling him he's wrong would be...well, wrong.

[Keravath]

...

Are you suggesting that a DM can only exclude a player for a reason explicitly listed in AL documentation? That if I show up with a legal character to a random DM's table that she has to let me play?

Powers &8^]


Umm, Yes?

As far as I understand it that is the fundamental concept behind AL. I can play a character at my local shop under AL rules then take it anywhere in the world, another city, another continent, another game store or convention and expect to be able to play that AL legal character at an AL legal game anywhere in the world. Portability and flexibility are, in my understanding, fundamental to the entire concept of AL.

An AL DM arbitrarily deciding, "You can't play a paladin at my table because I don't like them and they are OP" is implementing their own house rule on who can and can not participate.

As far as I understand it, an AL DM can't refuse participation on the basis of race, gender, disability, or other factors ... why should they be allowed to forbid specific characters? Or, are you saying that AL DMs ARE allowed to discriminate against whoever can play at their tables on whatever basis they wish?

Anyway, I think MOG found the relevant quote regarding the AL stance ...

"The D&D Adventurers League does not dictate who can and who cannot sit at your table. All games are organized by the owner/operator of the location. In a home game, that's the home owner. In a store or convention setting, that's the store/con owner or organizer as dictated by the owner. Most stores or conventions have a desire to sit everyone and take care of the community, but at the same time they should also take care of their DMs and arbitrate disputes."


AL stays out of decisions of who can and can not sit at the table ... it is up to the game/store/con owner/organizer ... not up to the individual DM unless they also happen to be the game/store/con owner/organizer.

[Hail Tempus]

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. Being selective about which characters you want at your table is not a house rule. A DM who allows characters with a multiclass must ensure the multiclass rules are being followed as written in the book, but there is no rule that says a DM cannot be selective about what players and characters come to the table.




Says you. You haven't quoted a rule that says otherwise. You've only pointed out the rule against "no house rules", without showing anywhere that says a DM can't be selective about characters or players.




Are you suggesting that a DM can only exclude a player for a reason explicitly listed in AL documentation? That if I show up with a legal character to a random DM's table that she has to let me play? What are you trying to accomplish with your arguments here? As has been shown on this thread, the crux of the AL rules is that so long as someone creates a character that is in line with AL rules, and there's room at the AL table, the only reason the player could legitimately be excluded is if he's got a history of being disruptive, or if the store owner doesn't want him in the premises (because he shoplifted or something).

Can you point to anything in the AL rules that allows a DM to ban multi-classing, feats, or other AL-compliant rules?

[sigfile]

This pops up on the AL Facebook group every now and then when someone wants to kick off an argument.

The end result is always this: Yes, in order to be fully AL-legal, a DM should allow all AL-legal characters to play. A DM may request to play by a more limited set of rules, and the players may agree to work within those boundaries. A player that does not agree should speak with the event coordinator and move to a different table.

There is no situation where the DM will be forced to run a game for AL-legal characters they may not wish to include. The DM may simply pack up and go home. The DM may just go "Fine, this isn't an AL table. No." And then the players that stick around log the event anyway. They technically shouldn't, but there's nothing stopping them. The League works on an honor system; sometimes people bend the rules a bit, and hopefully they have a good reason for doing so.

[Man_Over_Game]

Can you point to anything in the AL rules that allows a DM to ban multi-classing, feats, or other AL-compliant rules?

It boiled down to:


"Some rules might still considered optional rules, despite being available" (I.E. Grid rules)
"DM is the final arbiter on decisions" ("No, you can't seduce the Dragon, even with your 20 Persuasion check")



It's not that it wasn't 100% wrong, but it is dependent on being extremely rigid with the interpretations from the AL rules, and assuming those rules were intended to allow you to make decisions related to denying a player (which seems is not the case, based on official DnD staff).

That is, the rules didn't say what to do, so he made an educated guess based on what the laws said, rather than the intent of the lawmaker. An interesting representation of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good actions, I think.

[iTreeby]

Are there actually AL forums? Are they any good?

[Man_Over_Game]

Are there actually AL forums? Are they any good?

You can check out the RPG Stack Exchange. It'll have the answer to almost anything you might have AL or DnD related, as long as the answer is based on fact over opinion.

