Banning content vs selective approval of content: Burden of Justification

[PhoenixPhyre]

When creating a character (or leveling up a character), is the default (in your mind)

a) all [published|1st party|official] sources are allowed unless the DM specifically says something is banned, and it's the DM's burden to produce an acceptable justification for each ban
b) Only non-variant PHB material is allowed by default; players (or the DM) may ask for other content to be allowed on a case by case basis, and the one asking for the new material bears the burden of producing a justification for why it should be allowed. The DM can still ban non-variant PHB material (gno gnomes!), but must justify any such bans.

Essentially: is it "default deny" (an allow-list[1], case b), or "default allow" (a ban-list[1], case a)?

I think the two models have very different outcomes for examining power creep (such as the Strixhaven backgrounds/feats being talked about elsewhere). If the default is deny, then power creep is more limited in damage potential. If the default is allow, then the existence of such power-creep material is inherently a problem.


I'm very strongly in camp b, both as a player and as a DM. The only thing I assume to be true is that the PHB is allowed. Anything else is optional content that I may ask for, but shouldn't assume unless I've gotten approval (although such approval may come in the form of blanket permissions ("all content from XYZ is allowed").


[1] trying to be sensitive and non-distracting here, because I know some people don't like the traditional terms which involve colors.

[Warder]

I assume absolutely nothing as a player. I enjoy games where DMs have restricted races & classes far more than anything-goes games, because it tends to mean the DM has put a lot of thought into their setting and the tone of the adventure, but I don't bring any assumptions about the default with me into games.

[strangebloke]

Only that which the DM has explicitly approved is allowed. If the DM hasn't approved it, you can ask them to do so but that's all there is to it.

I cannot think of a single time I was actually annoyed about a banning, and I also can't think about a time someone was annoyed at one of mine.

[Abracadangit]

Camp B, as both player and DM.

The way I see it, as a player: I am afforded the luxury of being able to play the game because the DM is willing to act as a sort of sentient game console. They are the supplier of the virtual reality in which I can be this character that I'd like to play, for short blips of time. Typically, they have some idea of a story they want to tell or a world they feel comfortable handling. As a gesture of kindness for letting me play the game, I abide by whatever character creation/customization rules they want. If there's a rule that doesn't sit right with me, I ask them for the rationale behind it, and if there's room for a compromise, I ask, and if there isn't, I don't. And if said rules are so stifling (hasn't happened yet, but I hear stories) that I couldn't be the thing I want, then it's no hard feelings, but their game isn't the game for me.

Conversely, when I'm the DM, I try to meet people halfway, because I want them to be able to live out the core fantasy of the character they want to explore. Refluffs, picking something from Xanathar and something from Tasha, I'm willing to cobble together what they want 99% of the time. And if they refuse to budge unless I give in and let them use some silly homebrew with comically overpowered abilities, I just tell them politely that won't work, and either they can use my compromise or go with a different concept. And that's that.

Some groups run with Camp A by default, which is rad so long as everyone's on the same page. But people who walk into a brand new group with a Camp A mentality and then are so shocked/offended that it isn't the case, I've always found so bizarre.

[Keravath]

As a player, only content explicitly approved by the DM is allowed for use in character creation. This is part of setting up the game and session 0. I never assume something will be allowed at all - I ask - it is the DMs game and they likely have a world concept in mind and until the DM lets me know, I have no idea what sort of world that will be.

As far as being a DM, I have complete control over what content I allow to be used in my game and this will be covered in either a session 0 or in chats before the player joins the game where I give them an idea of what the world is like and what might be found there.

If a player has a request, then I'll listen to it and if I think it fits and isn't unbalanced or overpowered I might allow the player to make use of it. However, the DM is the final arbiter of any content in their game and the player should accept such decisions.

Whether content is in an official WotC publication or not really doesn't make any difference as to whether a DM can say whether it is included or not.

In addition, the DM always reserves the right to change their mind if necessary though such changes should be rare but sometimes a player will present content that might appear balanced at first glance but which is not when experienced in actual play. The DM is free to change their mind about its inclusion though this needs to be handled diplomatically.

tl;dr Camp B :) ... ask the DM what sources are allowed for ANY game you plan to join.

[Rukelnikov]

My group mostly plays anything goes unless specified. Stuff that seems obviously OP, like Lore Wizard, Chain Simulacri, etc. gets a more or less consensual dissaproval.

The few times I played outside my group in recent years, it was everything published allowed. And I think Feats and Multiclass ARE the default even when the book presents them as optional.

[Keravath]

My group mostly plays anything goes unless specified. Stuff that seems obviously OP, like Lore Wizard, Chain Simulacri, etc. gets a more or less consensual dissaproval.

The few times I played outside my group in recent years, it was everything published allowed. And I think Feats and Multiclass ARE the default even when the book presents them as optional.

Just curious - did you assume that was the case or did you ask the DM about the stuff allowed for the game first?

[dafrca]

I have seen even on this forum people argue there should not be any banned content and players should be free to explore any build they can think of. So while I like the idea of GM and player interaction to agree on what does and does not fit into the game/setting it is clear that some folks even here do not agree.

I say B is the more common theory crafted situation but I do not know what is the true ratio based on the various threads I have read on this forum and others regarding the subject.

But then I have also seen folks change their stance based on what side of the argument they elect to join. :smallbiggrin:

[Willowhelm]

No default. You ask/agree before starting. Eg. session zero or earlier.

[Darth Credence]

I may be a bit more restrictive than B - as far as I'm concerned, the DM never has to justify a ban. If they say no elves, there are no elves, and they don't need any reason beyond they said so. People are, of course, free to not play if that's a deal breaker.
FTR, there are no PC elves in my campaign. I do justify it, although I don't think it must be justified. The justification is that elves live for so long, they have far too different of an outlook to be played just like any other race. I portray them as thinking nothing is urgent, and they are content to debate for years about things that humans think need to be solved right now. Kind of like Ogier from the Wheel of Time, if I recall them correctly. A player could make a case that this is what they want to portray, and if I feel they can do it, I'd allow an exception, but otherwise, play a half-elf, which is a separate race that came from elves rather than someone who had one elf and one non-elf parent.
While I say that, however, and things like species need to be approved first before creating a character, I'm actually pretty lenient in what I allow. If a player wants to go with something, I can usually adjust my world to come up with a way that they will work (except Loxodon - haven't figured out a way to work them in, but the player that asked was doing it as a joke). I just don't think that the players should assume anything about what is in a campaign, and the DM is not required to justify any rulings. I think that is important, because I would hate to have a mid-game ruling suddenly be subject to having to come up with a logical reason for it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A(2) - The table assumes everything is allowed, until the DM says it isn't and isn't (in my opinion) required to justify it beyond that. To be more clear, there's a cursory vetting process during character creation but I can't think of a single time he's nixxed something without providing some justification.

We trust the DM and he's lenient enough that asking usually results in "we'll make it work". To my knowledge, the only player options that are explicitly not allowed would be the Ravnica Backgrounds and Wildemount subclasses and spells.

When I run a game however, which is much less frequent, I'm definitely more in camp B. I'm kind of the stickler in our group.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm in camp A. Unless the DM has specifically banned something from a book, I assume published materials are available for use. I'll still ask to make sure, but if you haven't told me X spell/class/race/ect. is unavailable, even after I ask, then you can assume I will use them. I DM the same way. You can assume that all published material is available for use at my tables.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm in camp A. Unless the DM has specifically banned something from a book, I assume published materials are available for use. I'll still ask to make sure, but if you haven't told me X spell/class/race/ect. is unavailable, even after I ask, then you can assume I will use them. I DM the same way. You can assume that all published material is available for use at my tables.

I'm curious. When you say "published materials", do you mean
a) published by WotC in a book (including electronic versions) that was for sale
b) anything released by WotC (so A, plus UA and other unofficial material)
c) anything published by WotC or major 3rd parties (ie actually printed/pdf'ed for sale, excluding random internet homebrew)
d) anything published by anyone in any form (including random homebrew)?

I'm going to guess (with about 60% certainty) that you mean A or maybe B. But I'm curious to see what the reality is.

[Amnestic]

My games are usually run in camp A, with a list of any restrictions (usually races and ravnica backgrounds at the moment, but potentially class ones in the next one I'm thinking of) but I'll review sheets before the game starts and if anything's a concern hash it out. Sometimes it's not a mechanics issue, sometimes it's a theme issue - though not often.

There's a lot of optional/variant rules, some of which are mutually exclusive (Gritty realism vs. Heroic Resting). It's unfeasible to detail them all beforehand, realistically. I hit the high notes - eg. feats, Tasha's character creation, milestone based leveling - and any others that crop up will do so during play ("are we using flanking? no", "can I use the disarm from DMG? yes", etc.)

[Kane0]

Default-allow all published content, homebrew and UA subject to approval. The exception is most often setting-specific (warforged outside of eberron, Ravnica guilds, etc).

[sithlordnergal]

I'm curious. When you say "published materials", do you mean
a) published by WotC in a book (including electronic versions) that was for sale
b) anything released by WotC (so A, plus UA and other unofficial material)
c) anything published by WotC or major 3rd parties (ie actually printed/pdf'ed for sale, excluding random internet homebrew)
d) anything published by anyone in any form (including random homebrew)?

I'm going to guess (with about 60% certainty) that you mean A or maybe B. But I'm curious to see what the reality is.

Sort of a mixture of B and D, if it was released by WotC, then I'll allow it. I do reserve the right to say no to UA things, but anything published in a book is 100% fair game. I've never banned anything that was published before, and I can't remember ever saying no to a UA thing before. I've also allowed fully homebrew classes, 3rd party material, and more.

Heck, I allowed one player to be a Vampire Drakewarden before the Drakewarden was published in Fizban's, before he eventually settled on being a Human Renegade Fighter that shoots cabbages instead of bullets. Same game has a Drider Sorceress Bloodline Sorcerer variant, a College of Brutes/Barbarian Bard, and before that I played a game where someone brought in some anime inspired subclass. In a Tomb of Annihilation set in Faerun I have an Eberron Changling that remains in the shape of a large Dog and can only say Vox, I had a Chronurgy Wizard Gnome before he swapped for a Fairy Drakewarden, a Dhampir Rogue/Cleric with an Awakened hat as a companion, and a Reborn Tiefling Shadow Sorcerer from Barovia.

EDIT: Said Renegade has managed to successfully create a religion dedicated to Brassica Prime...if you don't know who he is, go look it up XD So when I say "anything goes", I mean "Anything goes"

[BigRedJedi]

First, the only "justification" a DM owes players for a ban is Rule Zero. Across 20+ years of tabletop RPG playing, with dozens of players and groups, I've never encountered a group that expected DM justification for banned material and 95% of those groups operated under the assumption that all official publications (first party) were permissible, unless otherwise blacklisted by the DM, and all other material, UA third-party, etc., is determined at DM discretion. The exception would be AL tables that operate under their own, explicit ruleset which most understood and considered before sitting down to play at such a table.

Further, I can count on one hand the number of players that have demanded "justification" for any banned material, the general mindset has been quite comfortable with Rule Zero being the order of the day.

Personal opinion: camp B DMs strike me as a little too controlling/adversarial, as D&D 5E is a cinematic, power fantasy ruleset, and the characters should be expected to embrace the widest possible options for fulfilling their character concept. The party "wins" by experiencing a great story, the DM "wins" by helping them tell that story. Restricting options seems to fly in the face of the effort to accomplish this shared goal. (Full disclosure, I am primarily a DM for my current game groups, the last several years of gaming experience have overwhelmingly been behind the DM screen, and I am very much a leans-permissive DM.)

[Dark.Revenant]

I prefer Type A because it generally results in a shorter list.

Other than that, it's a meaningless distinction to me. For theory-crafting, whatever, I assume anything officially published in a setting-agnostic hardcover is allowed. For real play, the DM allows what they'll allow, and I find out what they allow before I join the group.

As a DM, I give a list of books that are acceptable and then point out specific races, subclasses, etc. that have exceptions. A few are outright banned (usually due to breaking whatever adventure I'm running) but mostly it's just an "ask me" asterisk for various world/story-related caveats.

Edit: I include simplified justifications. "Balance", "Theme", etc. I'd expect a DM to give me at least an abbreviated justification like that, as well; it shows me they've actually put thought into it rather than just being lazy or having a knee-jerk reaction. Even if I think your rationale is stupid, I'd rather know there is a rationale.

[Pex]

It's always up to the DM to decide what's allowed and what's not. There is no inherent harm for a player to ask to use a particular thing or talk it over with a DM to convince him to change his mind, but the DM decides. Players can opt not to play if it's a deal breaker. Some playing group dynamics might have it that everyone decides together what to use and not use.

As a personal opinion it does matter to me why a DM won't allow something. I can still play the game even if I disagree with his reasoning. If it's a DM whose style I'll hate I'll know soon enough. Other things he says may contribute to have me not play or I quit the game after a session or two.

[JackPhoenix]

Neither. The DM isn't required to justify his reasons for allowing or banning anything.

Even beyond that, my default assumption is still neither. I wouldn't expect setting-specific options to be available outside that setting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personal opinion: camp B DMs strike me as a little too controlling/adversarial, as D&D 5E is a cinematic, power fantasy ruleset, and the characters should be expected to embrace the widest possible options for fulfilling their character concept. The party "wins" by experiencing a great story, the DM "wins" by helping them tell that story. Restricting options seems to fly in the face of the effort to accomplish this shared goal. (Full disclosure, I am primarily a DM for my current game groups, the last several years of gaming experience have overwhelmingly been behind the DM screen, and I am very much a leans-permissive DM.)

Devil's advocate:

Would you feel fine with a fully FR character who was part of a Ravinica guild or had a Theros Divine Boon?
----
For me, personally, I have a mix of rules, almost entirely aimed at creating and maintaining a coherent setting (because setting consistency is one of my top priorities).
1. Only sources that I own or that I have created are allowed. I won't use anyone else's homebrew, although I may take strong inspiration from it. I only buy non-setting and non-adventure books. Period. This one is hard and fast and unlike most rules, I will not make exceptions.
2. Races are heavily filtered for the setting; there are some races I know exist that are not marked as playable because they're not known in the starting area. This one I have bent on before, but requires consultation.
3. Classes from approved sources are generally ok, although certain sources (ie Tasha's) have asterisks on certain material (no Stars Druid, no Twilight Cleric, no Clockwork Sorcerer, a few others) for setting/theme-based reasons
4. Variant rules in play are spelled out, with some of them up to the table at session 0.
5. Spells are generally ok, with a couple asterisks (Dream of the Blue Veil is marked as "theoretically ok, but you'll never cast it since you'll never get that component, so don't bother learning it.")
6. Backgrounds are either PHB or custom; printed backgrounds from non-approved books need individual approval and I'd prefer if we work together to come up with a proper feature for you instead.
7. If you want something else, talk to me and we'll brew up something that fits together. For my upcoming game, I created my own variant of the Chronurgy school and a full Dragon Knight class for two different players.

Generally, I don't like "builds" or pre-determined "concepts" that lean heavily on mechanical elements or especially expies of characters from other media. I want characters that could have grown organically in the setting; setting-fit is paramount for me. And if you're doing heavy combat optimization, you're going to get bored--I don't cater to combat challenge much at all.

There are a very few things I outright ban on balance grounds. 99.9% of the time, it's thematic. There are no Stars druids because, well, the stars don't form stable constellations in my setting. Because they're the beacons of angels fighting an endless war against Things from Outside, at a distance of between 1 and 4 AU. Because the universe itself is bounded to a 2-AU sphere around a central Sun. There are no gods of Twilight, and the concept as described doesn't fit. There are other beings who act like that, but not gods that can call clerics. Similarly with the Clockwork sorcerer.

I should note that I run exclusively in a custom setting with often several concurrent campaigns in a living world. What the players do is canon and affects other campaigns, and the setting is the result of now 14 campaigns (plus one-shots not recorded officially). So I have to work to maintain consistency and carefully judge any significant alterations to the setting's history or cosmology. Adding new bits and pieces requires consideration to not undo the truths established for previous games.

[Psyren]

I assume the PHB of course, as well as "setting neutral" sources (XGTE, TCOE, VGTM) are allowed. If the GM then tells me that one or more of those non-PHB sources is banned wholesale, I'll likely ask why but I won't make a big deal out of it. If they're allowed but X element from them is banned, same approach.

If there's something I want from a setting-specific source, I assume it's banned - but if I have a really fun concept in mind I have no problem asking. For example, I have been allowed to play Genasi in custom settings before. My GM has also allowed a Warforged player in FR (not me.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Default-allow all published content, homebrew and UA subject to approval. The exception is most often setting-specific (warforged outside of eberron, Ravnica guilds, etc).
Same here, with the addition that my published third-party stuff is also on the auto-list. As I see it, unless there's a campaign-specific reason (ie, "there are no elephant dudes in Eberron" or "no swimming or water-based stuff, the world was dry until the great flood six months ago), it's just generally better to say yes. Or at the very least, "yes, but."

Power creep is useful to keep in mind when writing new material, but I don't think it's particularly useful to worry about in-game. Player skill, circumstance, and luck can lead to disparities even if everyone has the exact same build; no matter what restrictions you do or don't put on content, there's going to be a certain amount of mid-game tweaking to do. Weaker characters find tailored magic items, characters who've turned out too strong get discussed with the player (or straight-up enjoyed by the whole group, if they're doing their own thing with their own style), and so on. Why stress about the initial setup?

We're all here to have fun. If using an option from Tasha's or a random (vetted) homebrew makes the game more fun for that player, and it won't ruin the thematics you're trying to portray, why not let them? Why demand any justification at all, beyond "it looks cool?" The only mechanical reason you should disallow an option is if it's going to cause problems for the rest of the group.

At the end of the day, tabletop RPGs are about freedom of choice. Resisting or denying that kind of choice during character creation is ultimately no different from denying it in-game.



tl;dr: Saying no to things because of thematics is perfectly fine; saying no because of vague concerns about game balance or general grumpiness about "bloat" is not.

[Witty Username]

Generally, I use, is it a book I own, if yes it is allowed, unless I say otherwise.
If it is not a book I own it is not allowed, unless I say otherwise.

This is because I find it easier for book keeping and plot hook design if I can simply look up the mechanics and flavor the party is using, and I am much more familiar with potential concerns if it is in a book I own.

[strangebloke]

tl;dr: Saying no to things because of thematics is perfectly fine; saying no because of vague concerns about game balance or general grumpiness about "bloat" is not.

What if I feel that something is just plain annoying?

Conjure X and Animate Dead are disrespectful to everyone's time.

[prototype00]

I play in AL, so that more or less defaults me to A, and as a corollary, the only thing a DM can do to stop you from playing a class that is following AL rules (the nuclear option, so to speak) is to say "I don't want you playing at my table with that", at which point you go off and find another table that does or switch to another character you were leveling, its all good.

And all abilities by class are adjudicated according to the RAW rules, so no on the fly nerfing of abilities. (Goodness, that is my absolute pet peeve in D&D, whatever the edition, the knee jerk DM panic nerf)

I know some folks are looking at what I just wrote slack jawed in offended horror, but can I just say it is the most liberating thing in the world to have the rules for each season in a nice three page pdf in black and white and everybody has to follow them as part of the AL gaming contract.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I play in AL, so that more or less defaults me to A, and as a corollary, the only thing a DM can do to stop you from playing a class that is following AL rules (the nuclear option, so to speak) is to say "I don't want you playing at my table with that", at which point you go off and find another table that does or switch to another character you were leveling, its all good.

I know some folks are looking at what I just wrote slack jawed in offended horror, but can I just say it is the most liberating thing in the world to have the rules for each season in a nice three page pdf in black and white and everybody has to follow them as part of the AL gaming contract.

I'd actually say that AL defaults to B, but very permissively. It explicitly allows certain material--anything it doesn't mention is forbidden. A would mean that if they published a new book and didn't update the rules, you could use it automatically. Which isn't true. For instance, they don't ban Ravinica, but it isn't mentioned as allowed, which means it's not allowed.

[Valmark]

I go with C- any official book is fine by default but no reason needs to be given for banning stuff. Especially since the only time I heard a DM justify a ban (at my table) it was mostly just ignorance, so I prefer people who don't feel the need to explain themselves.

[P. G. Macer]

I’ve been looking for an online game lately, so I’ve looked through a lot of listings, and I gotta say I think the classic casual player vs. forum-goer dissonance is at play here, because unless there is a specific theme that the DM with the listing is going for, most of the listings I’ve seen are on the permissive end, leaning closer to A than B, but looking through the polling here so far, B seems dominant.

Personally, as a DM and forum-goer myself (obviously), my style is de jure B, but de facto A, as there is definite external pressure on a DM to be permissive with character creation content rather than restrictive. The pressure doesn’t even need to come from the DM’s players; there is a larger pressure existent in the culture as a whole IME, even if one’s players go with the flow that the DM dictates. This is more present in parts of character creation that every 5e PC has i.e., race, class, subclass, and background, than in setting specific character creation bits, such as Theran Supernatural Gifts and Ravenloft’s Dark Gifts.

So that is my 2cp.

[Abracadangit]

After reading other responses, I've realized I approach every campaign as a player in Camp B, and every campaign I start as a DM, I'm in Camp A.

It's like visiting someone's house vs. hosting, right. When I'm in their house, I assume all common household rules are in place, unless told otherwise. And if people are coming to my house, people can generally do whatever they want, so long as that privilege isn't abused.

[Psyren]

Conjure X and Animate Dead are disrespectful to everyone's time.

At low levels they aren't terrible, but I'm definitely glad we got the much more manageable Tasha versions now for a summoner build :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

When creating a character (or leveling up a character), is the default (in your mind)

a) all [published|1st party|official] sources are allowed unless the DM specifically says something is banned, and it's the DM's burden to produce an acceptable justification for each ban
Ix Nay on the burden part. There is no burden.

I trend towards Camp B, but I usually lay out in the pre-chargen email, post or written campaign summary what races, classes and material I usually use - with the "anything beyond that we'll talk about and see if it fits or not." My default on UA is "none, unless you bring one to me and we decide how to make it work for us."
As for third party: hard no. (Sorry, Grod :smalleek: unless I review it and tweak it (if necessary) so that it fits the world.
(See your campaign 2 dragon rider iterative process for how it usually works out).

FWIW: my mod to camp B is "vHuman is standard rules"


The DM isn't required to justify his reasons for allowing or banning anything. Agree.

Even beyond that, my default assumption is still neither. I wouldn't expect setting-specific options to be available outside that setting. I feel the same way.

[zlefin]

Technically I think I use camp B; but in practice it runs more like camp A unless session zero details say otherwise.

While a DM can ban whatever they want, I like to know the reason, so I can assess its soundness to determine whether I want to be in the game. In general I never mind a DM using the rule of "no books I don't own", nor restrictions on setting-specific stuff. In practice, the former seems to be a bit less of an issue than in the 3.5 days, due to 5E's relative simplicity; it simply seems easier to run content you're less familiar with now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Conjure X and Animate Dead are disrespectful to everyone's time.Hardly. The trick to Conjure X is to work out an agreement ahead of time between DM and player (package a, package b, preferred one or two animals/fey, and make sure both are on the same page. My shepherd druid player and I (DM) have that agreement, for both Fey and Animals, and it works nicely.
I have that agreement with Phoenix on Conjure animals, and it works well.
I also don't summon herds. :smallyuk: If there were better mass combat rules I'd consider it, but there aren't.

[Rukelnikov]

Just curious - did you assume that was the case or did you ask the DM about the stuff allowed for the game first?

I contacted the DM via discord, he told me a bit about the setting where the campaign was gonna take place (homebrew), and then asked me if I had any idea for a character, I told him I had been toying with an Aasimar Rune Knight build and that I liked one of the regions of his setting full of ruins, so I was thinking of making him an archeologist that lived there. He liked it, and that was that.

[Leon]

DM doesn't have to justify anything, if they don't want it for X reason they just have to say no to that book, choice etc
Nominally expect that whatever the DM actually owns or has access to is what they will be using and expect players to make use of the same, some have certainly allowed use of books players own but they do not but if in doubt its on the player to check with the DM before they use it.

[strangebloke]

Hardly. The trick to Conjure X is to work out an agreement ahead of time between DM and player (package a, package b, preferred one or two animals/fey, and make sure both are on the same page. My shepherd druid and I have that agreement, for both Fey and Animals, and it works nicely. I have that agreement with Phoenix on Conjure animals, and it works well. I also don't summon herds. :smallyuk:

Why do I have to do any of that? If the spell requires an extensive player/DM conversation, I'd rather just ban it and save myself a good twenty minutes, and also save everyone a good ten minutes every combat.

Might just be my cranky bias talking but I've never heard any good argument for why some character need to be able to take 4-5 turns per turn, every turn. It's always either "well I take five turns quite fast you know" or "oh I just let make the DM do all the work."

[KorvinStarmast]

Why do I have to do any of that? Because it's fun, or can be, if the DM and player talk to each other and engage in good faith. If that isn't a norm at the table, then I can see your concern.

[Slider Eclipse]

Unless it's something exceptionally outside of the core rules such as a Sidekick or UA of even the Supernatural Gifts from Theros I would allow anything on a case by case basis. This includes stuff like the Ravnica Backgrounds and presumably the Strixhaven ones once they release. It honestly shouldn't matter if someone wants to say wield a double sided scimitar from Eberron or pick up access to a spell or two that fits there character's theme by using a Ravnica Background, Lore details are just fluff and can always be adjusted to fit the campaign.

That being said however just because one player gets access to something wouldn't mean EVERY player gets access, Just because the Battle Smith got to pick up Boros Legionnaire so they can play them a bit more like a paladin doesn't mean that your Hexblade Tome Warlock is allowed to take Glogari Agent, the Artificer is doing it for flavor and rp purposes, not trying to break my table over his knee with near infinite necromancy. you can pick a different ravnica background if you wish or you can change something about your class choice to make that combo less abusive.

D&D is a game about coming together and telling a story with characters everyone enjoys using. if someone has a legitimate concept that uses something outside of the core material they want to play because it's fun and not just because they want to "Win" D&D, There is no reason to ban that character from play. Fluff can always be adjusted to help the concept work with the setting.

[sithlordnergal]

Devil's advocate:

Would you feel fine with a fully FR character who was part of a Ravinica guild or had a Theros Divine Boon?


Yes. Give me a reason for them to be in FR, and you're good. And it can be anything:

Random portal that teleported you here? Works

Wandered here after going into an enchanted forest? Perfect

Got black out drunk and don't remember how you got here? Works for me.

Buuut as I said in a previous post, I will allow literally anything. From a Vampire Drakewarden to a Renegade Fighter that worships Brassica Prime and shoots cabbages, to an Eberron Changling that is permanently Dog shaped that can only say Vox in an FR game, I'm good with it all.

Continuity? Bah, throw all that junk out, do what you want. Everything that isn't a solid mechanic that effects dice rolls is a suggestion that can be ignored.

[Kane0]

Player skill, circumstance, and luck can lead to disparities even if everyone has the exact same build; no matter what restrictions you do or don't put on content, there's going to be a certain amount of mid-game tweaking to do.

Bit of a joke/stab at me around my table is i'm not allowed to play a character with INT lower than 13 because i'm just too clever and savvy a player for my own good.

[strangebloke]

Because it's fun, or can be, if the DM and player talk to each other and engage in good faith. If that isn't a norm at the table, then I can see your concern.
Who's it fun for?

A player being allowed to do whatever they want might be fun for that player, but the few times I've allowed people to play with minionmancy its been actively detrimental for everyone else's fun. The Conjure X spells simply require arbitration and discussion ahead of time, something that I'd rather not bother with, and then in combat they cause a player to use up 4-5 the amount of time of everyone else. It's imbalanced, but more importantly it just crowds the field and turns every combat into a mass combat, which means more work for me, either because I'm controlling the summons or because it's made movement in combat infinitely more complex.

Animate Dead though is far worse, because on top of the regular minionmancy problems it creates an out of combat minigame that aggressively wastes time when the rest of the party would rather be roleplaying or fighting or gambling or literally doing anything else other than walking through Mr. Snuffles the Necromancy trying to buy corpses again. Of course you can manage this all with the DM outside the session but ultimately I only have so much time?

Find some other way to have fun that doesn't make me do more work, I've got enough things to do. If I'm going to allow minionmancy, everyone's going to get minions.



Continuity? Bah, throw all that junk out, do what you qant.

Seems like its going to be difficult to have any real sense of place or connection to the setting or events if everyone's just randomly doing whatever weird thing popped into their head the other day. What's an NPC supposed to say when some kind of weird cat person who doesn't exist in the setting walks into his shop? Should the NPC just ignore it? Should we repeat this annoying conversation twenty times?

I think its way more fun to have a party with a cohesive feel, which is why we usually start of campaigns with a unified vision like "we're all going to be holy knights!" or "we're all going to be pirates!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. Give me a reason for them to be in FR, and you're good. And it can be anything:

Random portal that teleported you here? Works

Wandered here after going into an enchanted forest? Perfect

Got black out drunk and don't remember how you got here? Works for me.

Buuut as I said in a previous post, I will allow literally anything. From a Vampire Drakewarden to a Renegade Fighter that worships Brassica Prime and shoots cabbages, to an Eberron Changling that is permanently Dog shaped that can only say Vox in an FR game, I'm good with it all.

Continuity? Bah, throw all that junk out, do what you want. Everything that isn't a solid mechanic that effects dice rolls is a suggestion that can be ignored.

I was speaking of a character who was born and raised in FR and has never had contact with Ravinica or Theros and chose it entirely for mechanical reasons.

---

I find the last sentence totally alien--I play to explore my setting and learn more about it based on how the players act and change things. For me, there is no fluff/crunch distinction--it's all rules. A change to the thematics or "fluff" is just as important and usually more important to get right than even the more destructive mechanical changes. Unless the world makes sense as a world-that-could-really-exist (ie verisimilitude), there's no point in playing. For me, the world must be more than just set dressing for a board game where only mechanics matter. Otherwise it's all meaningless and I might as well play a video game--at least there, the graphics are better even if the story doesn't make any sense and the world is an incoherent mess (looking at you, Bethesda!).

[sithlordnergal]

I was speaking of a character who was born and raised in FR and has never had contact with Ravinica or Theros and chose it entirely for mechanical reasons.


Oh, that's fine too for me. =D Honestly, I don't require players to give me any reason for the characters they make. Its why I have a player worshiping a joke god from Runescape and has expanded his religion xD




I find the last sentence totally alien--I play to explore my setting and learn more about it based on how the players act and change things. For me, there is no fluff/crunch distinction--it's all rules. A change to the thematics or "fluff" is just as important and usually more important to get right than even the more destructive mechanical changes. Unless the world makes sense as a world-that-could-really-exist (ie verisimilitude), there's no point in playing. For me, the world must be more than just set dressing for a board game where only mechanics matter. Otherwise it's all meaningless and I might as well play a video game--at least there, the graphics are better even if the story doesn't make any sense and the world is an incoherent mess (looking at you, Bethesda!).

See, I have the opposite view of things. There is no point in all that non-mechanical stuff because its too limiting. I don't see why a PC Druid has to refuse to wear metal armor since its just a taboo. Sure, other Druids choose not to, and find it taboo, but you're a PC. You're exceptional! You choose to break that taboo and nothing can stop you!

Now, does that mean there are no consequences? Of course not. A Druid that wears metal armor is going to be treated poorly by most Druids. A world can have verisimilitude while letting the players ignore those extra bits on class descriptions.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.

[Dark.Revenant]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

If I had to guess, I'd say it probably has to do with the reason that the GM doesn't need to invite you over to their house, doesn't need to provide snacks, doesn't need to craft a story, doesn't need to draw dungeon maps, doesn't need to purchase miniatures, doesn't need to design encounters and devise traps, doesn't need to create rewards, etc. I can understand that mindset; I just don't like it.

[GreyBlack]

As a DM, I tend to ban Critical Role stuff, but that's mostly because I don't like the Critical Role stuff and think the niches the Critical Role stuff can accomplish can be accomplished in other ways. Otherwise, as a player, I tend to assume the default to be that everything official, 1st party, and published is on the table.

[Sigreid]

Depends on the campaign. Usually, we're pretty free wheeling. But sometimes a particular DM will want a particular tone, flavor or whatever and say Only X. For example, right now one of our group is running a campaign where you can't be a spellcasting class or subclass as he has magic work differently.

[strangebloke]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.