[Contrast]

What are you trying to accomplish with your arguments here? As has been shown on this thread, the crux of the AL rules is that so long as someone creates a character that is in line with AL rules, and there's room at the AL table, the only reason the player could legitimately be excluded is if he's got a history of being disruptive, or if the store owner doesn't want him in the premises (because he shoplifted or something).

Can you point to anything in the AL rules that allows a DM to ban multi-classing, feats, or other AL-compliant rules?

I mean the more general point is a reasonable one - nothing in the AL rules forces DMs to play with someone they don't want to.

I have been invited to play AL at someones house before. If I had invited another person without warning my friend and he had decided he didn't want to DM for them, the AL police weren't going to kick down his door and proclaim the game non-AL compliant because he wasn't willing to invite a stranger to play in his house.

There are also plenty of reasons that someone might not want to game for someone that may have nothing to do with them being disruptive during the AL session. An abusive ex or a stalker for example.

We don't need to get that dramatic either. Paid DMing is becoming more and more popular. There's nothing stopping a DM charging to join an AL session and turning away anyone who isn't willing to pay actual cash for a seat, valid character or no. I know DMs who won't DM for more than a set number of people which is lower than the max AL table size, not because they're looking to spite players but they just find it stressful, do a much worse job DMing and find it less enjoyable for everyone. In my opinion as long as they're up front about that when they sign up as a DM, that is a perfectly reasonable stipulation.

I agree that someone turning away people solely on the basis that they used multiclassing or whatever would be against the spirit of what AL is trying to achieve (with particular reference to it specifically being legal character issues that you are objecting to) but I do think that saying if you turn someone with a valid character away you're not playing AL or are breaking rules is overkill. In an ideal situation you won't but the world isn't always ideal.

[Quietus]

I have been invited to play AL at someones house before. If I had invited another person without warning my friend and he had decided he didn't want to DM for them, the AL police weren't going to kick down his door and proclaim the game non-AL compliant because he wasn't willing to invite a stranger to play in his house.

There are also plenty of reasons that someone might not want to game for someone that may have nothing to do with them being disruptive during the AL session. An abusive ex or a stalker for example.

We don't need to get that dramatic either. Paid DMing is becoming more and more popular. There's nothing stopping a DM charging to join an AL session and turning away anyone who isn't willing to pay actual cash for a seat, valid character or no.

These are really extreme examples. Of course you require permission to enter a private space to be allowed into the game, and of course you have to pay if it's a paid game. There is no need to stretch things that far. And as far as abusive people are concerned, as has already been established, you are explicitly allowed to deny abusive individuals from sitting at your table.

The rest of your post raises an interesting question, however. If a game is advertised as being simple and the caveat is given clearly ahead of time on all promotional materials, is that enough to satisfy the AL requirements? Could a game store offer a "simple D&D for beginners" (ignoring the complications AL brings to the game) that doesn't allow multiclass or feats?

If nothing of the sort is advertised ahead of time, I think the DM is in the wrong to turn away players because they don't like how their characters are built. But I think I would accept it if a store explicitly advertised their AL games as such.

[Tharkun]

Organized play needs as much Table consistency as possible without causing other problems. The ALPG does cover those exact questions, allowable characters include multi-classing, feats and a number of variant races.

You are very concerned about your prerogative as a DM and worried about power builds? AL isn't about a long campaign with the same players, there is no session 0. There are troublesome players, but they are the ones bullying other players, the ones who are abusive, the ones who are racist.

Personally I have read both your post here and on the AL facebook. This feels like a "you" problem and not a DM issue.

[ZorroGames]

Organized play needs as much Table consistency as possible without causing other problems. The ALPG does cover those exact questions, allowable characters include multi-classing, feats and a number of variant races.

You are very concerned about your prerogative as a DM and worried about power builds? AL isn't about a long campaign with the same players, there is no session 0. There are troublesome players, but they are the ones bullying other players, the ones who are abusive, the ones who are racist.

Personally I have read both your post here and on the AL facebook. This feels like a "you" problem and not a DM issue.

My OP as more along where the line existed. I have spoken in the past with our AL coordinator several years ago and he was of the opinion you could but the shop wanted as many customers... players... in the shop as possible hoping for sales. He also is of the school of not limiting players fun as much as possible. That said, again, I think I have the only AL MC PCs I have ever seen played in the local AL games. Now I do not frequent every shop and not every shop permits AL play so I easily may have missed something.

TBH I DMed AL for a long time but only play AL now. If I was to DM a campaign I would make it as AL like as I could but it would be in a world I created instead of the current options. Maybe Ebberron rising book will change my view but probably not.