I'd offer a reason but the reason may just be "I don't like it."

It's not just a matter of the me putting more work into things, though I easily spend 2-3 times as much as my players. It's also a matter of the me being the guy who made the setting, the guy who's expected to coordinate characters and arbitrate any interplayer issues and also address any "I'm not having fun" issues. I'm the one who knows how the encounters are generally structured and how things like magic items are going to work. You earlier said that character strength varies because of player skill and I emphatically agree. But players with the system knowledge to be really good power gamers are also really good at optimization. The effects feed into each other and make them more pronounced. The weak get weaker and the string get stronger. So don't feel I should have to really justify any specific ban beyond saying "I don't like it /it's an option that's been disruptive in the past/ I feel it's inappropriate for the campaign."

The other issue is that player character concepts are often very temporary. A concept that seems super cool and fun today won't necessarily be so interesting tomorrow, particularly of the whole character is a based on a single race or class feature. I've many times accommodated some special vision a player had only to have them drop the game four sessions in or ask to switch characters. And here I am left with a big circle on my map labeled "gnome home" which I never wanted there in the first place. I do try to accommodate people to a degree but if people just want to be a talking dog because "it will be funny" I'm out.

[Psyren]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.

Yeah, I'd much rather have an adult discussion (even if its brief/singular) than getting sent to bed without dessert. I've had more than one GM that initially disallowed something not because of flavor clashes but simply because they weren't familiar with it and had bought into a number of misconceptions around it as a result. One of my first GMs absolutely despised psionics because the 3.0 version was burned in their brain until I was able to talk them down.

[KorvinStarmast]

Who's it fun for? I am picking up a presumption of player versus DM adversarial attitudes from you here, and I don't play at tables like that.

I do play at tables where people on both sides of the screen talk to each other, not at each other.

I guess that isn't the universal experience.

Step 0 is, I think, to adopt PhoenixPhyre's approach of "the rules are a tool kit to enable a good play experience for the group." What your post told me is that you do not see it that way.

[dafrca]

After reading other responses, I've realized I approach every campaign as a player in Camp B, and every campaign I start as a DM, I'm in Camp A.

It's like visiting someone's house vs. hosting, right. When I'm in their house, I assume all common household rules are in place, unless told otherwise. And if people are coming to my house, people can generally do whatever they want, so long as that privilege isn't abused.

I like this way of thinking. makes a lot of sense. :smallsmile:

[Pex]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.


If I had to guess, I'd say it probably has to do with the reason that the GM doesn't need to invite you over to their house, doesn't need to provide snacks, doesn't need to craft a story, doesn't need to draw dungeon maps, doesn't need to purchase miniatures, doesn't need to design encounters and devise traps, doesn't need to create rewards, etc. I can understand that mindset; I just don't like it.

Right. It is the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game. The DM who answers "because I said so" is a bully. The DM is not the players' Master, Boss, nor Parents. The DM is to treat the players with respect, and vice versa. Players can disagree but choose to play anyway and abide by the decision., but a DM must never dismiss a player for existing.

[strangebloke]

I am picking up a presumption of player versus DM adversarial attitudes from you here, and I don't play at tables like that.

I do play at tables where people on both sides of the screen talk to each other, not at each other.

I guess that isn't the universal experience.

Step 0 is, I think, to adopt PhoenixPhyre's approach of "the rules are a tool kit to enable a good play experience for the group." What your post told me is that you do not see it that way.

:smallconfused:

I want a good experience for the group, which includes me. I find that subjectively, conjuring 3-5 minions are a lot more unfun for the group as a whole (self included) than they are fun for any one player. Why is this a one-way street, where I as the DM am required to do something I dislike because the player feels like doing something they like?

Maybe I'm a grouchy ******* but I'm trying to have fun here too.

[Tanarii]

Neither. I assume a DM will inform the players of everything that is allowed, including non-variant PHB material, as far as races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, Multiclassing, and feats. No justification required as to why it's been included nor not included. If Rogues and Bards aren't on the allowed list, then they aren't on the allowed list.

Spells I'd generally assume that any available in the PHB that an available class can use would be allowed, but only because I wouldn't expect a DM to take the time to curate the list. But if they did, again, no justification for not including spells on the allowed list is fine.

Also, I don't judge anything based on an allowed list being rephrased as a "not allowed" list for brevity sake. "All Xan subclasses allowed except Hexblade" for example. Or "PHB spells x, y and z not allowed".


A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.
The DM doesn't need to spend time re-explaining themselves to every campaign applicant that wants to be an exception to the rules they designed. And someone that assumes a right to answers often turns into a sealion if you start down the justification path. The common courtesy is to assume they chose the things on their allowed list for a reason, not demand an explanation for your exception.

If you're setting up a new game with a pre-established group of friends, it's different. Hopefully you talk about it together during the prospective DM's pitch in that case. But there are a lot of social contract rules that are different for a 'home' game like that.

[Xetheral]

I find the last sentence totally alien--I play to explore my setting and learn more about it based on how the players act and change things. For me, there is no fluff/crunch distinction--it's all rules. A change to the thematics or "fluff" is just as important and usually more important to get right than even the more destructive mechanical changes. Unless the world makes sense as a world-that-could-really-exist (ie verisimilitude), there's no point in playing. For me, the world must be more than just set dressing for a board game where only mechanics matter. Otherwise it's all meaningless and I might as well play a video game--at least there, the graphics are better even if the story doesn't make any sense and the world is an incoherent mess (looking at you, Bethesda!).

Ironically enough, despite enthusiastically agreeing with you on the importance of verisimilitude, I nevertheless separate crunch and fluff. To me, allowing a refluff of an ability is just saying that (IC) there happen to be two different abilities in the setting that (OOC) happen to have identical mechanical abstractions. In other words, I'm fine with a many-to-one relationship between fluff and crunch and don't see that as lessening the verisimilitude of the setting. So if a warrior from member of a primal nomadic society and a street urchin with an anger problem both happen to be modeled using the Barbarian Class, my sense of verisimilitude in the setting remains undamaged.

That said, I don't allow carte blanche for refluffing. I still want to make sure that the OOC mechanic being refluffed is a reasonable choice for mechanically modeling the desired IC ability. So I want the fluff and the crunch to align well with each other, but I can achieve that to my satisfaction while still acknowledging a distinction between them.

[kazaryu]

When creating a character (or leveling up a character), is the default (in your mind)

a) all [published|1st party|official] sources are allowed unless the DM specifically says something is banned, and it's the DM's burden to produce an acceptable justification for each ban
b) Only non-variant PHB material is allowed by default; players (or the DM) may ask for other content to be allowed on a case by case basis, and the one asking for the new material bears the burden of producing a justification for why it should be allowed. The DM can still ban non-variant PHB material (gno gnomes!), but must justify any such bans.

Essentially: is it "default deny" (an allow-list[1], case b), or "default allow" (a ban-list[1], case a)?

I think the two models have very different outcomes for examining power creep (such as the Strixhaven backgrounds/feats being talked about elsewhere). If the default is deny, then power creep is more limited in damage potential. If the default is allow, then the existence of such power-creep material is inherently a problem.


I'm very strongly in camp b, both as a player and as a DM. The only thing I assume to be true is that the PHB is allowed. Anything else is optional content that I may ask for, but shouldn't assume unless I've gotten approval (although such approval may come in the form of blanket permissions ("all content from XYZ is allowed").


[1] trying to be sensitive and non-distracting here, because I know some people don't like the traditional terms which involve colors.

i suppose im camp b. i mean i never thought of it in those terms, but i'll also always check with the DM about their character creation rules. which would usually include any ban lists. with that being said i don't think there's any 'burden of justification' in either case. a DM isn't obligated to explain to you why X was banned. if they say its banned, then its banned, case closed. of course, as a DM i don't have a problem telling people why i ban things (if i were to ever ban anything). And as a player, i always feel empowered to ask for a rationale. but in neither case do i believe the player is owed an explanation that they find valid or reasonable. as others have pointed out, the DM is willing to act as a sapient game console, if certain content doesn't run properly on them, then it doesn't run properly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm fine with adjusting the thematics. But I do want it to be done with the same care we put towards adjusting mechanics, and with the same understanding that we are adjusting something.

I'm totally fine with rulings, and have adjusted much of the thematics. But it's a conscious, knowing decision, not a statement that thematics don't matter or are "fluff" that can be reshaped at will by anyone without making substantive changes. Changes to thematics are themselves substantive changes.

[sithlordnergal]

Yeah, I've never really worried as much about thematics with any of my characters...Goblin Noble of Waterdeep? I've played it without a second thought to the fact that a Goblin being a Noble of Waterdeep doesn't really make much sense. Why did I play it? Cause the idea of a Goblin Noble made me chuckle. Though I did make sure to keep to the themes of being a noble.

[Mastikator]

I'm camp B but more as a consequence of me not liking characters made in a vacuum. I prefer when characters are made together with the DM, even better if the whole group make their characters together.

[Amnestic]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.

I think they should be able to articulate why they don't like/allow it. A DM can ban something, and a player can question it, because then they can work out that maybe there is a way to make it work that the DM hadn't considered.

But, ultimately, some things simply will not be workable for the campaign (eg, "this race literally doesn't exist"), and there shouldn't be much more of an explanation needed.

Also Conjure Animals is a pain, summoning 8 creatures for a third level spell is disruptive regardless of what you actually end up summoning. I've capped it at the "summon 1 or 2 creatures" options, tore out the 4+8.

[Azuresun]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.

I'm not quite that blunt, but on the rare occasions when I do put my foot down, I'll give an explanation for my logic, and then that's it.

I think this can be traced back to a player I had a while ago who absolutely had to play something that was some combination of a) Super-Special and unique within the setting, b) disruptive to party dynamics (as in "everyone else stop what you're doing and PAY ATTENTION TO ME!") and / or c) mechanically OP to game-breaking. Trying to negotiate with him would lead to whining, guilt-tripping and him endlessly restating his case until he got his way.

[Khrysaes]

I by default deny all material, then give a limited allowed list.

I have been wanting to play a game with:

No darkvision (Just remove it from the race)
No Humans
No Elves (or Half)
No Orcs (Or Half)
No Dwarves
No Halflings
No Gnomes

[Xihirli]

I by default deny all material, then give a limited allowed list.

I have been wanting to play a game with:

No darkvision (Just remove it from the race)
No Humans
No Elves (or Half)
No Orcs (Or Half)
No Dwarves
No Halflings
No Gnomes

All Goliath game let's gooooooooo

[Grod_The_Giant]

Re: my question, it seems like it people are equating the GM explaining their bans with having to argue why each one matters?


But there are a lot of social contract rules that are different for a 'home' game like that.
True. But I think "home" games (with a stable group of mature humans) are the default. Ongoing drop in/drop out games like yours are an unusual case.

[Dork_Forge]

True. But I think "home" games (with a stable group of mature humans) are the default. Ongoing drop in/drop out games like yours are an unusual case.

That really depends, there's plenty of people that only play in AL games, or that have irregular schedules so just use jump in games on Roll20 etc.

Even if you're not running a drop-in and out game, plenty of people build longer-term games from strangers applying online now, which, until it gets going, is a carousel of people applying.

[kazaryu]

Re: my question, it seems like it people are equating the GM explaining their bans with having to argue why each one matters?


thats largely due to the way OP phrased the question.
'..and it's the DM's burden to produce an acceptable justification for each ban'
'but must justify any such bans.'

whether intended or not, the inference people are making is that OP's question assumes that the ultimate authority on bans falls to the party. the phrasing certainly seems to imply a more combative interaction than, i assume, the OP was intending.

[truemane]

True. But I think "home" games (with a stable group of mature humans) are the default. Ongoing drop in/drop out games like yours are an unusual case.
I think it's less and less the default over time. The influx of new players to the hobby with 5E has fundamentally changed the standard entry-point into the hobby. When it was still a weird obscure niche activity you only really found about it when you stumbled on someone who played it, and so stable, long-term homegames were very much the default.

Now? Way less so. So many people know about D&D from livestreams and podcasts and Youtube channels and want to try it but don't have access to a group.

I started playing in the early 80's when it was the one. And pre-pandemic I used to run/play a lot of AL games, and I used to run a standard once-or-twice monthly table for complete novices. So I can say that it's a very different beast now. And it requires some re-thinking of our assumptions about how the game works (should work/does work).

If I'm playing in a 'home' game with people I know, I don't restrict content much. I have a very good sense of everyone's playstyle and I know everyone comes to the table with a clear sense of the kind of game I like to play and run. We're on the much-vaunted same page and so arguments are few and far between (and easily managed when they do happen). HOWEVER, even with those folks, when I disallow something, I offer a good reason if I have one, but sometimes the reason is just "I don't like it in this game."

With strangers (non-Adventurer's League), I run strictly with an allowed-list, and players have to request anything not on it.

[KorvinStarmast]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?... common courtesy. That courtesy door swings both ways. :smallwink:

I'd offer a reason but the reason may just be "I don't like it." That is sufficient. My other remark sometimes is "doesn't fit the setting of this world" and that's that.

Why is this a one-way street, where I as the DM am required to do something I dislike because the player feels like doing something they like? What I am describing is a two way street, I guess we are talking past one another here.
Maybe I'm a grouchy ******* but I'm trying to have fun here too. Hey, I've walked a mile in those shoes! :smallbiggrin:

But, ultimately, some things simply will not be workable for the campaign (eg, "this race literally doesn't exist"), and there shouldn't be much more of an explanation needed. That's kind of where it stands with me.
Also Conjure Animals is a pain, summoning 8 creatures for a third level spell is disruptive regardless of what you actually end up summoning. I've capped it at the "summon 1 or 2 creatures" options, tore out the 4+8. Or you can do what I do and summon two CR 1 creatures (dire wolves) or 1 Bit Old Snake (CR 2) and not hog table time. Or do what my Shepherd Druid player did: summon two giant Octopi for the underwater fight, or, on Neriad (that was kinda tricky, as I'd only ever run one - we learned a few things on that one).


All Goliath game let's gooooooooo Heck Yeah! Go big or go home! :smallbiggrin:

@truemane: nice post, I am still pondering whether or not I'll consider DMing AL games next year. I have to get over a few of my 'feel' bits ... and DMs are allowed to have fun too.

[DigoDragon]

No default. You ask/agree before starting. Eg. session zero or earlier.

In my experience it is very rare for a GM not to mention what books/resources are allowed or not when starting a campaign. If it was not mentioned at the beginning, it becomes my first question.



I think they should be able to articulate why they don't like/allow it. A DM can ban something, and a player can question it, because then they can work out that maybe there is a way to make it work that the DM hadn't considered.

But, ultimately, some things simply will not be workable for the campaign (eg, "this race literally doesn't exist"), and there shouldn't be much more of an explanation needed.

I'll accept an explanation like that. Sometimes it can be a simple "I don't own the book, so I am not comfortable allowing it" and I'm fine with it.

[Xervous]

At this point in time my expectation is a whitelist, but usually it’s a very permissive process. A formalized step in the communication between GM and players as the form and intent of the campaign takes shape. The earlier in the campaign the more forgiving I as a player or GM will be of changes to the list. It’s not a one way mandate from the GM, it’s a handy reference point and summary of past conversations and agreements.

[strangebloke]

Re: my question, it seems like it people are equating the GM explaining their bans with having to argue why each one matters?

You have to acknowledge the way this discussion has been framed. OP led with "who has to justify the ban/approval list?" Justify implies at the very least a healthy discussion about what should or should not be allowed. So when people saying "I don't have to justify anything" its in that context.

And really the issue is, there's no 'argument' that you can really have, nor any reason that's actually inarguable. At the end of the day everything comes back to preferences.

True. But I think "home" games (with a stable group of mature humans) are the default. Ongoing drop in/drop out games like yours are an unusual case.

It's hard to know. Personally, I do have a home game with a stable group, but I also run six-month long mini campaigns pretty frequently (three going on right now) and I've had something like thirty players cycle through those. The majority of these people have next to no TTRPG experience and although 'mature' they usually also lack a degree of what I'd call table etiquette. A lot of them too aren't really prepared for the commitment of a weekly game game and end up dropping out or not showing up to the next campaign. This might not be a normal DM experience? But I'd guess this is a pretty normal player experience.



I'll accept an explanation like that. Sometimes it can be a simple "I don't own the book, so I am not comfortable allowing it" and I'm fine with it.

Yeah and I want to be clear: I do really want to make an enjoyable experience for my players and i will work with them to make their concept work, but I also want them to engage with my campaign and setting. If someone comes to me with an idea that engages with the setting, I'll be very receptive to it even if its not on the approved list.

I don't allow warforged because I don't think they 'feel' right for what we're doing but if someone was like "hey, my buddy is playing a druid from the Green Hand and I was wondering if I could play like, their treant assistant. I was thinking warforged but reflavored?" then yeah we'd run with it.

[KorvinStarmast]

If someone comes to me with an idea that engages with the setting, I'll be very receptive to it even if its not on the approved list. Yes indeed; the collaborative approach to chargen is a best practice. :smallsmile:

[Xetheral]

I'm fine with adjusting the thematics. But I do want it to be done with the same care we put towards adjusting mechanics, and with the same understanding that we are adjusting something.

I'm totally fine with rulings, and have adjusted much of the thematics. But it's a conscious, knowing decision, not a statement that thematics don't matter or are "fluff" that can be reshaped at will by anyone without making substantive changes. Changes to thematics are themselves substantive changes.

It sounds like we're substantively on the same page then, just describing our approaches using different wording. When you said "[f]or me, there is no fluff/crunch distinction--it's all rules" I (inaccurately) interpreted that to mean that you did not allow thematic changes without accompanying mechanic changes, since changing one without the other would require there to be a distinction. But it sounds like you're not using fluff and crunch as synonyms for thematics and mechanics to the same extent that I am. Thanks for clarifying!

[Sigreid]

Yeah and I want to be clear: I do really want to make an enjoyable experience for my players and i will work with them to make their concept work, but I also want them to engage with my campaign and setting. If someone comes to me with an idea that engages with the setting, I'll be very receptive to it even if its not on the approved list.

I don't allow warforged because I don't think they 'feel' right for what we're doing but if someone was like "hey, my buddy is playing a druid from the Green Hand and I was wondering if I could play like, their treant assistant. I was thinking warforged but reflavored?" then yeah we'd run with it.

Interesting. If I'm starting a campaign, no matter how narrow or wide what I'm allowing is, I typically lay out to the players "this is the box I need your character to fit into". Up to them to fit in the box which usually exists to facilitate the introduction of the characters to each other and set the initial direction of the campaign. Once the campaign is moving, it's going where the players take it.

[Tanarii]

Re: my question, it seems like it people are equating the GM explaining their bans with having to argue why each one matters?Yes. As I said, that kind of thing rapidly turns into (not malicious) sealioning. Term isn't exactly accurate because it's not malicious, but the end result is the same.


True. But I think "home" games (with a stable group of mature humans) are the default. Ongoing drop in/drop out games like yours are an unusual case.Pre-pandemic I've have agreed. But now even my anti-tech-in-DND brain is starting to realize exactly how popular various methods of online play were even pre-lockdown. And now it's exploded, and many people aren't looking back.

But as playing with close personal friends of a long time group of players that have now become friends is a widely different social contract exactly because it's close personal friends, and and that should be called out. Without that, there's no reason to assume the DM needs to explain anything about how they chose to set up their campaign, even if it's one designed for a single group of players for a single series of adventure arcs. At least, explain anything more than the pitch.

Friends owe friends explanations and a chance to argue their case. DMs don't owe potential Players at their table anything like that.

[Darth Credence]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.

No, you are not entitled to more than that. You aren't entitled to anything.
My reason for saying the DM doesn't have to justify a ban is that once you go down that road, far too many players think it is an opening for arguing why they should be allowed to do so. As a DM, if I've already decided that a particular thing doesn't fit, I don't care how well crafted an argument the player can come up with for why it really does. If someone says, "I want to play an artificer", I can respond, "Not in this campaign." We leave it at that, and go on with our campaign, and the player can choose to not to play if it's a deal breaker.
If instead, they ask why not and I decide to say something like, "the level of technology in the world is not such that artificers exist. In this particular campaign, the last apocalypse that reset the world was fairly recent, and that style of magic/technology has yet to be discovered." The player then responds with, "But couldn't my character be the one who rediscovered it, and I am the only artificer in the world?" "No, because..." "But what if..." And so on and so forth, and on and on and on.
If I could expect the common courtesy of not arguing about it when the reason is explained, then perhaps I would give it back. But when people start talking about how they are entitled to something, it's likely they will not accept the ruling even if explained.

[Valmark]

A question for those saying that the GM doesn't need to explain their bans: Why?

They shouldn't have to argue about it, to be sure, but if I wanted to play an Artificer, aren't I entitled to more than "you can't, end of story?" We're all adults, and even as players we're dedicating a good chunk of time and energy to the game. If you're shooting down one of my ideas, explaining why is (as I see it) common courtesy.

Personally it's because the only time I had a DM banning something with an explanation it was a bunch of bull**** so I'd rather just be told I can't use X and that's it rather then hear something stupid. I would assume that with somebody who knows how to read it'd be less of an issue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll say that I included the part about justification because it's a sentiment I've heard a lot on these forums and elsewhere, especially in context of expectation-type A.

I've heard people say (only very lightly paraphrased):
"I should be able to use any material I want and if you're going to ban something you need a really persuasive reason I can agree with or you're a bully and a controlling DM who doesn't want me to have fun."

Which puts a really strong mentality of "bans must be justified because I have a right to use anything I want" in play.

On the flip side, I do try to explain at least in short form why I don't expand my allowed set:
* No goblins despite them being a relatively common race? There are setting issues that make them not really suitable for adventurers (namely that goblins have a tribal shared memory when near each other and without that have very little object permanence, and I can't guarantee you'll spend any time near your tribe).
* No stars druids? Thematics don't work.
* No firearms or conventional explosives of any "explosive powder" type? Aesthetics. I don't want a muskets and cannons setting. So that switch is off at the fundamental level.
* No gnomes? Gnomes are hateful ugly monsters. Really, they exist but everyone in the main areas think they're extinct, because no party has done the leg work of finding them and bringing them back into contact with "civilization" yet.
* Etc.

[Tanarii]

* No gnomes? Gnomes are hateful ugly monsters. Really, they exist but everyone in the main areas think they're extinct, because no party has done the leg work of finding them and bringing them back into contact with "civilization" yet.
Clearly you meant Hobbits and mistyped.

Your justification isn't a good one and I demand you change your setting and/or personal preferences for me!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Clearly you meant Hobbits and mistyped.

Your justification isn't a good one and I demand you change your setting and/or personal preferences for me!


Oddly, of all the "main" races in the setting, halflings have the most messed up culture. Partially because there are only one small group of them (comparatively).

* Eusocial, with three "sexes" (fertile male, fertile female, neuter "female" called kliba), where males are much more rare than females which are rarer than the neuter kliba. And the kliba are indoctrinated/genetically predisposed to obey the matriarchs. Males are smaller and weaker than females, with kliba being bigger and tougher than most. Yes, this is very bee-like.
* Strongly hierarchical and matriarchal, with the female matriarchs ruling the roost
* Strongly misandrist, with the traditional culture treating males as property and decoration, only good for making babies. Males are sold into "marriage" to a group of matriarch sisters, where they're cloistered away from everyone or are used to reward "favored" people.
* Strong "we have reserves" mentality--the kliba are sent against threats en masse; multiple births are very common, leading to boom and bust cycles in the less civilized ones.
* Strong religious fanaticism

Note that this isn't racial as much as cultural--halflings that break away from this main culture tend to discard the worse parts of the culture.

[Psyren]

No, you are not entitled to more than that. You aren't entitled to anything.

I mean, the GM isn't entitled to players either :smalltongue:

I do agree that taken too far a simple request for more information can become sealioning, but anything taken too far becomes bad. The key is to use your IRL social skills to figure out where that line is, and not cross it.

[Darth Credence]

I mean, the GM isn't entitled to players either :smalltongue:

I do agree that taken too far a simple request for more information can become sealioning, but anything taken too far becomes bad. The key is to use your IRL social skills to figure out where that line is, and not cross it.

Good thing I specifically said that the player can choose not to play in the same comment.

[Sigreid]

Not sure I even understand the issue. The DM pitches the campaign or setting he wants to run and either enough players think it's cool enough to give it a shot or someone else proposes something else. In either case there's not really a reason to argue about the campaign/setting.

[Jophiel]

When creating a character (or leveling up a character), is the default (in your mind)

a) all [published|1st party|official] sources are allowed unless the DM specifically says something is banned, and it's the DM's burden to produce an acceptable justification for each ban
This, but the "justification" can be as loose as "My world and I say no". So I'd leave it on the DM to say "Only PHB and XGtE" but I wouldn't expect him to "acceptably" defend why no Tasha's or setting books.

Having both DM'd and played, I know for fact that DMing is way more time and resource intensive than playing and I'm not going to tell a DM how they need to set up their basic world choices to meet my standards. If I don't like it, I can go look for another game. The player economy generally favors DMs having to turn away players rather than players having too many DMs vying for their attention anyway so any game I decide not to join will probably do just fine without me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If I could expect the common courtesy of not arguing about it when the reason is explained, then perhaps I would give it back.
It certainly goes both ways. The GM owes it to their players to explain why something isn't allowed, and the player owes it to the GM to make a character who fits the intended game. And if you can't trust both parties to observe basic human decency, no ruleset in the world is going to make things still work properly.

And a little bit of back-and-forth isn't the end of the world. RPGs are collaborations, not dictatorships. An exchange like this:

"Can I play an Artificer?"
"No, that sort of magictech doesn't exist in this setting anymore."
"I really like the Infusion mechanic. What if we reflavor it so that my magic represents calling up ghosts and binding them into physical totems?"
"Hmm... that would definitely be seen as evil necromancy within the setting. You'd probably have to be associated with [faction] as well, they're the only ones who really mess around with the dead like that."
"That makes sense. Can we also replace the tool-based abilities with something more thematic?"
"No, I'm not comfortable with that level of mechanical change. Maybe for you it represents borrowing knowledge from the ghosts you've bound?"
"That still feels a little off to me. What if we just use the Phantom Rogue's totem schtick?"
"No. The flavor change is enough of a give."
"Alright. I'll see what I can do with existing races and feats."
Makes for a much better game than one like this:

"Can I play an Artificer?"
"No."
"I really like the Infusion mechanic. What if--
"No. If you don't like it, there's the door."

[BigRedJedi]

Devil's advocate:

Would you feel fine with a fully FR character who was part of a Ravinica guild or had a Theros Divine Boon?
----


I would say that, by definition, a character who is part of a Ravnica guild or has a Theros Divine Boon is not a "fully FR" character, so the question of whether I would allow such a character would generally be "Yes, if there is a good reason, but..." with any of the power-creeping additions in more recent books, I reserve the right to either extend similar power boosts to other players or selectively disallow certain things.

"Yes, but..." is a much better guiding principle than. "Nope..." but if I disallow something the most explanation I'll typically offer is that it doesn't fit the aesthetic of the story I am trying to tell with my players.

[Jophiel]

Makes for a much better game than one like this:
Counterpoint: As a player, I don't care if I get a hard no. If the GM says no Loxodons, then I just shelf my concept for another game and pull down one of the twenty-five other character concepts bounding around my head at a given moment. You don't want artificers? Cool, here's my Trickster cleric. I don't start really getting into character building and getting attached to a concept until I know what the DM's parameters are rather than insisting he needs to change them because I just gotta play this thing.

As a DM, I can respect the desire to lay a hard line rather than have Player A nibble around the edges and Player B asking why THEY can't have a whatever since Player A got their thing and nibble further around the edges and so forth. There's value in saying "Here's the box, if your idea doesn't fit in the box then go back to the shelf and grab one that fits instead of trying the bend the sides of the box."

[Thunderous Mojo]

I think it's less and less the default over time. The influx of new players to the hobby with 5E has fundamentally changed the standard entry-point into the hobby. When it was still a weird obscure niche activity you only really found about it when you stumbled on someone who played it, and so stable, long-term homegames were very much the default.

Now? Way less so. So many people know about D&D from livestreams and podcasts and Youtube channels and want to try it but don't have access to a group.

With strangers (non-Adventurer's League), I run strictly with an allowed-list, and players have to request anything not on it.



Friends owe friends explanations and a chance to argue their case. DMs don't owe potential Players at their table anything like that.

Setting Hard Boundaries for options in "Pick Up Games" of D&D is a hoary tradition.

Tournament Modules came with Pre-Generated Characters..sometimes you were just handed a character sheet and told to play it.

Are Adventurer's League games fun to DM?
Are Home Games more fun to DM?

"Strangers", "Potential Players", "Campaign Applicants" none of these terms convey the warmth of terms like "home game" or "Friends".

[Pex]

I'm fine with adjusting the thematics. But I do want it to be done with the same care we put towards adjusting mechanics, and with the same understanding that we are adjusting something.

I'm totally fine with rulings, and have adjusted much of the thematics. But it's a conscious, knowing decision, not a statement that thematics don't matter or are "fluff" that can be reshaped at will by anyone without making substantive changes. Changes to thematics are themselves substantive changes.

In a one-shot adventure I played a Stars Druid but themed it after Avatar The Last Air Bender. I purposely chose spells that reflected the elements - Air, Water, Earth, Fire, eschewing anything with Plants, Animals, or Summoning. There was one spell that had Plants elements affecting terrain, but it was more about Earth. When wildshaping into the constellations I called it transforming into the Avatar State. Could that work in your world and have nothing to do with the stars and constellations due to your cosmology? I wasn't trying to play Aang, per se. I was a druid of the Elements, but I admit the obvious of being influenced by Aang.

[KorvinStarmast]

If someone says, "I want to play an artificer", I can respond, "Not in this campaign." We leave it at that, and go on with our campaign, and the player can choose to not to play if it's a deal breaker. And now that I do have an artificer player in my campaign, I can go one step further and say that
"I've had one in a game, and I don't like how they fit".
(Interestingly, yet I am in a PbP game with a playgrounder as fellow player; their artificer fits that particular game world just fine).

I've heard people say (only very lightly paraphrased):
"I should be able to use any material I want and if you're going to ban something you need a really persuasive reason I can agree with or you're a bully and a controlling DM who doesn't want me to have fun."

Which puts a really strong mentality of "bans must be justified because I have a right to use anything I want" in play. Perhaps your case A is a bit of an extreme version of a position? :smallconfused: What gets posted in forums is also sometimes an extreme version of what we actually do, discourse wise, in meat space.

--halflings that break away from this main culture tend to discard the worse parts of the culture. Except (per my own observations) that they bring with them the halfling obsession with other races' kneecaps and the demise thereof ... :smallcool: (Full Disclosure: sample size of one)

Makes for a much better game than one like this:
Actually, your "here's the door" bit is hyperbole.
IRL, you are more likely to hear "There are all of these other classes and sub classes available, please pick one of them. You'll have fun with this group."

IME, the player is the one who eventually chooses the door, or doesn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except (per my own observations) that they bring with them the halfling obsession with other races' kneecaps and the demise thereof ... :smallcool: (Full Disclosure: sample size of one)


Yeah, that's an idiosyncrasy of that particular ball of fury and trauma. Most halflings aren't kneecap people.

[Tanarii]

Are Adventurer's League games fun to DM?
Are Home Games more fun to DM?

"Strangers", "Potential Players", "Campaign Applicants" none of these terms convey the warmth of terms like "home game" or "Friends".My experience: Official play games are fun to DM because they don't require much prep. AL games aren't as much fun as my own table exactly because I don't get to customize my setting.

Home games with friends are fun to run "beer and pretzels" style because friends. Home games aren't fun to run because group attendance is unstable, and finding friends who have open time to play is more problematic as I get older. IMO they work best as just a few session adventures.

non-home non-friends games, be it in game stores, open email invite lists, or I assume online (not that I do the latter) take a lot of work to start up, but I get to customize my setting and get regular attendance (pre pandemic).

I'm fine with playing with strangers, and we all get to have fun and feel like we're accomplishing something, insofar as entertainment can feel that way. I'm okay with D&D with friends, but I'd just as soon go hiking or climbing or board gaming with them. Something that easily encapsulates itself into a single session.

[strangebloke]

It certainly goes both ways. The GM owes it to their players to explain why something isn't allowed, and the player owes it to the GM to make a character who fits the intended game. And if you can't trust both parties to observe basic human decency, no ruleset in the world is going to make things still work properly.