[LtPowers]

As has been shown on this thread, the crux of the AL rules is that so long as someone creates a character that is in line with AL rules, and there's room at the AL table, the only reason the player could legitimately be excluded is if he's got a history of being disruptive, or if the store owner doesn't want him in the premises (because he shoplifted or something).

I already conceded to local rules, that a store could require a DM to seat all comers. But that is inherently a local rule. There's no rule in AL that says just because you're playing an AL-legal game, you have to take anyone who wants to sit at your table.

What if your table is in a private home, for instance?

I'll readily concede that most public venues ask their DMs to seat anyone. But such a rule is not required for the table to be AL-legal!


Powers &8^]

[Quietus]

I already conceded to local rules, that a store could require a DM to seat all comers. But that is inherently a local rule. There's no rule in AL that says just because you're playing an AL-legal game, you have to take anyone who wants to sit at your table.

What if your table is in a private home, for instance?

I'll readily concede that most public venues ask their DMs to seat anyone. But such a rule is not required for the table to be AL-legal!


Powers &8^]

At a public venue, the people running the store/location/etc are typically just saying "Yes, run AL, in exchange for whatever our store offers our DMs". The only rules for when you can tell a player to leave are surrounding abusive individuals. Multiclassing and feats are part of AL, and if you don't like it, too bad. Run a non-AL game with tighter restrictions, but that may not be what the venue is interested in giving you space to do. To a game store, AL is there to bring in players, and a non-AL game at the very minimum has to go through different hoops, and may ultimately be less financially interesting to them.

As to your private home stuff, everyone in that situation is in poor form. It's a bad example, and generally irrelevant to the larger conversation. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

The bottom line is this : The whole point of AL is portability of characters. If I cannot bring my AL legal character to a game, then that game is not an AL game, even if it shares 99% of its trappings.

[Galithar]

At a public venue, the people running the store/location/etc are typically just saying "Yes, run AL, in exchange for whatever our store offers our DMs". The only rules for when you can tell a player to leave are surrounding abusive individuals. Multiclassing and feats are part of AL, and if you don't like it, too bad. Run a non-AL game with tighter restrictions, but that may not be what the venue is interested in giving you space to do. To a game store, AL is there to bring in players, and a non-AL game at the very minimum has to go through different hoops, and may ultimately be less financially interesting to them.

As to your private home stuff, everyone in that situation is in poor form. It's a bad example, and generally irrelevant to the larger conversation. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

The bottom line is this : The whole point of AL is portability of characters. If I cannot bring my AL legal character to a game, then that game is not an AL game, even if it shares 99% of its trappings.

That's simply not true though. As much as you may want that to be the case AL had been set up to allow things like home games. They seem to have intentionally avoided telling a DM they MUST DO to be AL as much as possible. (To be inclusive of as many gaming situations as they could I feel)

You MUST follow the rules and not introduce houserules. You MUST follow an AL module (but you are given certain leeway to modify the module to fit your table). You MUST do your best to ensure all characters follow the rules and are AL legal (and are given certain authority to enforce this). No where does it say you MUST accept a player if their character is AL legal. You can reject a player for whatever reason the host of the event says you can. In a home game, the host is the DM (or whoever owns the property) At a game store it is often the store owner, though at small events it could be left to the DM. There is a store near me that has a single DM that runs AL sessions. The owner isn't even involved at all, he simply provides space for anyone to run games, and this DM chooses to host an AL game.

[huttj509]

That's simply not true though. As much as you may want that to be the case AL had been set up to allow things like home games. They seem to have intentionally avoided telling a DM they MUST DO to be AL as much as possible. (To be inclusive of as many gaming situations as they could I feel)

You MUST follow the rules and not introduce houserules. You MUST follow an AL module (but you are given certain leeway to modify the module to fit your table). You MUST do your best to ensure all characters follow the rules and are AL legal (and are given certain authority to enforce this). No where does it say you MUST accept a player if their character is AL legal. You can reject a player for whatever reason the host of the event says you can. In a home game, the host is the DM (or whoever owns the property) At a game store it is often the store owner, though at small events it could be left to the DM. There is a store near me that has a single DM that runs AL sessions. The owner isn't even involved at all, he simply provides space for anyone to run games, and this DM chooses to host an AL game.