And a little bit of back-and-forth isn't the end of the world. RPGs are collaborations, not dictatorships. An exchange like this:

Makes for a much better game than one like this:
I don't disagree with this, but it's kind of beside the point. The question is one of whether a player should be able to assume that all content is on the table or not.

In practice I think everyone has a line somewhere. Homebrew at least requires the DM to look at the thing in question. Other DMs don't want to use classes they don't own the book for. People don't want the Ravnica backgrounds outside of Ravnica, or Dragon marks outside of Ebberon.

I leave the door open for such things if a player wants to ask for them, but they're not on my short approved list.

I would say that, by definition, a character who is part of a Ravnica guild or has a Theros Divine Boon is not a "fully FR" character, so the question of whether I would allow such a character would generally be "Yes, if there is a good reason, but..." with any of the power-creeping additions in more recent books, I reserve the right to either extend similar power boosts to other players or selectively disallow certain things.

"Yes, but..." is a much better guiding principle than. "Nope..." but if I disallow something the most explanation I'll typically offer is that it doesn't fit the aesthetic of the story I am trying to tell with my players.

I just say "this is what I've got a place for, outside of that ask me and we'll talk."

[Darth Credence]

It certainly goes both ways. The GM owes it to their players to explain why something isn't allowed, and the player owes it to the GM to make a character who fits the intended game. And if you can't trust both parties to observe basic human decency, no ruleset in the world is going to make things still work properly.

And a little bit of back-and-forth isn't the end of the world. RPGs are collaborations, not dictatorships. An exchange like this:

Makes for a much better game than one like this:

It goes both ways, yes. But there is nothing discourteous about the DM saying, "no, not allowed in this setting." There is absolutely something discourteous to the DM about then arguing about why they should be allowed, and demanding reasoning for why they are not allowed. They aren't. That's the setting. If that is a deal breaker, fine - I as a DM would not hold it against the person for saying that and declining to be in the game.
And I absolutely disagree about which of those two makes a better game. People who aren't going to be happy with the game as it stands tend to continue to ask for special changes. They also tend to argue about rule interpretations a lot. So disallowing some things while building characters can be a useful screen - the people who want to argue about it are shown the door, eliminating a possible source of argument at the table later.

[Warder]

It goes both ways, yes. But there is nothing discourteous about the DM saying, "no, not allowed in this setting." There is absolutely something discourteous to the DM about then arguing about why they should be allowed, and demanding reasoning for why they are not allowed. They aren't. That's the setting. If that is a deal breaker, fine - I as a DM would not hold it against the person for saying that and declining to be in the game.
And I absolutely disagree about which of those two makes a better game. People who aren't going to be happy with the game as it stands tend to continue to ask for special changes. They also tend to argue about rule interpretations a lot. So disallowing some things while building characters can be a useful screen - the people who want to argue about it are shown the door, eliminating a possible source of argument at the table later.

I agree with what you're saying, though in my years of playing D&D I've never ever seen it go that far. Some have been disappointed when they've been told no, but that extremely quickly fades when they've made another character and started playing.

Also, as a player, I think there is a ton of value in my DM being happy. If my DM has restrictions on races or classes, it doesn't matter much to me why they imposed those restrictions - if they have an elaborate plan for the setting or don't want to deal with monstrous races in the party or if they simply don't like monks, it's all the same to me. The key is that the DM, who always gets a huge workload dumped in their lap, would have less fun playing if I started arguing to remove those restrictions, and that's something I want to avoid at every cost. There's tons of races and classes and feats and spells and backgrounds, if one character concept doesn't work out there's a million others I want to play.

[KorvinStarmast]

But there is nothing discourteous about the DM saying, "no, not allowed in this setting." There is absolutely something discourteous to the DM about then arguing about why they should be allowed, and demanding reasoning for why they are not allowed. I might have said this differently, but I tend to agree.

Some have been disappointed when they've been told no, but that extremely quickly fades when they've made another character and started playing. Most common result that I've seen. Once the player gets a few sessions into the character they create it generally goes well.

Also, as a player, I think there is a ton of value in my DM being happy. Happy DM, happy game. :smallcool:
(That ^^^ is a gawdawful paraphrase of the old "happy wife happy life" adage)

[Tanarii]

or don't want to deal with monstrous races in the party
Generally speaking this seems to be the sticking point with lots of players. Sometimes because of optimization desires, and sometimes because they just don't want to play a 'boring' Elf or Dwarf or other standard non-human.

The other one I got a lot from folks wanting to come on board was exception requests for feats of Multiclassing.

Luckily there was an easy solution for me. I could point at the AL table and say "if you want that kind of thing it's right over there." Given that most of my players were ones tired of AL or at least wanting something different in addition to AL, they usually gave it a try my way.

Of course, I did give a reason for why in that case. One of the entire points was to be the intended baseline game, and not AL anything goes optimization wackiness. That, and a persistent world where party actions affected it for all players.

[False God]

Where is the "I always ask my DM if they have any specific restrictions or allowances?" I don't ask my DM to provide me any reason beyond "This is how I want to run my game." It's their game, I'm fully capable of choosing not to play it.

My default setting if the DM does not have any special restrictions is "if it's published, it's allowed."

[strangebloke]

Ultimately, I think its productive to give people options because they enjoy it BUT I do consider one of the DM's primary roles to be reigning in the players and making sure no one is doing something disruptive to the table's collective fun.
"Being Disruptive" is a broad, subjective topic that's really dependent on the nature of the table in question, but generally the sorts of things I like to watch for are
things that erode class identity (Very arguable here, but this is my problem with 1 level dips)
Character concepts that won't gel with the campaign concept (The Lone Ranger Who Wants You to Ask About Their Tragic Backstory, the Chaotic Evil Serial Killer in a Heroes Campaign, the LG Devotion Paladin in a Pirates Campaign, the Artificer in the Ancient Celts Campaign)
People who literally just want you to let them break the game.

Now everyone's tolerance for the above is going to vary by a ton. And considering that (IMO) its helpful to give people as much leeway as possible outside of these concerns, and further considering that everyone's playing with very different groups of people (sorry, most of us don't only play with friends of 20+ years) 'best practice' is going to be all over the place.

Personally, I've found the best approach is to have a small circle of "very yes definitely approved" and a much wider circle of "ask me."

[DigoDragon]

Yeah and I want to be clear: I do really want to make an enjoyable experience for my players and i will work with them to make their concept work, but I also want them to engage with my campaign and setting. If someone comes to me with an idea that engages with the setting, I'll be very receptive to it even if its not on the approved list.

I don't allow warforged because I don't think they 'feel' right for what we're doing but if someone was like "hey, my buddy is playing a druid from the Green Hand and I was wondering if I could play like, their treant assistant. I was thinking warforged but reflavored?" then yeah we'd run with it.

Yes, this is good. This is player and GM discussing ideas and compromising so everyone can get a win. I'm all for this.



I've heard people say (only very lightly paraphrased):
"I should be able to use any material I want and if you're going to ban something you need a really persuasive reason I can agree with or you're a bully and a controlling DM who doesn't want me to have fun."

Which puts a really strong mentality of "bans must be justified because I have a right to use anything I want" in play.

Oof, yeah that's not a stance I as a player would adopt. I've been a GM a long time and I understand why some material gets a ban. Engaging the GM like in StrangeBloke's example above is good, but ultimately a GM's ruling on what content is allowed should be respected.

[Pex]

Way back when 5E started we were told or at least given the impression that 5E would not have a plethora of splat books. There would be more books but not the library of 3E. People felt that was a good thing. Don't have bloat, and whatever new book does come out can be dealt with on a case by case basis. There were bits and pieces to come with Temple of Elemental Evil and Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. The real meat came when the Xanathar book was published. 5E made its mark. Players were loving it. They were starved for new stuff. The Xanathar book had its critics, but generally everyone appreciated the new toys and anything not liked could be put away without issue.

Now though 5E is not the same anymore. There are lots of splat books, even before Tasha. The promise or inference of scarcity was broken. DMs are resenting having to say no to things. Players are resenting not being allowed things. I won't say 5E is wrong to have so many books now. My own bias I like new stuff being published. As DM I don't resent. As a player so far I have not been denied what I'd like, but there are still PHB only stuff I can enjoy should it come to such a restriction. That the resentment in general exists is a price I'm willing to have for the new stuff.

[MoiMagnus]

When creating a character (or leveling up a character), is the default (in your mind)

a) all [published|1st party|official] sources are allowed unless the DM specifically says something is banned, and it's the DM's burden to produce an acceptable justification for each ban
b) Only non-variant PHB material is allowed by default; players (or the DM) may ask for other content to be allowed on a case by case basis, and the one asking for the new material bears the burden of producing a justification for why it should be allowed. The DM can still ban non-variant PHB material (gno gnomes!), but must justify any such bans.

Essentially: is it "default deny" (an allow-list[1], case b), or "default allow" (a ban-list[1], case a)?

I think the two models have very different outcomes for examining power creep (such as the Strixhaven backgrounds/feats being talked about elsewhere). If the default is deny, then power creep is more limited in damage potential. If the default is allow, then the existence of such power-creep material is inherently a problem.


I'm very strongly in camp b, both as a player and as a DM. The only thing I assume to be true is that the PHB is allowed. Anything else is optional content that I may ask for, but shouldn't assume unless I've gotten approval (although such approval may come in the form of blanket permissions ("all content from XYZ is allowed").


[1] trying to be sensitive and non-distracting here, because I know some people don't like the traditional terms which involve colors.

My opinion and experience is the following norm:
(1) Any book not owned by the GM is not allowed by default, same for books technically owned but not made available to the players. This also apply to non-book content, like UA and homebrew, where "owned" means "the GM printed it, or saved a link/pdf to be able to open it at any moment" and "made available" means "shared with the players".
(2) Any content related to a setting other than the one of the campaign is not allowed by default.
(3) Any content from the DMG (or other GM-focussed books) is not allowed by default.
(4) Otherwise, every content which is non-GM-focussed, non-setting-specific, owned by the GM, and made available by them to the players, is allowed by default. Variants included.

Being "allowed by default" is however not a very strong protection IME. This even includes non-variant PHB features, like some spell that might simply be removed from the list, or at the contrary buffed.

[Tanarii]

Now though 5E is not the same anymore. There are lots of splat books, even before Tasha.
Interesting perspective. I consider the only generic 5e splat to be Xanathars, Volos (for non-human races), and Tasha's, and consider the game incredibly splat free still.

[strangebloke]

Interesting perspective. I consider the only generic 5e splat to be Xanathars, Volos (for non-human races), and Tasha's, and consider the game incredibly splat free still.

I'd agree here. For the most part, my players aren't even aware that official subclasses outside those books exist.

[ad_hoc]

I think it's less and less the default over time. The influx of new players to the hobby with 5E has fundamentally changed the standard entry-point into the hobby. When it was still a weird obscure niche activity you only really found about it when you stumbled on someone who played it, and so stable, long-term homegames were very much the default.

Now? Way less so. So many people know about D&D from livestreams and podcasts and Youtube channels and want to try it but don't have access to a group.

I started playing in the early 80's when it was the one. And pre-pandemic I used to run/play a lot of AL games, and I used to run a standard once-or-twice monthly table for complete novices. So I can say that it's a very different beast now. And it requires some re-thinking of our assumptions about how the game works (should work/does work).

If I'm playing in a 'home' game with people I know, I don't restrict content much. I have a very good sense of everyone's playstyle and I know everyone comes to the table with a clear sense of the kind of game I like to play and run. We're on the much-vaunted same page and so arguments are few and far between (and easily managed when they do happen). HOWEVER, even with those folks, when I disallow something, I offer a good reason if I have one, but sometimes the reason is just "I don't like it in this game."

With strangers (non-Adventurer's League), I run strictly with an allowed-list, and players have to request anything not on it.

I don't think this is how it actually works out.

D&D is a game that is spread by word of mouth. People play home games with their friends. Then one of the friends branches off and starts their own game.

Most people play with their friends and are not part of online spaces.

There are over 50 million 5e players.

A lot of people on this forum play in AL or online but that isn't the norm (many more people play online now because the pandemic but I would be it's largely with friends). AL can't be more than 500 000 people or so right? That's 1% of the player base.

[Pex]

Interesting perspective. I consider the only generic 5e splat to be Xanathars, Volos (for non-human races), and Tasha's, and consider the game incredibly splat free still.


I'd agree here. For the most part, my players aren't even aware that official subclasses outside those books exist.

My friends and I use D&D Beyond, and they like to buy the electronic versions and willing to share access, so I see a lot more content than the casual 5E player.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Neither. We have a talk at the beginning of any game about what we will and won't use, and even non-variant rules are cast aside sometimes as suits the game in question. The talk is always open, everyone comes to an agreement, and then we play that way. The DM generally makes the pitch, but I've never been in a game where a consensus wasn't reached.

Newcomers are expected to obey any earlier consensus or just not show up in the first place,but we've also revisited options later in longer lasting games; tweaking, banning, or allowing things as the collective wills it.

[prototype00]

I don't think this is how it actually works out.

D&D is a game that is spread by word of mouth. People play home games with their friends. Then one of the friends branches off and starts their own game.

Most people play with their friends and are not part of online spaces.

There are over 50 million 5e players.

A lot of people on this forum play in AL or online but that isn't the norm (many more people play online now because the pandemic but I would be it's largely with friends). AL can't be more than 500 000 people or so right? That's 1% of the player base.

Where are you getting your numbers from? For personal reference it is much easier to find an AL game where I am from than the alternative.

[Oramac]

Coming in a little late here.

I've never played a game that was completely default-deny. Occasionally the DM will state that one specific thing must be followed (you must be a human, for example), but otherwise the game is default-allow.

[rlc]

i dm more often than i play (which still isn't as often as i'd like), and the answer is still default deny. i don't usually ask why something isn't allowed, but i go in assuming that anything official is automatically fine, and i ask about playtest material.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, that's an idiosyncrasy of that particular ball of fury and trauma. Most halflings aren't kneecap people. Indeed. Most halflings are backstabbing bastidges! :smallbiggrin: I played a lot of hobbits and halflings starting in the late 70's, and they sure backstabbed a lot!

I consider the only generic 5e splat to be Xanathars, Volos (for non-human races), and Tasha's, and consider the game incredibly splat free still. Concur.

Neither. We have a talk at the beginning of any game about what we will and won't use, and even non-variant rules are cast aside sometimes as suits the game in question. The talk is always open, everyone comes to an agreement, and then we play that way. The DM generally makes the pitch, but I've never been in a game where a consensus wasn't reached.

Newcomers are expected to obey any earlier consensus or just not show up in the first place,but we've also revisited options later in longer lasting games; tweaking, banning, or allowing things as the collective wills it. That looks like a healthy table. :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

There are over 50 million 5e players.




Where are you getting your numbers from? For personal reference it is much easier to find an AL game where I am from than the alternative.

I guarantee you the vast majority of those are high school and college kids.

[Warder]

I was under the impression that AL is uncommon outside the US. Where I live, it's basically non-existant, as is the tradition of playing in game stores. People play at home, online, or at like, conventions. I may be wrong though!

[ad_hoc]

Where are you getting your numbers from? For personal reference it is much easier to find an AL game where I am from than the alternative.

The AL thing is a guess, but how many could it possibly be? I thought 500k was being generous.

The private games aren't sending out invites because they're private so of course it's going to be easier to find an AL game if you don't have friends to play with.


Where are you getting your numbers from? For personal reference it is much easier to find an AL game where I am from than the alternative.

The AL thing is a guess, but how many could it possibly be? I thought 500k was being generous.

The private games aren't sending out invites because they're private so of course it's going to be easier to find an AL game if you don't have friends to play with.


I guarantee you the vast majority of those are high school and college kids.

Apparently 27% of players are 35 or older.

(this is the first Google result, I'm too lazy to find the original post)

https://pixelkin.org/2021/05/20/dungeons-dragons-continues-record-breaking-year-with-over-50-million-players/

One thing that is important to note is that the gender make up is 60/40 (and has been for several years). If most of the people you're playing with are men then your gaming circles are not the norm.

[KorvinStarmast]

The AL thing is a guess, but how many could it possibly be? I thought 500k was being generous.

The private games aren't sending out invites because they're private so of course it's going to be easier to find an AL game if you don't have friends to play with.



The AL thing is a guess, but how many could it possibly be? I thought 500k was being generous.

The private games aren't sending out invites because they're private so of course it's going to be easier to find an AL game if you don't have friends to play with.



Apparently 27% of players are 35 or older.

(this is the first Google result, I'm too lazy to find the original post)

https://pixelkin.org/2021/05/20/dungeons-dragons-continues-record-breaking-year-with-over-50-million-players/

One thing that is important to note is that the gender make up is 60/40 (and has been for several years). If most of the people you're playing with are men then your gaming circles are not the norm.
The groups I play active games with now (includes DM in the number).
9 men
1 woman five men
1 woman four men
1 woman four men.

At this point, I only play on line.

I'd like to see groups with a more balanced mix: my experiences over the years with a closer to 50-50 mix was, without exception, positive. (And of course, some of the "sausage parties" were quite good while others devolved into sausage measuring disasters and dissolved)

[strangebloke]

The groups I play active games with now (includes DM in the number).
9 men
1 woman five men
1 woman four men
1 woman four men.

At this point, I only play on line.

I'd like to see groups with a more balanced mix: my experiences over the years with a closer to 50-50 mix was, without exception, positive. (And of course, some of the "sausage parties" were quite good while others devolved into sausage measuring disasters and dissolved)
In my experience, games tend to be slanted really hard toward all male or all female, mostly because games are formed within communities that are in turn also really imbalanced gender-wise. Book clubs and writer clubs and freeform roleplay groups are full of women, whereas game stores and online message boards (and reddit) are full of men.

To illustrate this point, here's a rundown of the last ten campaigns I've taken part in.

Ongoing
3/3
1/4
1/4
1/5
Past
4/2
5/1
2/3
3/4

Those 5/1 and 4/2 splits happened because I broke into my wife's writing and freeform roleplay groups, and the balanced campaigns only happened because I recruited people from those campaigns to my main groups. Still, over time I would imagine there will be more cross-pollination and you'll see every table becoming more diverse.

[Stangler]

When creating a character (or leveling up a character), is the default (in your mind)

a) all [published|1st party|official] sources are allowed unless the DM specifically says something is banned, and it's the DM's burden to produce an acceptable justification for each ban
b) Only non-variant PHB material is allowed by default; players (or the DM) may ask for other content to be allowed on a case by case basis, and the one asking for the new material bears the burden of producing a justification for why it should be allowed. The DM can still ban non-variant PHB material (gno gnomes!), but must justify any such bans.

Essentially: is it "default deny" (an allow-list[1], case b), or "default allow" (a ban-list[1], case a)?

I think the two models have very different outcomes for examining power creep (such as the Strixhaven backgrounds/feats being talked about elsewhere). If the default is deny, then power creep is more limited in damage potential. If the default is allow, then the existence of such power-creep material is inherently a problem.


I'm very strongly in camp b, both as a player and as a DM. The only thing I assume to be true is that the PHB is allowed. Anything else is optional content that I may ask for, but shouldn't assume unless I've gotten approval (although such approval may come in the form of blanket permissions ("all content from XYZ is allowed").


[1] trying to be sensitive and non-distracting here, because I know some people don't like the traditional terms which involve colors.

I am not sure what non-variant means in option b.

My expectations broadly speaking are that if I paid to gain access to it by buying a book it is allowed unless they say it isn't. The DM is expected to communicate these restrictions in session zero. Some exceptions to this rule.

1) If a new book comes out after the game started and I want to multiclass or use a new feat I would ask about using the new material.
2) Setting specific stuff that is clearly more powerful than the base options like like dragon mark races or Strixhaven backgrounds are assumed to be not allowed. Honestly even they were allowed I would hesitate to use them unless the table considered them as well.
3) New Tasha rules are worth asking about.
4) Questionable interpretations of the rules. I tend to over ask about how the DM will interpret certain rules to avoid issues later on.

As to the issue of DM justification. I generally prefer permissive DMs and if a DM is trying to limit options right from the start and act like they don't have to communicate their reasoning it can be a red flag. One of the most important traits of a DM IMO is that they focus on the players and having open conversation is only going to help that relationship.

[Tanarii]

As to the issue of DM justification. I generally prefer permissive DMs and if a DM is trying to limit options right from the start and act like they don't have to communicate their reasoning it can be a red flag.
Conversely, I consider a player demanding an explanation why they are turned down on adding something over and above the character creation rules laid out when they applied to join the game a red flag.

[MoiMagnus]

I am not sure what non-variant means in option b.

Point-buy ability scores.
Variant human.
Feats.
Multiclassing.
(I think I covered most of the variants included in the PHB, but I might be missing one like "custom backgrounds" or something.)

With option b, those variants are not allowed unless explicitly stated by the GM.

[Stangler]

Conversely, I consider a player demanding an explanation why they are turned down on adding something over and above the character creation rules laid out when they applied to join the game a red flag.

I don't know too many people who would consider asking "why" a demand and I am not sure what you mean by "over and above" in your quote either.

For example:
DM "I don't allow Kenku."
Player "Why?"
DM "The whole mimic rule makes it too difficult to play and has lead to more annoyance than fun in my experience."
Player "OK"

No demand or nothing over and above the character creation rules that were laid out.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't know too many people who would consider asking "why" a demand It really depends on the tone of the conversation.

For example:

DM "I don't allow Kenku."
Player "Why?"
DM "The whole mimic rule makes it too difficult to play and has lead to more annoyance than fun in my experience."
Player "OK" Your line #3 is almost exactly why I don't allow them
but
I have truncated it to "it's a terrible implementation and disruptive to play, there are better choices"

If someone then presses the point (their #4 being something other than your posited "OK") they have signaled to me what Tanarii is alluding to.

If the convo goes as you illustrate it, yeah, non issue. :smallsmile:

[Stangler]

Point-buy ability scores.
Variant human.
Feats.
Multiclassing.
(I think I covered most of the variants included in the PHB, but I might be missing one like "custom backgrounds" or something.)

With option b, those variants are not allowed unless explicitly stated by the GM.

I expect the DM to tell everyone at session zero what the attribute system is.

I started a new campaign at a game store recently and the DM didn't specify that V human, feats, and multiclassing were allowed but they were. I think players ended up asking about all 3 of these issues during session zero character creation. The DM was fairly clear in their initial take on the rules that things were allowed with certain exceptions which were listed. I wouldn't presume option B unless the DM said that was their approach to the rules.

When I DM I assume that I will need to list any limitations I have and that feats, V human, and multiclassing would be assumed to be allowed by the players unless I told them no. This really comes down to effective communication where the DM has a responsibility to communicate their POV to the players.

[Mastikator]

I don't know too many people who would consider asking "why" a demand and I am not sure what you mean by "over and above" in your quote either.

For example:
DM "I don't allow Kenku."
Player "Why?"
DM "The whole mimic rule makes it too difficult to play and has lead to more annoyance than fun in my experience."
Player "OK"

No demand or nothing over and above the character creation rules that were laid out.

Not every red flag is a land mine. And I think he meant demand an explanation and not ask why.

[Stangler]

Not every red flag is a land mine. And I think he meant demand an explanation and not ask why.

I am not sure what this “demand” means within the context of the conversation unless there is more to the story like a DM not answering the question or a player that is constantly asking questions or something.

You are right about red flags, sometimes they are nothing. That is why I used the expression. ;)

[Tanarii]

I don't know too many people who would consider asking "why" a demand and I am not sure what you mean by "over and above" in your quote either.Because that opens the door to people who think they can argue their case if they disagree with the reason. And someone who feels they are entitled to an explanation when they aren't is very likely to go there.


For example:
DM "I don't allow Kenku."
Player "Why?"
DM "The whole mimic rule makes it too difficult to play and has lead to more annoyance than fun in my experience."
Player "OK"

No demand or nothing over and above the character creation rules that were laid out.
Player: *Reads character creation rules for campaign online or from email, which include a synopsis of the campaign goals & setting, which don't include Kenku, and apply to all player applicants*
Player: "I'd like to apply for your campaign and make a Kenku monk*
DM: "Sorry, no."
Player: "Why?
DM: "Allowing them as a PC race doesn't fit my vision for the campaign goals & setting"
Player: "C'mon, it won't really break anything to give me an exception. I can make it work."

This is a broken process as soon as they asked "Why?"

[Pex]

Because that opens the door to people who think they can argue their case if they disagree with the reason. And someone who feels they are entitled to an explanation when they aren't is very likely to go there.


Player: *Reads character creation rules for campaign online or from email, which include a synopsis of the campaign goals & setting, which don't include Kenku, and apply to all player applicants*
Player: "I'd like to apply for your campaign and make a Kenku monk*
DM: "Sorry, no."
Player: "Why?
DM: "Allowing them as a PC race doesn't fit my vision for the campaign goals & setting"
Player: "C'mon, it won't really break anything to give me an exception. I can make it work."

This is a broken process as soon as they asked "Why?"

Or

DM: I don't allow variant human
Player: Why?
DM: Because only munchkins want a feat at first level.
Player chooses not to play because he doesn't care for DM's gaming philosophy.

vs

DM: I don't allow aarakokra
Player: Why?
DM: Because I think flying at the low levels is too powerful.
Player: ok


The why a DM bans something is important. The player is "entitled" to know if his fun will be compatible with the DM's fun.

[Tanarii]

The why a DM bans something is important. The player is "entitled" to know if his fun will be compatible with the DM's fun.
Thats what the pitch and character build allows for the campaign are for.

[strangebloke]

The issue I have is one of the expectation of special treatment. "It was stated that kenku do not exist but I wish to have an exception made for me."

If you're one of the DM's three good friends and you've played together a lot, that's one thing.

If you're one of 20-30 players the DM sees rotate through the modules they regularly run, that's a different thing entirely.

[Stangler]

Because that opens the door to people who think they can argue their case if they disagree with the reason. And someone who feels they are entitled to an explanation when they aren't is very likely to go there.


Player: *Reads character creation rules for campaign online or from email, which include a synopsis of the campaign goals & setting, which don't include Kenku, and apply to all player applicants*
Player: "I'd like to apply for your campaign and make a Kenku monk*
DM: "Sorry, no."
Player: "Why?
DM: "Allowing them as a PC race doesn't fit my vision for the campaign goals & setting"
Player: "C'mon, it won't really break anything to give me an exception. I can make it work."

This is a broken process as soon as they asked "Why?"

So no one can ask why because you fear the player who doesn’t like to be told no? Seems like the problem is with trust and respect between the people involved. I can’t imagine any scenario where I would tell a fellow adult that they can’t ask about my reasoning. I get it with kids but that is another story.

[KorvinStarmast]

So no one can ask why because you fear the player who doesn’t like to be told no?
That's kinda rude, given how many games Tanarii has run in public play. Maybe they have an experience base that you lack.

Let's step back for a moment. This D&D game is a thing we do as a leisure activity. (Yes, I know, there are DMs for pay but that's an exception). When you look at the imbalance between what is expected of a DM, and what is expected of a player, in terms of quid pro quo, in your criticism of Tanarii's experience-based points I wonder at your own experience base.

Do you do as I do and (mostly) play with friends, or do you host games every week where a stranger shows up and plays with your group?

Let me share with you my experience as a player in 5e, finding a group on line and hoping to fit in with them.
None of them knew me from Adam. The did an initial vetting of me, asking me about my play experience. Met the 'good enough' standard, and then I worked with the DM during Chargen to make sure my PC fit with the group already in place. I made no demands. I checked his outline and worked within it.

Why? I know who has the greater workload, having been "the DM" for a lot of my D&D years.

We are still playing together over 3 years later, and I now DM on alternate Mondays where that DM gets to play.
Why?
I treated the DM as a human being and as a potential addition to the group of people whom I consider to be friends. And last year, I bought girl scout cookies from his daughter (his wife sent the link) because he's in my circle of people (It's a five hour drive from where I live to where he lives) ... DM - player interactions do not benefit from being adversarial.

[Pex]

Thats what the pitch and character build allows for the campaign are for.

That says nothing about the DM's gaming philosophy. The pitch is what the campaign is about. What's allowed doesn't give a reason for why what's not allowed is not allowed.

[Pex]

That's kinda rude, given how many games Tanarii has run in public play. Maybe they have an experience base that you lack.

Let's step back for a moment. This D&D game is a thing we do as a leisure activity. (Yes, I know, there are DMs for pay but that's an exception). When you look at the imbalance between what is expected of a DM, and what is expected of a player, in terms of quid pro quo, in your criticism of Tanarii's experience-based points I wonder at your own experience base.

Do you do as I do and (mostly) play with friends, or do you host games every week where a stranger shows up and plays with your group?

Let me share with you my experience as a player in 5e, finding a group on line and hoping to fit in with them.
None of them knew me from Adam. The did an initial vetting of me, asking me about my play experience. Met the 'good enough' standard, and then I worked with the DM during Chargen to make sure my PC fit with the group already in place. I made no demands. I checked his outline and worked within it.

Why? I know who has the greater workload, having been "the DM" for a lot of my D&D years.

We are still playing together over 3 years later, and I now DM on alternate Mondays where that DM gets to play.
Why?
I treated the DM as a human being and as a potential addition to the group of people whom I consider to be friends. And last year, I bought girl scout cookies from his daughter (his wife sent the link) because he's in my circle of people (It's a five hour drive from where I live to where he lives) ... DM - player interactions do not benefit from being adversarial.

It's not rude at all. It's having a conversation. A player doesn't necessarily know how long a DM has been DMing. The player is allowed to consider if he'll like how the DM will behave before he agrees to sit down at the table since they are strangers rather than waste an hour he'll never get back due to the unforeseen gaming clash and decides to go home or elsewhere.

[strangebloke]

That says nothing about the DM's gaming philosophy. The pitch is what the campaign is about. What's allowed doesn't give a reason for why what's not allowed is not allowed.

Look, the reason is almost always going to be either balance, which admittedly is mostly a concern when you don't trust your players to play nice, or feel which is intangible and can't be explained. Why can't anyone be an artificer in my darksun campaign? I don't know, it just doesn't feel right to me.

If the reason is 'balance' then the only response you can have is to get into the kind of stupid argument we do here on the forum. Unproductive, and a red flag.

If the reason is 'feel' then you can talk a bit about refluffing things, but pushing very hard here at all can be seen as sealioning.

The situation where a DM really really wants you to join their table and will make tons of concessions to how they've been running the game for you is generally not a good situation. Indeed, if a DM just let me do whatever I asked for, I'd see that as a red flag. Because you just know someone else was greedier than you and everything is going to be nuts.

[Tanarii]

So no one can ask why because you fear the player who doesn’t like to be told no? Seems like the problem is with trust and respect between the people involved. I can’t imagine any scenario where I would tell a fellow adult that they can’t ask about my reasoning. I get it with kids but that is another story.
My experience is with large numbers of college age adults. They like to argue. They tend to take an explanation as the start of a debate. I still think of them as adults, but sometimes the best approach with adults that like to argue a point I don't want to debate is not to engage.

Personally, I like to save my arguing for these forums. And even then, sometimes I have to step back and stop engaging, for everyone's good. 😂

With friends in a home group, its a different social contract.

(BTW i dont take what you wrote as rude, especially given I take a pretty hard line stance.)

[Stangler]

My experience is with large numbers of college age adults. They like to argue. They tend to take an explanation as the start of a debate. I still think of them as adults, but sometimes the best approach with adults that like to argue a point I don't want to debate is not to engage.

Personally, I like to save my arguing for these forums. And even then, sometimes I have to step back and stop engaging, for everyone's good. 😂

With friends in a home group, its a different social contract.

(BTW i dont take what you wrote as rude, especially given I take a pretty hard line stance.)

Well teenagers and college age "adults" are definitely an exception. Generally speaking they love to argue and question authority and are naturally distrusting of you as the authority. It is kind of what their hormones/brains are telling them to do at that age. Even if you can handle there being an argument it can be disruptive to the table and the players who are not there to listen to you argue with a player.

I still think the general rule should be openness and to have the discussion whenever possible. There may be exceptions to the rule like time constraints, or lots of argumentative college kids that are likely to waste your time and energy with dead end arguments, or just an adult that is struggling with the power dynamics involved.

Learning to explain your reasoning and how to handle conflict is a skill you can learn and D&D is usually a pretty safe place to do that. If you are an argumentative person you probably learn through arguing, so does that player who argues a lot. Also being curious is a good thing. I know I would ask why a DM has certain rules in place so I could learn from the DM. These questions are also opportunities to build up that trust and respect that dynamic is probably lacking. Avoidance may be the most practical solution in the moment but it is also very imperfect.