But you do need to accept an AL-legal character that's appropriate for the module. You can boot a player, it's your home, but if you reject an AL legal character from your game because you're not using the AL rules, you're not running an AL game.

There's been some conflation of player and character. Partially because it's assumed that a player has one character on hand, and if you reject the character for following AL character rules, you reject the player.

[Hail Tempus]

There's been some conflation of player and character. Partially because it's assumed that a player has one character on hand, and if you reject the character for following AL character rules, you reject the player. That's a good point.

Based on this thread, it seems like AL gives more discretion to exclude players than it does characters. There are a number of legitimate reasons (space, prior history etc.) to not let a player join an AL game. However, it seems like the rules don't allow a DM to reject an AL-legal character.

Anyway, why would a DM sign up to run an AL game, then start trying to exclude AL-legal characters? If you want to run a game without multi-classing, feats or whatever, just start a non AL-game. No one is forcing a DM to run an AL game.

[ZorroGames]

That's a good point.

Based on this thread, it seems like AL gives more discretion to exclude players than it does characters. There are a number of legitimate reasons (space, prior history etc.) to not let a player join an AL game. However, it seems like the rules don't allow a DM to reject an AL-legal character.

Anyway, why would a DM sign up to run an AL game, then start trying to exclude AL-legal characters? If you want to run a game without multi-classing, feats or whatever, just start a non AL-game. No one is forcing a DM to run an AL game.

Again, very shop dependent. The main AL shop discourages non-AL games twice a week by limiting tables for biweekly D&D gaming tables and scheduling AL games at those tables. Non-AL tables must take tables usually in the out of sight around the corner alcoves or play on other nights where PF, MTG, etc., get priority. They do not forbid non-AL games just give them the “space as available” setting.

I have seen several tables worth of players after getting a handle on D&D at that shop move to schools or homes for non-AL games to have a guaranteed table consistently.

Again this aspect is not my intent in the OP. It seems there is no IMO consistent clear guidance that delineates the definitive answer to my question.

[LtPowers]

However, it seems like the rules don't allow a DM to reject an AL-legal character.

Well that's the point of contention. I believe it would be more accurate to say the rules don't require a DM to accept all AL-legal characters. I haven't seen anything that convinces me the rules don't allow rejection.


Powers &8^]

[Hail Tempus]

Well that's the point of contention. I believe it would be more accurate to say the rules don't require a DM to accept all AL-legal characters. I haven't seen anything that convinces me the rules don't allow rejection.


Powers &8^] Why would a DM want to reject someone with an AL-legal character from an AL game? If you don't want to run a game that follows AL rules, just start your own game.

It's just a weird hypothetical: "Hi, I'm Bob the DM. I'm running a game at the FLGS on AL night, but I'm going to limit what AL-legal characters you can play. No Halfling characters allowed, because I think they have stupid faces"

Why would you want to do that?

[ZorroGames]

Why would a DM want to reject someone with an AL-legal character from an AL game? If you don't want to run a game that follows AL rules, just start your own game.

It's just a weird hypothetical: "Hi, I'm Bob the DM. I'm running a game at the FLGS on AL night, but I'm going to limit what AL-legal characters you can play. No Halfling characters allowed, because I think they have stupid faces"

Why would you want to do that?

Maybe because people are weird. See the run on toilet paper caused by a respiratory disease in this country (USA.). Spent 15 years in nursing before changing careers and that is just mind-boggling.

Went to the “AL not played here” shop to see about playing there on Monday nights and it was blatantly clear that you could run modules but not as AL games. Why? “Nobody plays AL.” Ooooooookaaaaaayyyyyy...


Actually know a DM who went non-AL for exactly that scenario. Do not like 90% of the Halfling PC players because of their Schlick myself. But it is the (no disrespect to any here intended) hyper-optimizers with no intent to role play at all that sours me in several cases. Usually Murder Hoboes but not always

[LtPowers]

Why would a DM want to reject someone with an AL-legal character from an AL game? If you don't want to run a game that follows AL rules, just start your own game.

How about "I'm a beginning DM and I would prefer everyone keep their characters to PHB races and classes for now"?


Powers &8^]

[huttj509]

How about "I'm a beginning DM and I would prefer everyone keep their characters to PHB races and classes for now"?


Powers &8^]

That's fine, I have a friend who's doing that.

He doesn't advertise it as an AL game.

We're running an adventure that's doable in AL, but we're not playing an AL game.

We all have AL-legal characters, it's still not an AL game.

[Galithar]

That's fine, I have a friend who's doing that.

He doesn't advertise it as an AL game.

We're running an adventure that's doable in AL, but we're not playing an AL game.

We all have AL-legal characters, it's still not an AL game.

But it COULD be.

[Quietus]

How about "I'm a beginning DM and I would prefer everyone keep their characters to PHB races and classes for now"?


Powers &8^]


That's fine, I have a friend who's doing that.

He doesn't advertise it as an AL game.

We're running an adventure that's doable in AL, but we're not playing an AL game.

We all have AL-legal characters, it's still not an AL game.


But it COULD be.

As an AL DM, you're free to ask players to play characters that are limited, but for your game to be AL legal, that has to be a request, not a demand. If you run an AL game, you ask for simpler characters, and one of your players says no, your options are :

- kick them out (**** move, and may not be allowed if you're at a public venue)
- disallow the character and accept that you are no longer running an AL legal game
- allow the character so long as it's AL legal

[LtPowers]

As an AL DM, you're free to ask players to play characters that are limited, but for your game to be AL legal, that has to be a request, not a demand. If you run an AL game, you ask for simpler characters, and one of your players says no, your options are :

- kick them out (**** move, and may not be allowed if you're at a public venue)
- disallow the character and accept that you are no longer running an AL legal game
- allow the character so long as it's AL legal

This is oft-repeated but not supported by anything in the AL documentation except by making a few generous leaps of logic. I've never seen an AL Admin comment anything to this effect, and it's certainly not stated explicitly in any documents.


Powers &8^]

[Contrast]

As an AL DM, you're free to ask players to play characters that are limited, but for your game to be AL legal, that has to be a request, not a demand. If you run an AL game, you ask for simpler characters, and one of your players says no, your options are :

- kick them out (**** move, and may not be allowed if you're at a public venue)
- disallow the character and accept that you are no longer running an AL legal game
- allow the character so long as it's AL legal

You conceded above a DM could charge for spaces on their table even if someone otherwise had a legal character and wanted to play.

Could you charge people who complied with your character build requests no entrance fee and people who didn't an entrance fee of 3-4 years salary? :smallwink:

I agree this would be against the spirit of what AL is trying to achieve but a group of people at a table all agreeing to certain restrictions doesn't make a table not AL. If a DM got a load of players to agree to these restrictions and I DM'd the next game for those players I wouldn't tell them that the rewards they got weren't legal (assuming all the other normal rules were being obeyed). They're still playing AL. A DM trying to put restrictions like that on an AL game would probably be a red flag for me so I'd likely steer clear and they should definitely advertise it as such if they don't want to piss people off but if they get players, they can play.

[Quietus]

This is oft-repeated but not supported by anything in the AL documentation except by making a few generous leaps of logic. I've never seen an AL Admin comment anything to this effect, and it's certainly not stated explicitly in any documents.


Powers &8^]

The AL documentation doesn't have to go out of its way to state that you aren't allowed to limit your players beyond what's listed in the documentation. It clearly tells you what sources you can use.

You want reference from AL admin? Cool. Let me reach out to them on Facebook and see what they have to say. I should have done that days ago.


You conceded above a DM could charge for spaces on their table even if someone otherwise had a legal character and wanted to play.

Could you charge people who complied with your character build requests no entrance fee and people who didn't an entrance fee of 3-4 years salary? :smallwink:

I agree this would be against the spirit of what AL is trying to achieve but a group of people at a table all agreeing to certain restrictions doesn't make a table not AL. If a DM got a load of players to agree to these restrictions and I DM'd the next game for those players I wouldn't tell them that the rewards they got weren't legal (assuming all the other normal rules were being obeyed). They're still playing AL. A DM trying to put restrictions like that on an AL game would probably be a red flag for me so I'd likely steer clear and they should definitely advertise it as such if they don't want to piss people off but if they get players, they can play.

Your example is in bad faith, and at best it falls under the same category as "kick the player" - it's a **** move.

If the DM has players who agree to play under those restrictions, cool. But if the DM is running a game at a game store, and I show up, do whatever the store requires in order to gain a seat, and the DM tells me that I cannot bring my AL legal character to that game? Then that DM is not running an AL game. The players may not know that, but I would certainly be speaking to the store and clarifying to them that their advertising is incorrect.