I am glad you didn't think I was rude, the player who doesn't like no for an answer is a real thing. But it sounds like you are dealing with a specific situation that goes beyond that due to the age and familiarity issues.

[Stangler]

That's kinda rude, given how many games Tanarii has run in public play. Maybe they have an experience base that you lack.

Let's step back for a moment. This D&D game is a thing we do as a leisure activity. (Yes, I know, there are DMs for pay but that's an exception). When you look at the imbalance between what is expected of a DM, and what is expected of a player, in terms of quid pro quo, in your criticism of Tanarii's experience-based points I wonder at your own experience base.

Do you do as I do and (mostly) play with friends, or do you host games every week where a stranger shows up and plays with your group?

Let me share with you my experience as a player in 5e, finding a group on line and hoping to fit in with them.
None of them knew me from Adam. The did an initial vetting of me, asking me about my play experience. Met the 'good enough' standard, and then I worked with the DM during Chargen to make sure my PC fit with the group already in place. I made no demands. I checked his outline and worked within it.

Why? I know who has the greater workload, having been "the DM" for a lot of my D&D years.

We are still playing together over 3 years later, and I now DM on alternate Mondays where that DM gets to play.
Why?
I treated the DM as a human being and as a potential addition to the group of people whom I consider to be friends. And last year, I bought girl scout cookies from his daughter (his wife sent the link) because he's in my circle of people (It's a five hour drive from where I live to where he lives) ... DM - player interactions do not benefit from being adversarial.

So you joined a group of people that you didn't know, so they didn't know if they could trust you. There hasn't been an opportunity to establish mutual respect or trust. Due to the power dynamics you had little choice to trust them and respect their process. After 3 years I hope that you built up respect and trust enough so that if they created a new rule that you are allowed to ask why they made the new rule.

Trust and respect still needs to be the goal.

[JackPhoenix]

So you joined a group of people that you didn't know, so they didn't know if they could trust you. There hasn't been an opportunity to establish mutual respect or trust. Due to the power dynamics you had little choice to trust them and respect their process. After 3 years I hope that you built up respect and trust enough so that if they created a new rule that you are allowed to ask why they made the new rule.

Trust and respect still needs to be the goal.

That goes both ways. The players should respect the GM and trust he's got a reason for banning certain options.

[Stangler]

That goes both ways. The players should respect the GM and trust he's got a reason for banning certain options.

Yes, trust and respect needs to be from everyone. In his story he put a lot of trust and respect into the group.

[KorvinStarmast]

So you joined a group of people that you didn't know, so they didn't know if they could trust you. There hasn't been an opportunity to establish mutual respect or trust. Uh, actually, yes there has - not only are we still playing together three years later, we have gone from casual acquaintances to something more. That trust was built upon from (my) session 1 and has moved forward. If it had not I'd not still be with that group. Nor would I be DMing for most of them (a few dropped out due to RL) now.

Due to the power dynamics you had little choice to trust them and respect their process.
That's a very negative take on the situation. Where do you get this attitude from? :smallconfused: Seriously. I am a bit puzzled here.

After 3 years I hope that you built up respect and trust enough so that if they created a new rule that you are allowed to ask why they made the new rule. Uh, yeah, and that trust relationship was established within the first few sessions. We talk to each other, not at each other, the latter of which you appear to be doing to me here. Not sure if you are aware of that. The tone is coming off as kinda nasty from this end.

Trust and respect still needs to be the goal. Yeah, for sure, it's a people thing.

@Pex: so that you understand what struck me as rude (though apparently Tanarii didn't see it that way)

So no one can ask why because you fear the player who doesn’t like to be told no? I don't find an aggressive statement like that to be "just having a conversation" but perhaps our judgment on that differs. When I look at the negative tone in the reply to me, I have yet another data point on the tone degrading.

@Stangler: a lot of my formative years of D&D playing was with college aged, or just out of college aged, folks.
Yes, the penchant for argument for the sake of argument is certainly there. A number of our game groups broke up over the attitude of treating the DM as some kind of adversary due to positional authority. It was during this phase of my gaming (we played other RPGs besides D&D, and micro armor games, and table top miniature battles - Napoleonics and medievals or ancients) that I learned this valuable comment:

"Are we here to play or are we here to argue?"

Whenever a DM or a player raised that, it was a sign to at least two people in the group, and sometimes more, that they were ruining the fun of everyone else there. Sometimes, it got the session back on track. Other times, it got a good portion of the group to get up and leave since they didn't need this crap during their leisure activity.
This wasn't unique to my generation

A generation later, my son stopped playing D&D in college due to that habit - it's a vice, not a virtue - of college-aged players preferring to argue over play. 3.5 and 4e era. (I don't find your defense of that to sit well. It's bad social behavior, small group dynamic wise). He'd started in junior high with me as the DM (and his own peers as fellow players). We are hoping to start a game next year (now that he's off the midnight shift).

[Stangler]

Uh, actually, yes there has - not only are we still playing together three years later, we have gone from casual acquaintances to something more. That trust was built upon from (my) session 1 and has moved forward. If it had not I'd not still be with that group. Nor would I be DMing for most of them (a few dropped out due to RL) now.



So overtime you went from little to no trust and respect to trusting and respecting one another. That is what I said so why are you acting like we are disagreeing? I am confused.



That's a very negative take on the situation. Where do you get this attitude from? :smallconfused: Seriously. I am a bit puzzled here.



You were literally in a position where you knew they didn't know you so had zero expectation that they would trust you. So you took what you could get and there was no conversation or back and forth. My take isn't negative, I am simply pointing out the power dynamics of your story. Beggars can't be choosers. I think we are agreeing honestly.



Uh, yeah, and that trust relationship was established within the first few sessions. We talk to each other, not at each other, the latter of which you appear to be doing to me here. Not sure if you are aware of that. The tone is coming off as kinda nasty from this end.
Yeah, for sure, it's a people thing.


Well you are really twisting what I have said in a negative way. It is important to understand what the deficiency in a situation is and be aware of things like the levels of trust and respect at play and how our decisions can impact that. Not to mention power dynamics. Once you learn to understand these things it will improve your capacity to handle difficult situations and conflict.



@Pex: so that you understand what struck me as rude (though apparently Tanarii didn't see it that way)
I don't find an aggressive statement like that to be "just having a conversation" but perhaps our judgment on that differs. When I look at the negative tone in the reply to me, I have yet another data point on the tone degrading.

@Stangler: a lot of my formative years of D&D playing was with college aged, or just out of college aged, folks.
Yes, the penchant for argument for the sake of argument is certainly there. A number of our game groups broke up over the attitude of treating the DM as some kind of adversary due to positional authority. It was during this phase of my gaming (we played other RPGs besides D&D, and micro armor games, and table top miniature battles - Napoleonics and medievals or ancients) that I learned this valuable comment:

"Are we here to play or are we here to argue?"


As he explained later on that he did fear that players would not respond well to being told no and would argue with him. So seems like a fair and to the point question to me. It is an avoidance tactic that is intentionally made due to the risk of argumentative players.

That propensity to argue is being addressed with that question. It is an attempt to discuss this desire to argue and come to an agreement about not arguing in favor of communication. That to me is a pretty important step towards a better table dynamic.

Conflict resolution is generally better than conflict avoidance in the long run but conflict resolution is harder between strangers where there is no trust and respect. Not to mention the possibility of them being young adults who are more prone to argue and struggle with a DM being an authority because of their age and maturity level.



Whenever a DM or a player raised that, it was a sign to at least two people in the group, and sometimes more, that they were ruining the fun of everyone else there. Sometimes, it got the session back on track. Other times, it got a good portion of the group to get up and leave since they didn't need this crap during their leisure activity.
This wasn't unique to my generation

A generation later, my son stopped playing D&D in college due to that habit - it's a vice, not a virtue - of college-aged players preferring to argue over play. 3.5 and 4e era. (I don't find your defense of that to sit well. It's bad social behavior, small group dynamic wise). He'd started in junior high with me as the DM (and his own peers as fellow players). We are hoping to start a game next year (now that he's off the midnight shift).

Teaching your children how to communicate effectively, manage their emotions, be less rigid, more empathetic, learn to work in a group, and more are all possible with D&D. The DM is like a pseudo boss but hopefully a good one that is concerned with the other players getting the most out of the experience.

Your story highlights my POV about respect and trust really well so I find it very strange that you think I am being negative towards you.

[KorvinStarmast]

So overtime you went from little to no trust and respect to trusting and respecting one another. That's another negative spin. I met a group of people on line, not in person, and we went through the process of discovering if I was a good fit with that group. That's a positive thing we did, and you are laying a lot of negative words on it. I find that to be bad form.
So you took what you could get and there was no conversation or back and forth. That entire statement is utterly false. Nowhere did I say that. That is you making stuff up with a negative spin. Please don't do that, it's crass.
Well you are really twisting what I have said in a negative way. I am responding to your tone, see above.

Your story highlights my POV about respect and trust really well so I find it very strange that you think I am being negative towards you. Then I suggest you not make stuff up, not spin my positive experience which I shared with you in a negative light.
That would do wonders for this apparent miscommunication.
(I suspect that you and I agree on a great deal in terms of small group dynamics).

[Tanarii]

Teaching your children how to communicate effectively, manage their emotions, be less rigid, more empathetic, learn to work in a group, and more are all possible with D&D. The DM is like a pseudo boss but hopefully a good one that is concerned with the other players getting the most out of the experience.

Just to be clear, none of that stuff is important to me as a DM or to teach to my players, who are generally not children. What I want from them is not to be disruptive by arguing my rulings at the table or insulting other players, especially if it's based on an expectation of "deserving an explanation", or other kinds of entitlement.

They can communicate in ineffectively, fail to manage their emotions other than anger leading to arguing/insulting, be as rigid as they want, be totally unempathetic, and fail to work as a group. The last one probably means they'll TPk at some point, but that's their problem. The only other one that matters is managing emotions, and only to the degree that they aren't disruptive.

Basically, I don't think any internal/interpersonal stuff like communications/emotions/rigidity/empathy is critical IRL or at the table, nor something to aspire to working on as part of adulthood. What I do think is very important to aspire to as an adult is reasonable expectations, as opposed to entitlement, and accepting consequences for one's actions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just to be clear, none of that stuff is important to me as a DM or to teach to my players, who are generally not children. What I want from them is not to be disruptive by arguing my rulings at the table or insulting other players, especially if it's based on an expectation of "deserving an explanation", or other kinds of entitlement. {snip the rest} If I may summarize: Wheaton's Law would be a fine guiding principle. :smallbiggrin:

[Stangler]

That's another negative spin. I met a group of people on line, not in person, and we went through the process of discovering if I was a good fit with that group. That's a positive thing we did, and you are laying a lot of negative words on it. I find that to be bad form.

Going from "they don't know me from Adam" and needing to go through a vetting process to years of playing together and buying girl scout cookies from their kid is obviously a positive story. My characterization of this as your group going from low trust to high trust is a positive story. Saying that is negative spin defies explanation. Then to insult me again by calling it "bad form" is simply unnecessary and inflammatory.

[KorvinStarmast]

Going from "they don't know me from Adam" and needing to go through a vetting process to years of playing together and buying girl scout cookies from their kid is obviously a positive story. My characterization of this as your group going from low trust to high trust is a positive story. Saying that is negative spin defies explanation. Then to insult me again by calling it "bad form" is simply unnecessary and inflammatory. Looks like we've made a mess of this.

[Stangler]

Just to be clear, none of that stuff is important to me as a DM or to teach to my players, who are generally not children. What I want from them is not to be disruptive by arguing my rulings at the table or insulting other players, especially if it's based on an expectation of "deserving an explanation", or other kinds of entitlement.

They can communicate in ineffectively, fail to manage their emotions other than anger leading to arguing/insulting, be as rigid as they want, be totally unempathetic, and fail to work as a group. The last one probably means they'll TPk at some point, but that's their problem. The only other one that matters is managing emotions, and only to the degree that they aren't disruptive.

Basically, I don't think any internal/interpersonal stuff like communications/emotions/rigidity/empathy is critical IRL or at the table, nor something to aspire to working on as part of adulthood. What I do think is very important to aspire to as an adult is reasonable expectations, as opposed to entitlement, and accepting consequences for one's actions.

It makes sense to prioritize the elimination of argument from a table if that is what is most likely to cause disruption. Insults are obviously not good either.

The failure to work as a group tends to tie back to those other issues of communication/emotions/rigidity/empathy. The context of my quote is where the DM and is playing with their teenager so these life lessons become a teachable moment. I certainly don't blame anyone for not caring to help a bunch of strangers.

I am not sure what you are talking about with expectations and entitlement honestly. For example, if a fellow grown up makes a decision and I ask them why they made that decision when that decision impacts me. If they simply refuse to answer that question it would be SUPER weird. Is me asking the question a reasonable expectation or an entitlement? What about the refusal to answer by the DM?

I would consider the refusal to answer an unreasonable expectation by the DM. I think the issue would be with them feeling entitled to make decisions that impact me without having to answer a simple question of why. That there would likely be consequences for that approach to the situation. In other words the DM is just as prone to poor communication, emotions, rigidity and lack of empathy as the party. They are just as capable of unreasonable expectations, entitlement, and issues with accepting consequences for their actions.

[Tanarii]

I am not sure what you are talking about with expectations and entitlement honestly. For example, if a fellow grown up makes a decision and I ask them why they made that decision when that decision impacts me. If they simply refuse to answer that question it would be SUPER weird. Is me asking the question a reasonable expectation or an entitlement? What about the refusal to answer by the DM?
Asking why and expecting an answer is an unjustified feeling of entitlement, barring certain circumstances that change the social contract. DMs don't have to justify why they set up the campaign the way they did. Their doing so only impacts you if you feel entitled to join the game with something outside their character creation rules.

If you feel entitled to join a game with something outside the character creation rules, and entitled to an answer to why when turned down ... I hope you're playing with close friends. Because in that case, it's a different social contract. Especially if ya'll agreed to play a game with your close friend DM before you even had information as to what his character creation rules were. In that case, sure, your feelings of entitlement make for reasonable expectations.

But otherwise, yup, you've got unreasonable expectations.

[Stangler]

Asking why and expecting an answer is an unjustified feeling of entitlement, barring certain circumstances that change the social contract. DMs don't have to justify why they set up the campaign the way they did.

I am sorry but you are going to have to explain this some more because at face value it isn't consistent with how adults interact with one another. What happens in this scenario where someone asks you why you made a certain rule?

Everything else you said has to do with expectations around changing the rules and I think we agree that there really isn't any expectation that the rules will change. I was talking about asking a question why.

[Tanarii]

This conversation is an example. People don't have to explain themselves. That's not a reasonable expectation for "adult interactions". And it's fully normal for a conversation to just go in circles like this one when someone does try to explain themself.

Ive run afoul of that with a few other people here, asking them to explain something. They didn't need to explain themself to me. A few have even made that point clear. They were right. Others have tried and failed or succeeded to make me understand their POV. But that was their privilege, not something reasonable for me to expect.

[Stangler]

This conversation is an example. People don't have to explain themselves. That's not a reasonable expectation for "adult interactions". And it's fully normal for a conversation to just go in circles like this one when someone does try to explain themself.


If an adult asks you "why" what do you do? Do you just pretend you didn't hear them? Please describe this situation because everything you have said is 100% unlike any adult interaction I have ever had. I literally can't think of any adult that would act like you describe yourself acting without it being SUPER weird. So I am guessing something has been lost in translation.

[Brookshw]

He'd started in junior high with me as the DM (and his own peers as fellow players). We are hoping to start a game next year (now that he's off the midnight shift).

Going off topic for the moment, how did that work out? I ask as my kids are getting old enough that I'm starting to teach them to play, and hope it becomes a passion they share with their friends, but I suspect if that works out I'll need to take a step back (why is your dad hanging around and wants to play with us). Seems like it might be a tricky dynamic to work out.

[KorvinStarmast]

Going off topic for the moment, how did that work out? I ask as my kids are getting old enough that I'm starting to teach them to play, and hope it becomes a passion they share with their friends, but I suspect if that works out I'll need to take a step back (why is your dad hanging around and wants to play with us). Seems like it might be a tricky dynamic to work out. It's fun to play with the family. That's how it started. A couple of his friends showed an interest, so we had a game that was with them, and one based on the smaller family group. (Sadly my wife chose to not join in after a couple of sessions, not her cuppa tea. "Dad plays with the kids for a few hours" gave her some down time in any case).

A few parents raised a few questions in re the old "D&D is the devil's game!" attitude from their youth - took a couple of conversations to get acceptance / endorsement / good feels.
Worked out well, but, of course as kids' hobbies changed, and a few began driving, and my son's tennis travels increased, the games died more or less on their own due to RL.

In one case games like WoW attracted one of our players away; there was no need for scheduling, etc. they could play when they wanted.

[Psyren]

If the reason is 'balance' then the only response you can have is to get into the kind of stupid argument we do here on the forum. Unproductive, and a red flag.


I've generally found IRL debates to be far more productive than forum ones. Generally because I value the IRL friendship (and they value mine) more than I ever could a bunch of strangers online, and so compromise is more likely to result.

But even in those cases where I don't see the GM budging, even just understanding where they're coming from can be a positive result. And who knows, when it's my turn to GM maybe I'll allow {thing they were hesitant about}, or have an NPC use it, and change their mind about its balance implications that way.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've generally found IRL debates to be far more productive than forum ones. Generally because I value the IRL friendship (and they value mine) more than I ever could a bunch of strangers online, and so compromise is more likely to result.

But even in those cases where I don't see the GM budging, even just understanding where they're coming from can be a positive result. And who knows, when it's my turn to GM maybe I'll allow {thing they were hesitant about}, or have an NPC use it, and change their mind about its balance implications that way.

Piggybacking a bit- an argument about any part of a game is fine so long as the argument stays about the argument, and it never once becomes personal. Trying to ignore serious issues in the aim of remaining copacetic has destroyed certain gaming groups and even interpersonal relationships around me. Either DM's allowing problem players to remain problems or a DM that can't get their players to return and can't understand why because no one will tell them that they aren't having fun. We've fixed a lot of this by directly confronting what we like and don't like in an honest and open manner, and never lowering ourselves to insults and personal attacks to get our way.

If a person starts a discussion about gameplay balance and then calls everyone else stupid for disagreeing, then it's a red flag.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Let's step back for a moment. This D&D game is a thing we do as a leisure activity. (Yes, I know, there are DMs for pay but that's an exception). When you look at the imbalance between what is expected of a DM, and what is expected of a player, in terms of quid pro quo, in your criticism of Tanarii's experience-based points I wonder at your own experience base. .

Tanarii stated that part of why AL DM-ing is fun, is because it has reduced preparation time.

Tanarii has also stated that they DM differently for friends then they do for AL, and they treat AL Candidates differently from AL players.

It honestly sounds like the Stanford Prison Experiment to me. When a person has unfettered power over strangers, the first casualty is the ability for the empowered person to have empathy with those they consider their 'subjects'.

Social Science is a cruel mistress.

If AL players are primarily new players to the hobby...wouldn't those that like D&D being popular want to be at least somewhat accommodating to new player questions so the new players want to play again?

As an adult, I have limited time. If a DM is unwilling to provide information for me to determine if a game is worth my time, then I'm going to decide the game is absolutely not right for me to play in.

A DM with no players, winds up just having an outline for a short story, and no game.

[KorvinStarmast]

As an adult, I have limited time. And the DM also has limited time. I've DM'd more than I've been the player in the last three years. (Yeah, it's happening again, I thank heaven for the invite to PhoenixPhyre's game where I can just be a player again).
You aren't making a good case. The scales (of time) are not balanced.
There's something like an action economy going on with 1 DM and 5 players.
One of the joys of being a DM, though, that hasn't changed over the years is seeing players do stuff that you don't expect. It's a part of the fun.

[Tanarii]

It honestly sounds like the Stanford Prison Experiment to me. When a person has unfettered power over strangers, the first casualty is the ability for the empowered person to have empathy with those they consider their 'subjects'.
Empathy is overrated, empowered or not. I'm more into respecting others. And expectations that you can walk up to a game with established rules (in my case long established, but even established during a pitch counts) and ask to join while changing them to suit yourself and demand an explanation as to why you can't when you get an answer isn't respectful.

Adding the standard caveat that friends (or long known associates) are probably a different social contract. Because it needs to be in every post I write on this for anyone that joins the conversation late :smallamused:



You aren't making a good case. The scales (of time) are not balanced.
Very true. A open table Dm even more so. It can easily be 30 players to one DM across all tables. The DM doesn't put in 30 times as much work as any one player, but they definitely put in many times more. And I'll be honest, once you get a break like the last 18 months, that makes it incredibly hard to motivate starting the whole thing again. :smallyuk:

[Dark.Revenant]

I feel like something has been lost in the argument, here.

Perhaps I'm just making assumptions, but when I imagine reasonable adults asking a question like "Why aren't drow a playable race?", I'm imagining it being a question born from curiosity and interest—of the GM's world, theme, and thought process. Follow-up questions might be "Do Drow exist at all?" or "What do most adventurers know about Drow?".

I come from an engineering background. When I hear about rules and requirements, I find it important to know the rationale—to have a better "big picture" understanding. Maybe that's just me.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Empathy is overrated, empowered or not. I'm more into respecting others.

This is a difficult passage for me to parse. I would tend to view empathy as a prerequisite of Respect...but the metaphysics, is irrelevant, I'm into respecting others as well.


And expectations that you can walk up to a game with established rules (in my case long established, but even established during a pitch counts) and ask to join while changing them to suit yourself and demand an explanation as to why you can't when you get an answer isn't respectful.

I thought we were referencing Adventurer's League.
Based off the volume of players, an electronic communication, Google Doc etc stating what is allowed is a reasonable F.A.Q. for the simple answer that there is a limited amount of time you as the DM want to invest into the game.

I don't think that is unreasonable, at all.

AL sounds similar to DM-ing during a convention, and Empathy Fatigue is real. It is jarring to read the change in tone you have when writing about home games versus AL play.

That is why I wrote that Social Science is a cruel mistress...no one can run a rotating 30 person game the same way one can run a stable home game.

[Stangler]

And expectations that you can walk up to a game with established rules (in my case long established, but even established during a pitch counts) and ask to join while changing them to suit yourself and demand an explanation as to why you can't when you get an answer isn't respectful.



I have looked through what I said and what others have said and I don't really see anyone making this argument you are arguing against.

There is a big difference between.

Why are Drow banned? VS I demand an explanation for why Drow are banned OR you need to allow Drow.

[Tanarii]

I thought we were referencing Adventurer's League.Adventurers league is a different beast because the character creation rules aren't set by the DM. And are incredibly permissive.



AL sounds similar to DM-ing during a convention, and Empathy Fatigue is real. It is jarring to read the change in tone you have when writing about home games versus AL play.

That is why I wrote that Social Science is a cruel mistress...no one can run a rotating 30 person game the same way one can run a stable home game.
Thats a fair cop. As I said, my view is that home games with friends (or at least with long time gaming associates) are a different social contract. Especially since it's far more likely you'll be sitting down with the DM during a session zero to make character at the same time as hearing the pitch. Possibly having even thought up character concepts before the first sit down.

As an aside, the last home game I was asked to run was for two friends and three friends of the friends. My friends hadn't played before, the others had. I sent them a one page doc in advance. It was Mystara, so I strongly encouraged humans and tightly restricted classes and races. None asked to play something outside the list provided, and four out of the five chose to play humans with classes appropriate to the local starting kingdom. IMO, providing a pitch/character creation rules in advance is key to communicating DM vision for the campaign.

[Chaos Jackal]

Asking a question about why something isn't allowed does not a munchkin make. It also doesn't mean the player wants to push their own agenda or ask for an exception. Like Dark.Revenant correctly points out above, asking for an explanation might not even have to do with one's character. If I ask why X or Y race isn't allowed it's not gonna be "why are they not allowed, I wanna play one", it'll typically be "so, they don't exist at all in the setting or is there some other issue players don't have access to them?", because whether or not they exist in the first place affects my overall view of the setting, interactions and background in my character's story and gives me some insight on the DM's style and approach (I think Pex mentioned this?), particularly with DMs I'm playing for the first time with. Similarly, the few times I've DM'd myself, I've laid out the reasoning for the small list of things I might not allow, and make sure to provide any further reasoning requested by a player. Being firm when a player asks for an exception doesn't exclude answering players in general.

And the whole thing raising red flags works both ways. A DM answering "because I'm the DM" to a question (or worse yet, ignoring it) isn't necessarily a bad DM, but it's a warning sign. It's often a DM unwilling to trust the players at all while expecting full trust for them, an insecure DM fulfilling power fantasies, someone way too rigid, or any combination of the above. "Deal with it" turns away even children. Reasonable adults expecting to participate in an interactive process? Yeah, I'd very much expect all sides in said process to be within their rights when requesting explanations and clarifications.

[Stangler]

Asking a question about why something isn't allowed does not a munchkin make. It also doesn't mean the player wants to push their own agenda or ask for an exception. Like Dark.Revenant correctly points out above, asking for an explanation might not even have to do with one's character. If I ask why X or Y race isn't allowed it's not gonna be "why are they not allowed, I wanna play one", it'll typically be "so, they don't exist at all in the setting or is there some other issue players don't have access to them?", because whether or not they exist in the first place affects my overall view of the setting, interactions and background in my character's story and gives me some insight on the DM's style and approach (I think Pex mentioned this?), particularly with DMs I'm playing for the first time with. Similarly, the few times I've DM'd myself, I've laid out the reasoning for the small list of things I might not allow, and make sure to provide any further reasoning requested by a player. Being firm when a player asks for an exception doesn't exclude answering players in general.

And the whole thing raising red flags works both ways. A DM answering "because I'm the DM" to a question (or worse yet, ignoring it) isn't necessarily a bad DM, but it's a warning sign. It's often a DM unwilling to trust the players at all while expecting full trust for them, an insecure DM fulfilling power fantasies, someone way too rigid, or any combination of the above. "Deal with it" turns away even children. Reasonable adults expecting to participate in an interactive process? Yeah, I'd very much expect all sides in said process to be within their rights when requesting explanations and clarifications.

I would also add that if someone asks why a rule exists the answer doesn't have to be a specific justification to be considered a reasonable response. The response could be to say that they don't really have enough time to go over it or a general response about the rules being based on a combination of his experiences with this specific adventure. Even something in the text about avoiding arguments more generally within rules could help.

[Thunderous Mojo]

And the DM also has limited time.
You aren't making a good case. The scales (of time) are not balanced.

Of course a DM puts in more time in their role then the players. That doesn't mitigate the demands on the players time as well, and doesn't empower the DM to be a tyrant.

Your Conjure Animal load out lists, I think is an excellent example of a respectful process. A person that is playing a Druid probably want to cast some Summonings.

The DM wants an idea of what is going onto the table, so they can balance things.....working together yields a win/win.

I think most people, would be understanding if a DM told them that only certain options were allowed, because the DM lacked the time or drive to encompass more.


One of the joys of being a DM, though, that hasn't changed over the years is seeing players do stuff that you don't expect. It's a part of the fun.

I completely agree with this.

I also, would like to think, that conversations regarding DM Doctrine, usually wind up with the Doctrine being enumerated, being probably harsher than how the DM would handle a situation at their home game.

I generally believe, most people on this board would have fun playing in each other's games. We might pick some nits, on the BBS, but the social moderation of group dynamics, tends to smooth things out, in game situations.

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like something has been lost in the argument, here. Yeah, and that leads to nonsense like this.

and doesn't empower the DM to be a tyrant.
The tone of the conversation (continuing on in reply to dark revenant) is immensely important in any such conversation.

IMO, providing a pitch/character creation rules in advance is key to communicating DM vision for the campaign. IME, it is very much value added.

Your Conjure Animal load out lists, I think is an excellent example of a respectful process. A person that is playing a Druid probably want to cast some Summonings. That's because DM and player in each case talk to each other, not at each other. And we do it (in both cases) out of respect for the other players at the table.

working together yields a win/win. We are in violent agreement on that. :smallsmile:

I think most people, would be understanding if a DM told them that only certain options were allowed IME, most are. But my experience base is limited by those I've played with.

I generally believe, most people on this board would have fun playing in each other's games. We might pick some nits, on the BBS, but the social moderation of group dynamics, tends to smooth things out, in game situations. I'll add two bucks to the "pass" line in this estimation. :smallsmile:

By the way, when it comes to minionmancy, when you blow the Iron Horn of Valhalla, and the DM (my brother, for example) has not dealt with summons on the player side before, the game can clog up unless a player (like me, for example) volunteers to handle the admin burden of taking care of the stats etc on the berserkers (10) who show up ready to fight for the party. (Let's just say that the dwarf who blew the horn was being run by a player who was not up to running a herd/crowd, and he said so in all candor).

I am reminded of the line from the Jerry McGuire movie: "Help me help you." :smallsmile:

[Corsair14]

When running a campaign I limit it to what fits the setting and theme of the campaign. In my current 2e group I limited starting races to human and classes to what would be present at that time in history making casters both divine and arcane extremely limited initially. In 5E campaigns I limit it to PHB, SCAG(simply because there isnt anything OP in it) and maybe one other book. If its a campaign that is pretty bonkers anyway like Planescape then pretty much do whatever I have daemons that will shut anyone down if they get stupid with their optimizations.

[Pex]

As an aside, the last home game I was asked to run was for two friends and three friends of the friends. My friends hadn't played before, the others had. I sent them a one page doc in advance. It was Mystara, so I strongly encouraged humans and tightly restricted classes and races. None asked to play something outside the list provided, and four out of the five chose to play humans with classes appropriate to the local starting kingdom. IMO, providing a pitch/character creation rules in advance is key to communicating DM vision for the campaign.

Naturally no one asked because it was obvious you were going for a theme, A question of why no X is inherently answered. If a DM hands players a document about the gameworld and in the document writes No X because Y, players won't ask why no X. If the document says no X without a given reason a player might ask why out of curiosity or because he did want to play X. He still won't play X. He just wants to know why and that's not an unreasonable question to have a hissy fit over of how dare they.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, the question of "justification" comes down mainly to tone.

First, I try to note in my character creation document a basic reason (ie "thematics", "balance", "world decision") why certain options (especially PHB ones) aren't available when they "should" be (such as when I say "Tasha's is OK except ...").

I'm fine when players ask "I saw you said no gnomes. That's ok, but what's up with them?" in a tone that suggests they're interested in the worldbuilding side of things. And I'll willingly talk their ear off about my decision there. But that type of question isn't (critically) "convince me why I shouldn't be able to play a gnome". It's "hey, what's the state of gnomes in your setting? What's the juicy scoop?"

I do have a problem with "gnomes aren't unbalanced and I want to make a gnome, why can't I play a gnome?" (or similar questions). Or questions showing that you're trying to evade a restriction (such as "well, can I make a really short guy who uses all the gnome stats and calls themselves a gnome but is really a halfling?").

So asking (in an interested-in-the-setting way)? Fine. Demanding justification and especially arguing about that justification is a whole 'nother ballgame. And one I'm not interested in.

Really, in most cases, if you have something odd-ball in mind, talk to me. We can probably find and/or make a better, more fitting homebrew or other accommodation. I've done that a lot of times--I've had a person play a "reformed" mindflayer, canonizing the idea that in some cases the parasite reaches symbiosis with the host instead of eating it. In fact, that later turned out to be the original intent of the mind flayer race; the newer "eat the brain" type is a twisted mutation owing to demonic interference. I'm totally willing to homebrew something to fit the setting better. What I'm not willing to do is be browbeaten or argued into letting something that doesn't fit well into my games.

[Tanarii]

Naturally no one asked because it was obvious you were going for a theme, A question of why no X is inherently answered. If a DM hands players a document about the gameworld and in the document writes No X because Y, players won't ask why no X. If the document says no X without a given reason a player might ask why out of curiosity or because he did want to play X. He still won't play X. He just wants to know why and that's not an unreasonable question to have a hissy fit over of how dare they.
Well, that's what a pitch is. An very brief (maybe a paragraph tops) overview of the campaign core concept / setting. If pairing it with character creation rules counts as a reasonable explanation, then I take it all back and I'm entirely in favor of the DM giving a reasonable explanation. :smallamused: