Is it wrong to limit races and classes for a campaign setting [Archive]

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-25, 10:25 AM

In my experience, races, subclasses, and occasionally feats getting restricted in a custom setting is often the sign of a good DM who’s put some thought into their setting’s aesthetics and/or mechanics, rather than going “everything + the kitchen sink is allowed”.
For instance, I’m running a Viking Age-inspired one-shot this evening, and I’ve taken a scalpel to most of the races normally available in 5e to limit it to 12 races, of which four of those allowed are a stretch if we’re going by Norse lore. I also messed up and forgot to mention the Gunner feat was banned, and so had to have a brief talk with a player explaining my mistake when they showed up with a character with the feat for their concept. Nice example.

For full base classes, however, I’m a little warier on total bans on some of them, as there are only 13 official classes. A ban on full spell casters in particular makes me leery, as that (assuming Warlock is a full caster for the sake of argument) eliminates fully half of the PHB classes. Sorcerer and bard are still available, if you go back to the OP.

Instead, focus on selling those races and classes the players are allowed. Present a positive vision of the awesome world and adventures you'll be able to present if the players accept the restrictions. Tell them how you envision magic and fantasy creatures in your setting. If Warlocks are the only caster class, tell your players about the cool patrons that you've made. If Dwarfs are an option, share your interesting Dwarf lore. Focus on selling the races & classes that are allowed, and explain that you want to focus on these elements by disallowing the others. You seem to have forgotten bards and sorcerers. Here is what the OP is not using:
Druid, Cleric, Wizard.

I want to limit magic a bit. I'll be honest I don't want wizards, clerics, druids. Have you played a bard? Pretty decent arcane caster, IME.

I have a campaign concept that will probably never see play: the only arcane casters are Warlocks, there are no clerics (yes Paladins though, and Yes rangers) and I am still not sure which druids I'll have in play. Probably only Circle of the Land.

But, as slowly as our other campaigns are going, I don't see me resurrecting the game world that I created years ago to run this as free time simply doesn't exist

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-25, 10:38 AM

Psyren

2023-08-25, 10:54 AM

It's perfectly okay for your setting. Personally, I would articulate the reasons why (both Doylist and Watsonian) but you are under no obligation to do so unless not doing so would turn your players off.

Unoriginal

2023-08-25, 11:15 AM

So I want to limit magic a bit. I'll be honest I don't want wizards, clerics, druids. Is it wrong to let my players know before starting that those classes can be played.

The Game Master decides the game, the players decide if they want to play that game.

Informs them of what you do and don't allow alongside the campaign's pitch, and let them choose if it's alright with them.

MoiMagnus

2023-08-25, 11:36 AM

So I want to limit magic a bit. I'll be honest I don't want wizards, clerics, druids. Is it wrong to let my players know before starting that those classes can be played.

It depends what you mean by "wrong".

It's not wrong for the GM to want to limit races and class.
It's not wrong for a player to want a race/class you limited and be frustrated and/or refuse to play without this race/class.
It's factually wrong for the GM to expect every player to be fine with a race/class restriction. A GM ban is frequently the moment where a player realise that what they love in the game is hated by the GM, or that what they consider to be a necessary element of D&D is an annoyance to the GM.

Something to consider when you ban a race/class is that you're banning two things: the roleplay and the gameplay.
If you're only interested in banning the roleplay, you can allow "wizards" that are in-universe bards but have the wizard class features. If you're only interested in banning the gameplay, you can allow "wizards" that have the bards class features but are in-universe bards.
You might want to ban both, but if you're not the difference is important because a player disagreeing with your choice might only be caring about one of the two (which one depending on the player).

As for my personal opinion. I don't care about races and you could do a human-only campaign I wouldn't feel anything is missing. However I play medieval-fantastic TTRPGs for the "high-magic" part of it, so banning a triple of magic-using classes clearly pushes the game in the wrong direction for me.

Nagog

2023-08-25, 11:51 AM

I've done something similar for my current running campaign being a "low magic" setting. My rules were no full casters unless you multiclass half your levels with a non-magical class, so if they wanted to be a Bard/Warlock/Cleric/whatever else with full casting they'd need equal number of levels in Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Monk.

So if a player *really* wanted the flavor of a Wizard with their character, they could do so, but at a severe power reduction compared to other single-class builds.

Rynjin

2023-08-25, 11:54 AM

stoutstien

2023-08-25, 11:58 AM

Psyren

2023-08-25, 12:05 PM

It's factually wrong for the GM to expect every player to be fine with a race/class restriction. A GM ban is frequently the moment where a player realise that what they love in the game is hated by the GM, or that what they consider to be a necessary element of D&D is an annoyance to the GM.

This is certainly true, but it's also worth remembering that a given DM never needs to worry about "every player" - only the ones who want to join their table.

WotC on the other hand does need to worry about every player (or at least, consider the oft-competing desires of as many players as possible), hence why they are going for more of a "big tent" approach with their Multiverse setting.

Kurt Kurageous

2023-08-25, 12:30 PM

No.

I've built and run a game set in a fantasy version of Pre-Christian Ireland. The party is limited to one full caster which must be a Druid.

As far as races go, we are limited to human skins. But if someone wants a nonhuman, I will allow some if I can justify a reskin with a reasoning. For example, I reskin half-orc and dwarf as a big or short Scotsman.

Others have said it, I agree. You are the DM, you make the rules. It's up to the players to decide if/how they will engage with the world and those rules. Put together a clear pitch that lays out the "why and why not" and the players will do what they will do.

LibraryOgre

2023-08-25, 01:19 PM

Nope. It's the game you want to run, and you don't have to run games you don't want to run. Folks don't have to play if they don't like your restrictions, and it's not unreasonable to ask for consideration... but if you've got some firm boundaries on what you want, then those are what they have to deal with.

NecessaryWeevil

2023-08-25, 01:27 PM

It's perfectly alright and within your prerogative as DM. That said, I've found that in order for players to be ok with having their class & race choices restricted, you need to sell them on a cool narrative vision for why the classes & races are restricted. Just saying "No Gnomes, No Druids" (for example), provides a purely negative vision for the game, which will either not matter or turn someone off.

Instead, focus on selling those races and classes the players are allowed. Present a positive vision of the awesome world and adventures you'll be able to present if the players accept the restrictions. Tell them how you envision magic and fantasy creatures in your setting. If Warlocks are the only caster class, tell your players about the cool patrons that you've made. If Dwarfs are an option, share your interesting Dwarf lore. Focus on selling the races & classes that are allowed, and explain that you want to focus on these elements by disallowing the others.

Yes! This is definitely the best approach. Much better than "Rangers are OP" or "Warlocks are lame" which are simply personal opinions that can be wrong.

animorte

2023-08-25, 01:37 PM

As for me, restrictions on races (especially) and classes (somewhat) actually make me more interested. Especially if they're grounded in the setting itself rather than being purely meta/mechanical choices.

The Game Master decides the game, the players decide if they want to play that game.

Informs them of what you do and don't allow alongside the campaign's pitch, and let them choose if it's alright with them.
Both of these especially and all the other good advice. I've played many games where there were some obvious restrictions: no full-caster, no spells (period), only humans, anything but phb class/race, 5e stats but one each of the OG - Cleric, thief (Rogue), fighting man (Fighter or Barbarian), magic user (Wizard or Sorcerer).

In my experience, these games tend to have the most focus concerning all pillars of the game.

Zevox

2023-08-25, 01:41 PM

So I want to limit magic a bit. I'll be honest I don't want wizards, clerics, druids. Is it wrong to let my players know before starting that those classes can be played.
Pretty much everyone has the same thrust to this, but I'll echo the "no, it's not wrong, it's your right as DM," etc etc.

What's most important, though, isn't whether it's right or wrong for you to do this in theory, it's what your players think of it. And that, only they can answer. If they're fine with or actively happy with the idea, cool, all good. If they're not, and it's something they're sufficiently unhappy with that they may not play the game under those restrictions, you'll have to make a decision about whether it's more important to you to play with those restrictions, or with those players. That's the real potential stumbling point here, and it can only be addressed by talking to your players about it, not by any discussions here.

Mastikator

2023-08-25, 02:03 PM

In theory no, just keep in mind that 5e only has 12 classes so if you're cutting out 1/3 of the options the game has to offer, including several of the most popular ones, so you can more easily cause players to fail to find a fun idea of character to play for them compared to a game with more "bloat".

This is a valid point. I think if the DM has a really cool idea then the players should be made aware of that, to help inspire them on characters that fit inside the box they're given. Another thing I highly recommend is to work with the players to make their concepts come alive with other options. Dig into the core of what they want and homebrew something (if necessary, the DMG gives advice on homebrewing, homebrewing is a part of the DMs job/pleasure) that both fits the world and the character. Brainstorming character ideas and mechanics is IMO always a silver bullet.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-25, 10:20 PM

It's factually wrong for the GM to expect every player to be fine with a race/class restriction.
It is factually wrong for you to claim that as a fact. That's an opinion.

In theory no, just keep in mind that 5e only has 12 classes so if you're cutting out 1/3 of the options the game has to offer, including several of the most popular ones, so you can more easily cause players to fail to find a fun idea of character to play for them compared to a game with more "bloat".I am gonna nitpick here on a simple math failure.
He is removing 3 of 12 classes.
1/4 of the 12 classes. :smallyuk:

Also, bard, warlock, and sorcerer are still in play, so plenty of "full caster" choices crop up.

Leon

2023-08-26, 12:15 AM

Not at all but you do need to be upfront about any changes from the "expected" norm that D&D brings.
Some players wont be happy that they cant play X class or race but you can do well without such people in your game.

Pex

2023-08-26, 03:35 AM

So I want to limit magic a bit. I'll be honest I don't want wizards, clerics, druids. Is it wrong to let my players know before starting that those classes can be played.

It's not wrong, but at some point you need to ask yourself if D&D is the system to play based on what you're banning. You don't want magic. Fine. There are other systems out there with low to no magic. I will repeat to emphasize you aren't wrong, but it's easier to play a game system that fits the campaign you want to run than change D&D to what it isn't. D&D has magic. It's ingrained into the system.

I can understand banning particular subclasses due to their effects not suitable to one's taste, but to ban 1/3 of the game altogether is a bit too much in my opinion.

Leon

2023-08-26, 05:07 AM

D&D has magic. It's ingrained into the system.

Magic is so ingrained that every class is inherently magical in some way, the lack of those three specific classes doesn't mean much over all.

strangebloke

2023-08-26, 11:54 AM

Every single day, some guy gets the idea to try to play DND 5e without magic.

DND 5e, of course, being a system where like a fourth of the PHB is literally just spells, and like a fourth of the DMG is magic items, and a huge number of creatures are spellcasters.

As far as I'm aware, literally everyone who has ever tried this has found 5e to be a terrible system for trying to simulate what they're doing.

Simply do not do this. Period. Find a different system.

As for races and subclasses, restricting these is fine, but as Stoutstein said, you need buy-in from the players. The game shouldn't be designed in isolation from them, and making a setting completely centered on halflings when nobody wants to play a halfling is.... inadvisable. Generally I try to offer my group several options for campaigns I could make for them and see what they gravitate toward the most.

In general, with an original setting, you can't afford to give thought to loads of different races. There are simply too many. You can have a coherent place for some races in your setting - but not for all of them. This means that if all races are allowed, some people are going to be weird one-offs. If the player knows this and is okay with being - for example - the only warforged/living construct in the verse, then that's fine, or could be fine, but if they're just minmaxing and don't care about integrating with your setting at all... that's probably not someone I would want to play with much.

LibraryOgre

2023-08-26, 01:57 PM

In general, with an original setting, you can't afford to give thought to loads of different races. There are simply too many. You can have a coherent place for some races in your setting - but not for all of them. This means that if all races are allowed, some people are going to be weird one-offs. If the player knows this and is okay with being - for example - the only warforged/living construct in the verse, then that's fine, or could be fine, but if they're just minmaxing and don't care about integrating with your setting at all... that's probably not someone I would want to play with much.

Part of this... if you've got a player who likes a thing, think about how that thing fits into your world.

I had a kid who ALWAYS wanted to play a lizard man, and ALWAYS wanted a girlfriend. Every time. So, when I turned our city into a post-alien-invasion Hellscape, the alien invaders had brought along some lizard men slaves who were now integrating into society.

Another guy was ALWAYS going to want some sort of "pet". Droid, dog, whatever. Had to have it. So, you made sure that there was something available.

If you're working with something specific and unique (Dark Sun, Dragonlance, the Three Musketeers), then limit characters to options that make sense there. If you're building bespoke for your players, keep them in mind.

Leon

2023-08-26, 08:47 PM

Every single day, some guy gets the idea to try to play DND 5e without magic.
DND 5e, of course, being a system where like a fourth of the PHB is literally just spells, and like a fourth of the DMG is magic items, and a huge number of creatures are spellcasters.
As far as I'm aware, literally everyone who has ever tried this has found 5e to be a terrible system for trying to simulate what they're doing.

The OP is restricting three classes, the arguably three most broken in a broken magic system and really should have the sorcerer in that mix as well and then with those three (four) out of circulation the game still functions with less magic just fine ~ this is just on the Player side of things, there may well be many magical monsters in the book but the DM is capable of choosing to either not use them or to adapt them to be less "magical"

Find a different system.

Yes, in the long term this is the better solution because of the breadth of better systems out there than this one, this one is just the Big over-hyped gateway to RPGs and too many people get stuck on its threshold.

MisterD

2023-08-26, 10:28 PM

As long as there is an explanation as to why A class or race does not exist in YOUR campaign settings.

Arcane magic works this way. That is why A,B,C exists and D,E,F does not.

strangebloke

2023-08-26, 11:35 PM

Part of this... if you've got a player who likes a thing, think about how that thing fits into your world.

I had a kid who ALWAYS wanted to play a lizard man, and ALWAYS wanted a girlfriend. Every time. So, when I turned our city into a post-alien-invasion Hellscape, the alien invaders had brought along some lizard men slaves who were now integrating into society.

Another guy was ALWAYS going to want some sort of "pet". Droid, dog, whatever. Had to have it. So, you made sure that there was something available.

If you're working with something specific and unique (Dark Sun, Dragonlance, the Three Musketeers), then limit characters to options that make sense there. If you're building bespoke for your players, keep them in mind.
I mean you can take preferences into account regardless but yeah this is generally my point.

Always good to remember that you're going to need to make your players actually have a good time :)

The OP is restricting three classes, the arguably three most broken in a broken magic system and really should have the sorcerer in that mix as well and then with those three (four) out of circulation the game still functions with less magic just fine ~ this is just on the Player side of things, there may well be many magical monsters in the book but the DM is capable of choosing to either not use them or to adapt them to be less "magical"

Yes, in the long term this is the better solution because of the breadth of better systems out there than this one, this one is just the Big over-hyped gateway to RPGs and too many people get stuck on its threshold.

I mean its 'just' three classes, sure, but its a load of content, and if I was playing in this campaign I'd feel a little annoyed. All clerics/wizard/druids is a lot of content actually, and precludes a lot of things people might want to play.

Balance is... I don't think this really does anything for balance. The degen stuff that leads to wizards and clerics and druids breaking the game is pretty rare at tables that try to have a more low-op vibe anyway, imx.

RedMage125

2023-08-26, 11:59 PM

I don't have hard "bans", but all material in my hoke campaign world is classified as Green Light, Yellow Light, and Red Light.

Green Light means go ahead, no restrictions. I still may provide some background info for how these things typically fit into my setting, but you do you. Example: Dragonborn. Dragonborn are native to a distant southern continent, where the society resembles feudal Japan, and they are ruled over by dragons...BUT over a hundred years ago, many emigrated to the northern continent. So you can be a recent immigrant, 1st generation, or a dragonborn who's been integrated into society for several generations.

Yellow Light means "yes, but...". This is for elements which only fit into my setting in specific ways. So it's allowed, but there's a caveat. Example: Drow. Having dealt with WAY too many "Drizzt clones" in my early days as a DM, drow PCs must come from one of two communities of drow who live on the surface. So your drow PC has never been to the Underdark, and has never even MET a cleric of Lolth.

Red Light means "my default answer is no". Some things I just don't have a place for in my setting. Either they're too setting-specific (like warforged, changeling, dragonmarks, and artificers), or I just haven't come up with a way to fit them in as a player race yet (like aaracokra). But a player has ONE chance to pitch me a concept that is compelling enough for me to make an exception. Example: there are no tabaxi in my world. I just haven't found a way to integrate them. But if a player has an idea for, say, a tabaxi Sorcerer that used to be a wizard's cat, until a magical mishap turned them humanoid and imbued them with magic (thus making them a unique creature)...I'd probably allow it.

Tawmis

2023-08-27, 12:28 AM

So I want to limit magic a bit. I'll be honest I don't want wizards, clerics, druids. Is it wrong to let my players know before starting that those classes can be played.

Others have said it - but I will echo it.
Perfectly fine, I'd say. Homebrew, maybe the gods aren't there to hear the clerics and druids.
And Magic is weak, so Wizards aren't a thing.

Now I'd ask - what about Paladins and Rangers? Since they sort of tapper off of the Cleric and Druid thing?

And what about Sorcerers and Warlocks?

MoiMagnus

2023-08-27, 10:15 AM

It is factually wrong for you to claim that as a fact. That's an opinion.

I have factual proof of what I intended to mean.
I literally know a few players that would not be fine with it.
So I have factual proof that not EVERY player would be fine with it, which is what I intended to claim.

I did not intend to say anything about the specific players of his table. I was just saying that there cannot be an absolute answer of "it will always be fine for everyone" as I know a few counter-examples.

(And while I didn't specify it, I even have reasonable and non-toxic players as counter-examples)

Pex

2023-08-27, 10:19 AM

The OP is restricting three classes, the arguably three most broken in a broken magic system and really should have the sorcerer in that mix as well and then with those three (four) out of circulation the game still functions with less magic just fine ~ this is just on the Player side of things, there may well be many magical monsters in the book but the DM is capable of choosing to either not use them or to adapt them to be less "magical"
.

You're proving the point. If you hate these classes with such passion then play a different system more suitable to your taste instead of stripping the game down to where it's almost unrecognizable. D&D does not need to apologize for existing.

Composer99

2023-08-27, 11:26 AM

So I want to limit magic a bit. I'll be honest I don't want wizards, clerics, druids. Is it wrong to let my players know before starting that those classes can['t] be played. [Edit mine.]

I'm assuming you meant "those classes can't be played" - it would genuinely be wrong to tell players in advance that they could be played only to seek to prohibit them later.

That is, what would actually be an error is not letting your players or prospective players know your intentions beforehand. if you were to announce you're starting a D&D game, solicit players (either from your regular playgroup or from a pool of players available online), and only when someone rolls up with a druid do you announce that druids are prohibited, that would be your bad.

Beyond that, in my view there's no right or wrong answer over restricting content as such, save to echo other statements that, as a practical matter, it may be easier to play using a system that is better tailored to your preferences (such as a low-magic 5e adaptation or a different system entirely) than to have to engage in a large-scale curation of D&D content.

One thing to keep in mind that as DM, your primary job is to facilitate an engaging and enjoyable gameplay experience for yourself and your players. (Nominally, everyone shares that responsibility in part, but because of the outsized authority and responsibility that D&D assigns to DMs, the burden falls heaviest on the DM's shoulders.) As such, if you're planning to restrict available player character options and you know you have players who specifically enjoy those options, it's always worth asking yourself just how much your own gameplay experience is negatively impacted if the restricted options were still available, relative to how much your players' experience would be negatively impacted by their exclusion. This isn't a concern if you're specifically soliciting players who will buy into your campaign's premise, of course, but it could be if you're playing with an established playgroup.

Boci

2023-08-27, 11:42 AM

You're proving the point. If you hate these classes with such passion then play a different system more suitable to your taste instead of stripping the game down to where it's almost unrecognizable. D&D does not need to apologize for existing.

I've played without full casters before, players found it an interesting change of pace. Its not for everyone obvious, but such people wouldn't have applied for the game. It was still very recognisable D&D. you have to do more than remove full casters to make it even close to unrecognizable.

Bohandas

2023-08-27, 10:23 PM

It's only wrong if you don't tell your prospective players beforehand.

Also it would be bad form if you impose the restriction on players but not on non-elite NPCs

Pex

2023-08-28, 11:43 AM

It's only wrong if you don't tell your prospective players beforehand.

Also it would be bad form if you impose the restriction on players but not on non-elite NPCs

I would be bothered if even elite NPCs can be a banned class. The DM gets to play with toys he's denying players by fiat. That is not playing fair.

sithlordnergal

2023-08-28, 12:00 PM

I would be bothered if even elite NPCs can be a banned class. The DM gets to play with toys he's denying players by fiat. That is not playing fair.

I think this heavily depends on the world. If there's only one, maybe two, Clerics in the entire world, and no one else can be a Cleric, then that's fine. Same with Wizards. If there is literally only one or two guys in the entire world that can cast magic like that, then its fine.

But if you start regularly seeing people like that, then it becomes a problem.

Slipjig

2023-08-28, 12:42 PM

This is definitely something to discuss in Session Zero. It's totally okay to run a no-magic game, just be very careful with "Save or Suck" enemies, because a party without full casters is going to have a lot less tools to deal with their effects.

Have you considered just banning certain schools of magic?

NichG

2023-08-28, 12:50 PM

I would be bothered if even elite NPCs can be a banned class. The DM gets to play with toys he's denying players by fiat. That is not playing fair.

But if someone advertised this, would you even be joining that game? If not, what right do you have to complain about them doing it?

You're certainly allowed to be bothered if someone were to drop this on you, but people are also allowed to run games that aren't going to be to your taste.

Boci

2023-08-28, 01:02 PM

But if someone advertised this, would you even be joining that game? If not, what right do you have to complain about them doing it?

You're certainly allowed to be bothered if someone were to drop this on you, but people are also allowed to run games that aren't going to be to your taste.

Same reason people complain about railroading, cliche / terrible plots, DMPCs. People tend to complain about aspects of the game they consider bad, as opposed to something they find just not to their tastes.

NichG

2023-08-28, 01:13 PM

Same reason people complain about railroading, cliche / terrible plots, DMPCs. People tend to complain about aspects of the game they consider bad, as opposed to something they find just not to their tastes.

'I don't like this' or 'I wouldn't play in this' is not the same as 'it is wrong for someone to do this'.

I personally can't stand playing in horror games, and I hate the general idea of a game where you know you're going to fail or die and the game is about how you go to approach that death. That doesn't mean that games like 'Ten Candles' should not exist, it just means that I'm not going to be signing up for that kind of game.

Similarly, I probably wouldn't sign up for a game where I'm playing the power-capped mundane surviving in, maybe striving against the tyrannical wizard state of people more who will always be more powerful than me. Like, say, the Black Company series of books (which does have a d20 adaptation). That doesn't mean that those games shouldn't exist, for players and GMs who are excited about that idea.

It's not wrong to run games that have elements that some people cannot stand. It's just wrong to trick them into such games, or spring such games upon them by surprise.

Boci

2023-08-28, 01:17 PM

'I don't like this' or 'I wouldn't play in this' is not the same as 'it is wrong for someone to do this'.

Yes, and Pex clearly considers a DM banning wizards and clerics for players, only to use them for NPCs extensively to be bad DMing, not just something they personally dislike.

NichG

2023-08-28, 02:51 PM

Yes, and Pex clearly considers a DM banning wizards and clerics for players, only to use them for NPCs extensively to be bad DMing, not just something they personally dislike.

That's very much a nuclear option in this kind of conversation, and it opens the door to things that are very easy to take as personal attacks.

Be very careful before telling a group of people that what they do with eachothers' informed consent is objectively wrong, lest you want to open your own tastes to the same kind of criticism.

Boci

2023-08-28, 03:01 PM

That's very much a nuclear option in this kind of conversation, and it opens the door to things that are very easy to take as personal attacks.

Be very careful before telling a group of people that what they do with eachothers' informed consent is objectively wrong, lest you want to open your own tastes to the same kind of criticism.

Only if you decide that someone else things their opinions are objective fact, which unless they make the claim themselves, is an assumption you made. Everyone has things that they personally dislike, but don't think are bad, but I'm pretty sure everyone has opinions on what is actually bad writing. But its on you to interpret me thinking something is bad writing as a personal attack. I consider "destiny chose you, you must" lazy writing used to cover an inability to think of a reason why the main character would actually do something at that point in the plot. By contrast I don't consider love triangles bad writing, I just don't like them personally. But if you like the call of destiny trope, it is on you to interpret my opinion as a personal attack. You could just accept we have different tastes.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-28, 03:17 PM

You don't want magic. That's not what the OP put into the opening post.
The three classes removed were: Wizard, Cleric, Druid. <== those are three "prepared caster, full" classes.
Full casters left include Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard.
Half casters left include Paladin and Ranger (And maybe Artificer, he didn't specify)
1/3 casters left include EK and LT.

Boci

2023-08-28, 03:21 PM

1/3 casters left include EK and LT.

Is that meant to be AT, or is there an archetype I don't know about? Regardless of the answer, please make up a 1/3 casting archetype whose initials are LT.

NichG

2023-08-28, 04:02 PM

Only if you decide that someone else things their opinions are objective fact, which unless they make the claim themselves, is an assumption you made. Everyone has things that they personally dislike, but don't think are bad, but I'm pretty sure everyone has opinions on what is actually bad writing. But its on you to interpret me thinking something is bad writing as a personal attack. I consider "destiny chose you, you must" lazy writing used to cover an inability to think of a reason why the main character would actually do something at that point in the plot. By contrast I don't consider love triangles bad writing, I just don't like them personally. But if you like the call of destiny trope, it is on you to interpret my opinion as a personal attack. You could just accept we have different tastes.

I can accept we have different tastes if you can accept that we have different tastes. If you say 'no, that's objectively wrong, you shouldn't do it even if the players buy in' then that's not a matter of tastes, that's saying you have the right to insist other people play the game the way you think they should even when you aren't involved.

And if you breach that particular compromise of giving each-other space to like different things by saying, for instance, 'you should find a different game to play', then why should you be immune to people saying in return 'no, you're the one who should get out of my hobby'? Thus, the nuclear option. Civil discourse goes away when we don't give each-other space to exist. When someone says 'play something else, get out of my D&D', that's an attack.

Boci

2023-08-28, 04:12 PM

I can accept we have different tastes if you can accept that we have different tastes. If you say 'no, that's objectively wrong, you shouldn't do it even if the players buy in' then that's not a matter of tastes, that's saying you have the right to insist other people play the game the way you think they should even when you aren't involved.

But I didn't say that, you read that in. There are going to be things people think are example of bad writing or storytelling, and this will not be universally agreed on. But unless someone outright says that this is objective, you shouldn't interpret "this is bad writing/storytelling" as someone claiming what the're saying is the objective truth of the cosmos.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-28, 04:29 PM

Boci

2023-08-28, 04:46 PM

I believe NichG's comments are targeting the spirit in Pex's comments.

Among other things, Pex said: If you hate these classes with such passion then play a different system more suitable to your taste instead of stripping the game down to where it's almost unrecognizable.

Which is pretty much ending any conversation, and tempting someone to throw the same remark right back at them.

I had a comment for that. Sure, Pex can ignore it, but any comment on the forum can be ignored. If that's what NichG was referring to, they should have quoted that and not Pex saying "I would be bothered if even elite NPCs can be a banned class", which is what they quoted, and seems like way more of a defensibly thing to include on your bad DMing list.

NichG

2023-08-28, 05:05 PM

But I didn't say that, you read that in. There are going to be things people think are example of bad writing or storytelling, and this will not be universally agreed on. But unless someone outright says that this is objective, you shouldn't interpret "this is bad writing/storytelling" as someone claiming what the're saying is the objective truth of the cosmos.

You outright said that you thought Pex was saying that. Whether or not Pex was, that was the point you were choosing to defend:

Yes, and Pex clearly considers a DM banning wizards and clerics for players, only to use them for NPCs extensively to be bad DMing, not just something they personally dislike.

So you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You're defending people making statements like that, whether you personally believe that or not. I'm in turn responding to you here, not Pex (since they haven't actually said anything yet in this branch of conversation, I'm not going to hold them accountable for things that you're saying), saying that sort of approach to a conversation has consequences. Namely that people won't just sit there and take it, they'll call you on it, or escalate in kind.

Like, if Pex said 'I'm just venting here, leave off'. I'd say 'fair enough, I've said my piece'. Its the doubling down on this kind of thing as how discourse should be expected to go, like its a good idea or conducive to good, constructive conversations to act this way that irritates me.

Boci

2023-08-28, 05:17 PM

You outright said that you thought Pex was saying that.

Yeah, and I think that's an okay thing to say. Unless you think its impossible to be a bad DM (a rather extreme opinion to hold in of itself), I guarantee you there are things you think are bad DMing that others don't.

NichG

2023-08-28, 05:45 PM

Yeah, and I think that's an okay thing to say. Unless you think its impossible to be a bad DM (a rather extreme opinion to hold in of itself), I guarantee you there are things you think are bad DMing that others don't.

I don't think its wrong to be a bad DM, I don't think that everything I find bad in a DM-ing style will lead to a bad experience for a player who isn't me. For some players? For a lot of players even? Sure. But if the DM says 'this is how I DM, want to play?' and someone says 'sure!', then nothing wrong is happening there. You might read that as 'its impossible to be an objectively bad DM' in the sense that, I won't rule out the existence of a player who might very well be into whatever. It's certainly a position that I have no business telling someone else 'you can't possibly enjoy that'.

That doesn't mean no one should give DM-ing advice ever. But to give advice effectively does mean meeting the people you're advising where they want to be, and with regards to what they want to do. Someone is running D&D and they get every single rule wrong and do totally arbitrary things with no internal consistency? I'll talk about the consequences of those choices, but if that's actually what they and their players want then they're not doing anything wrong, and if they're not even asking advice I should probably just butt out. Saying 'this isn't my taste'? Sure! Saying 'I wouldn't play this, and here's why'? Sure! Saying 'here's what I think will happen, have you considered that?' Sure! Saying 'you should really be upfront with your players about this and get their buy in'? Sure! That can all be constructive, and none of it requires saying 'no, what you want to do is wrong, don't do it'.

The one time I can recall on these forums where I have overtly said 'this is objectively bad and you should not do it' was with regards to an abusive dynamic between players and DM.

To bring it back to the thread, that's the point about informed consent here. If you're up front with your players (or your GM) about how you're going to be, they understand that, there's mutual agreement to play that way, and everyone sticks to it - then its no business of mine to tell that group what to do.

lall

2023-08-28, 07:46 PM

So I want to limit magic a bit. I'll be honest I don't want wizards, clerics, druids. Is it wrong to let my players know before starting that those classes can be played.
It’s not wrong. It”s also not wrong for one of your players to inform you that certain pages of the DMG are off limits for you. In the end, it’s a two-way street.

Brookshw

2023-08-28, 08:28 PM

It’s not wrong. It”s also not wrong for one of your players to inform you that certain pages of the DMG are off limits for you. In the end, it’s a two-way street.

There's a hot take. Also, no. You can certainly express what you don't want in the campaign, but its ultimately the DM's call, if they aren't on board you either find a different game, don't play, or decide you can live with it

Leon

2023-08-28, 09:37 PM

I mean its 'just' three classes, sure, but its a load of content, and if I was playing in this campaign I'd feel a little annoyed. All clerics/wizard/druids is a lot of content actually, and precludes a lot of things people might want to play.

Then you'd prob not play in this campaign which is fine but since the DM is setting the world up its also not your place to complain that these classes don't exist so you can play in it ~ you get the choice to play in it as something else or not all all. This is what Session Zeros exist for its a Problem when these restrictions are sprung on you mid campaign but not if its a Known Fact at the start.

You're proving the point. If you hate these classes with such passion then play a different system more suitable to your taste instead of stripping the game down to where it's almost unrecognizable. D&D does not need to apologize for existing.

And Yet, these three classes are not integral to the Game, The game is called Dungeons and Dragons and still manages to be that even if you never fight a Dragon or venture into a Dungeon. To YOU its unpalatable to not have the choice to play one of these three classes and that's ok but its also very reasonable to not have any given class in a game, just as long as itr s a upfront known fact. Any change off the expected "normal Core Book experiance" of the game needs to be know before you start. Would you have this adverse reaction if the three banned classes were the core Martial experience?

NichG

2023-08-28, 10:42 PM

It’s not wrong. It”s also not wrong for one of your players to inform you that certain pages of the DMG are off limits for you. In the end, it’s a two-way street.

Yeah basically I agree with this, as long as the player informs the DM in advance, at which point the DM can decide whether or not they're willing to make that compromise, or if they're going to find another player.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-28, 11:11 PM

It’s not wrong. It”s also not wrong for one of your players to inform you that certain pages of the DMG are off limits for you. In the end, it’s a two-way street.
Yeah, sure. And four of you are driving a car down that street, while the other one is walking, carrying all his gear under the midday sun, going uphill in both directions.

So it's a two way street in the sense that it's a two way street *wink wink, nudge nudge*.

MeimuHakurei

2023-08-28, 11:34 PM

It's mostly a question on what you're trying to do with a campaign setting in how far you should go. In general, unless you're doing like an LFG post on roll20, it's a good idea to involve players in shaping the campaign world, because not allowing any input from them isn't just a risk of making the game unfun for them, it signals that you think the player's preferences are at odds with yours. Even if you have a random group, it can help to be a bit permissive and compromising because players can work out a way to make an idea function in your setting.

That said, race and class are on a different scale of how it impacts the game. For the former, it's largely not a mechanical problem, but it could dampen the appeal of playing all sorts of colorful races (B/X and derivative systems are probably a better choice if you want less of it). Since many do like to play human, there's a good chance it won't come up regardless.

Removing classes can have substantial impact on game flow, especially with how drastically different martial and caster classes are not only mechanically, but conceptually. But that's more on the design of the game what kinda problems could arise, so handle with care.

Boci

2023-08-29, 01:10 AM

There's a hot take. Also, no. You can certainly express what you don't want in the campaign, but its ultimately the DM's call, if they aren't on board you either find a different game, don't play, or decide you can live with it

Yeah, the players need to be united on the issue, then its basically the same. The DM can still DM without one player after all, but not without all of them.

rel

2023-08-29, 01:49 AM

No problem with what you're doing. Telling the players what content and houserules you're using before play starts is the correct way to handle things.

Do it as part of the game pitch along with the games theme, tone, expected play loop, expected level range, length of campaign and so forth.

Lay it all out, and the players that are interested will sign up and those that are not can sit out and wait for the next game.

In my experience, running anything but one of the big generic D&D settings like FR requires content restriction and often houserules on top, and 5e is especially good for this sort of modding.

Brookshw

2023-08-29, 05:45 AM

Yeah, the players need to be united on the issue, then its basically the same. The DM can still DM without one player after all, but not without all of them.

If the players all want one game and the DM another, sounds like a bad match to start.

Boci

2023-08-29, 05:53 AM

If the players all want one game and the DM another, sounds like a bad match to start.

Depends. Most DMs are at least somewhat versatile in the kind of game they can provide, and if the group is close / mature such disagreements can settled amicably. "Hey, I want to try a more low powered game with a greater emphasis on survival and resource scarcity. Oh, none of you are interested in that. Okay, I can work up something else instead".

Brookshw

2023-08-29, 07:34 AM

Depends. Most DMs are at least somewhat versatile in the kind of game they can provide, and if the group is close / mature such disagreements can settled amicably. "Hey, I want to try a more low powered game with a greater emphasis on survival and resource scarcity. Oh, none of you are interested in that. Okay, I can work up something else instead".

There's a hot take. Also, no. You can certainly express what you don't want in the campaign, but its ultimately the DM's call, if they aren't on board you either find a different game, don't play, or decide you can live with it

See above.

Boci

2023-08-29, 07:40 AM

See above.

But its not "ultimately the DMs call". Not really. The players as a whole have just as much say as the DM, so if they are united, you can say "ultimately its the players call" with just as much accuracy.

Beelzebub1111

2023-08-29, 08:00 AM

But its not "ultimately the DMs call". Not really. The players as a whole have just as much say as the DM, so if they are united, you can say "ultimately its the players call" with just as much accuracy.
Can you give me an example of how something like this would play out?

Since, without the DM there is no game. Even if the players are united they have to make a case in good faith and convince the DM that their denial of the rule makes the game better. If the players are united in saying "We'll play in dark sun, but we don't want you using any of the rules for Exposure, Dehydration, and Exaustion" the DM can just say "No, those are fundamental to the atmosphere I'm going for, what's your alternative?" If they are still united then we aren't playing the Dark Sun campaign. To me that seems like it all boils down to the DMs decision.

Boci

2023-08-29, 08:27 AM

Since, without the DM there is no game.

Yeah, but there's also no game without players. Therefor the two sides are equal, since they both need each other to play.

To me that seems like it all boils down to the DMs decision.

You can just as easily interpret that as coming down to the players the decisions. They decided they didn't want to play with those rules, and now the DM doesn't get to play with those rules either, because there are no players. Sure, the DM can look for new players, but the players can look for another DM, or one of them can try it themselves.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 08:28 AM

But its not "ultimately the DMs call". Not really. The players as a whole have just as much say as the DM, so if they are united, you can say "ultimately its the players call" with just as much accuracy.
This is assuming the players are completely united. No reason to assume that.

As I alluded to in my previous post, the DM is putting in a lot of work, and it's a load the players don't typically share. The idea that they have "just as much say" is technically true, but in practice doesn't really bear fruit. Generally players go along or don't play. A DM that wants to run awful games will find themselves without players. But no one is suggesting that in this thread, though I appreciate we have people that really really really like full prepared casters.

Brookshw

2023-08-29, 08:29 AM

But its not "ultimately the DMs call". Not really. The players as a whole have just as much say as the DM, so if they are united, you can say "ultimately its the players call" with just as much accuracy.

Good luck telling the DM they aren't allowed to use the rules for underwater combat or whatever the theoretical topic at hand is. The players, collectively and individually, have the 3 options I outlined earlier (heck, if they're all in agreement, one of them should just slide over into the DM seat which was option 1 'find a different game'). They have zero power to make someone run a game they don't want to run.

Boci

2023-08-29, 08:33 AM

This is assuming the players are completely united. No reason to assume that.

I specifically said "Yeah, the players need to be united on the issue,".

Good luck telling the DM they aren't allowed to use the rules for underwater combat or whatever the theoretical topic at hand is. The players, collectively and individually, have the 3 options I outlined earlier (heck, if they're all in agreement, one of them should just slide over into the DM seat which was option 1 'find a different game'). They have zero power to make someone run a game they don't want to run.

And the DM has zero power to make players play in a game that doesn't interested them. Seems both sides are pretty equal here. Again, assuming are in agreement with each other.

Mastikator

2023-08-29, 08:37 AM

Yeah, but there's also no game without players. Therefor the two sides are equal, since they both need each other to play.

No not even then, it's easier to replace all of the players than it is to find a pliable DM. The easiest and most honorable way of being in a game that is the way you want it to be is to become the DM. If a player wants to play a certain kind of game that their DM doesn't want to DM, they are free to step up and DM the game themselves.

And rarely do I see a player do just that, which is what makes the players more expendable, even collectively, than the DM.

Kish

2023-08-29, 08:38 AM

I've built and run a game set in a fantasy version of Pre-Christian Ireland. The party is limited to one full caster which must be a Druid.

As far as races go, we are limited to human skins. But if someone wants a nonhuman, I will allow some if I can justify a reskin with a reasoning. For example, I reskin half-orc and dwarf as a big or short Scotsman.
No True Scotsman doesn't have darkvision.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 08:41 AM

It’s not wrong. It”s also not wrong for one of your players to inform you that certain pages of the DMG are off limits for you. Incorrect. Suggest you read the DMG, and pay particular to the bit about "master of rules" - that role falls squarely on the DM. (Though discussing rules variations with players is good technique).

Yeah, the players need to be united on the issue, then its basically the same. The DM can still DM without one player after all, but not without all of them. What you describe is a situation hostile to a TTRPG being played in the first place.

No problem with what you're doing. Telling the players what content and houserules you're using before play starts is the correct way to handle things.
Do it as part of the game pitch along with the games theme, tone, expected play loop, expected level range, length of campaign and so forth.

Lay it all out, and the players that are interested will sign up and those that are not can sit out and wait for the next game. All great advice for the OP.
But its not "ultimately the DMs call". Not really. Yes it is, really.
Suggest you read page 6 of the PHB.

In other words, Brookshw is right.

Boci

2023-08-29, 08:44 AM

And rarely do I see a player do just that, which is what makes the players more expendable, even collectively, than the DM.

I've done it before. Not even collectively. The DM was being a jerk, so I said I wasn't interested anymore. The group was already small, the remaining players didn't want to continue without me. If the DM had just not used stuck to his petty, pointless rules, I would have stayed and the game likely could have continued. Everyone though had a chance to keep the game going. The DM could have withdrawn their stupid rules, they chose not to, I could have chosen to stick with the group regardless, I didn't, and the two other players could have chosen to continue playing as a pair, they didn't.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 08:45 AM

I specifically said "Yeah, the players need to be united on the issue,".
Yeah, and I'm pointing out that's quite the assumption.

The idea that a DM is going to put the effort in to run a game through a homebrew world, and the players are going to unite and make demands of the DM, or limit what they can do, is preposterous.

It's a level of entitlement that can only exist on a Reddit thread devoted to D&D horror stories.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 08:48 AM

It's a level of entitlement that can only exist on a Reddit thread devoted to D&D horror stories. Or as I said, it is a situation toxic to a TTRPG being played in the first place.

Boci, I think you are confusing D&D with some other game systems where the roles are differently weighted.

Boci

2023-08-29, 08:50 AM

The idea that a DM is going to put the effort in to run a game through a homebrew world, and the players are going to unite and make demands of the DM, or limit what they can do, is preposterous.

No its not, its happened. And I don't blame the players.

"Hey I have this idea for a D&D based where your all part of an academy, and levelling is tied to classes and learning"

"Yeah, we're not really interested in that,"

"Oh okay, let me think up something else,"

Was a disappointed? A little sure. Did I find the situation preposterous, or blame the players for daring to have preference? Of course not. As a DM I have at times gone back on ruling and allowed material I initially wasn't going to because one or more players offered a counter argument. Sometimes it didn't change my mind, sometimes it did.

BBQ Pork

2023-08-29, 08:54 AM

You should limit your setting, unless it is a "kitchen sink" multiversal gathering point like Sigil, the Radiant Citadel or a major Spelljammer hub.

But you have to sell your players on a thematic "why". Both the players and the DM have the veto power of walking away from the table, and there is some room for negotiation before that point.

I'm going to try to sell my players on a setting where they start as members of an Orc tribe. (4 racial options, all classes but Wizard, only those subclasses that make thematic sense)
A handful of other races live in the country and may join the tribe after "The Enemy" shows up in the country.
Others from outside the country might come via ship to the coastal city and make their way inland.

rel

2023-08-29, 09:01 AM

Yeah, games can definitely fall apart if someone walks, not just the GM.

And the GM can walk and one of the other players can step up and take over leaving the GM with no one to run for.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 09:06 AM

No its not, its happened. And I don't blame the players.

"Hey I have this idea for a D&D based where your all part of an academy, and levelling is tied to classes and learning"

"Yeah, we're not really interested in that,"

"Oh okay, let me think up something else,"

Was a disappointed? A little sure. Did I find the situation preposterous, or blame the players for daring to have preference? Of course not. As a DM I have at times gone back on ruling and allowed material I initially wasn't going to because one or more players offered a counter argument. Sometimes it didn't change my mind, sometimes it did.
But this is just the players not being interested. That happens.

The comment I replied to was not that. It was a "if you can do it, so can I" remark that is suggesting what the OP wants to do is out of line, and so the players can also do it.

You have to have buy-in, for sure. But players being retaliatory or trying to flex on the DM because the DM is setting restrictions is not something that should be assumed.

I've offered to DM for my brother numerous times. But he always wants to play a nautical campaign, and I'm not interested in it thematically, nor am I familiar enough with all the ins and outs of ships and sailing that I would feel comfortable running a game like that. So it never happens. But I don't approach it as if we've entered negotiations "I want to run a game without wizards, ok then I as the player would like to adjust Attunement rules so we can attune to an unlimited number of items, ok then I as the DM want to implement these variant rules, fine then I as a player insist on Gestalt, etc etc etc"

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 09:06 AM

As a DM I have at times gone back on ruling and allowed material I initially wasn't going to because one or more players offered a counter argument. Sometimes it didn't change my mind, sometimes it did. I am sure we've all done that, who have DM'd a lot. The point (for the OP) is to follow the steps in this rough order?

1. Prepare the game / campaign pitch ahead of time. (That's a best practice, I limit it to a page or a bit less).
2. Find out who is interested.
3. Solicit questions, clear up what is and isn't in the setting; the constraints as it were.
4. THEN generate characters and figure out how to fit the background and backstory into the setting for each character.
5. Meet in a tavern ... :smallbiggrin: (Or have any other suitable starting point.

Speaking of "how to start":
One of my favorite "how to start" sessions was years ago.
The DM had us all enter the game room at certain times.
Yes, we synchronized our watches, we had all watched a lot of WW II movies.
Each of the seven players arrived in sequence (DM had offered us cards to draw, I was number 2).
I entered the room to find the first player engaged in conversation with the sergeant of the town watch (a walled town) who was recruiting for what was more or less a posse. The sergeant noticed me, offered to buy me a beer, and I then joined the conversation. We role played this, and five minutes later player three showed up, and entered the conversation. Player 4 entered, and just sat and listened. And so on until the seven of us were engaged in a negotiation with the town watch leader to join the posse.
It worked very well, and we were off to hunt the rustlers/thieves as a group shortly thereafter.

I have used this approach a few times - the players enter during the opening session after chargen and introduce themselves to each other during a role playing scene that is already in progress.
It has always worked and I found that players responded to it favorably.

But I have not tried this in online play.

Boci

2023-08-29, 09:11 AM

But this is just the players not being interested. That happens.

The comment I replied to was not that. It was a "if you can do it, so can I" remark that is suggesting what the OP wants to do is out of line, and so the players can also do it."

Possibly how it was intended in the original post, I don't know, I'm not a mind reader. But playing having their own ideas is fine. Hell, what if the players want to play a game with no full casters, for them or the NPCs? Are they not allowed to pitch that to the DM?

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 09:12 AM

Are they not allowed to pitch that to the DM? You can always offer a suggestion. (Well, that's my take). Whether if fits that setting/game world remains in the DM's hands. The DM is the World Builder. (there are other games where this is not the case, but in D&D, that's how it works).

By way of example:
A few years back, I created a Cleric (Life) in my brother's game world. I wasn't all that enthused with the deities he had listed for us, so I asked if I could create an additional one for my Cleric to serve. (Stahnuld, deity of brewers and distillers). He told me to send a draft, so I did, he made a few tweaks, and he added a new deity to his pantheon. And my Cleric was a devotee of Stahnuld, blessing everyone in the name of the barrel, and of the foam, and of the holy nectar

It's a few years later, that cleric has retired, but that deity is alive and well in his world. My Celestial warlock has a patron/Empyrean who is aligned with Stahnuld, and one of the other players is a Cleric serving Stahnuld. As the campign has progressed, we've run into a few shrines and chapels dedicated to the same deity.

So yes, players can make suggestions, but it's in the DM's hands to fold them into the world, or not.

Boci

2023-08-29, 09:15 AM

You can always offer a suggestion. (Well, that's my take). Whether if fits that setting/game world remains in the DM's hands. The DM is the World Builder. (there are other games where this is not the case, but in D&D, that's how it works).

Sure, but then when the DM pitches a game, whether or not the players bite is in the players right?

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 09:17 AM

Possibly how it was intended in the original post, I don't know, I'm not a mind reader. But playing having their own ideas is fine. Hell, what if the players want to play a game with no full casters, for them or the NPCs? Are they not allowed to pitch that to the DM?
They can pitch whatever they want. No one, I repeat, NO ONE is suggesting that players can't have ideas, pitch things to the DM, or push back on what the DM wants to do.

It turns to entitlement when "I can give my opinion" becomes "if I don't get my way I walk". And the key difference here is that the tone of this conversation is not "this doesn't interest me" but rather "if the DM thinks he can do this, I'll show him otherwise".

Boci

2023-08-29, 09:19 AM

It turns to entitlement when "I can give my opinion" becomes "if I don't get my way I walk".

Okay, but the DM is not entitled then, if they refuse to run a game if the players don't agree to their way? Seems like an arbitrary divide.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 09:19 AM

Sure, but then when the DM pitches a game, whether or not the players bite is in the players right?
Of course, nobody has said otherwise.
As noted above, there seems to be far more available players than available DMs. (But I suspect that varies by location).

Now let's go back to post #1 of this thread.
DM wants a world where as PC classes the wizard, cleric, and druid are not eligible.
If one wants to play a full caster, one can play a bard, sorcerer or warlock.
And all of the half casters seem to be in play. (Not sure about artificer)
EK and AT (yes, not LT) seem to be in play.

Plenty of magic.

I'd offer the OP the following suggestion: review the NPCs tied to the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard classes and see which ones exist as NPCs.
You can reskin all of the wizard NPCs and Sorcerers by swapping INT and CHA scores, and removing the spell books.
You can have the Priest and Acolyte NPCs tied to towns, shrines, chapels, temples and cities.
You can have varioud Druid NPCs tied to geographical locations (forests, lakes, sacred groves) and they are true NPCs.

It will work.

(FWIW, Yora is building a game world where a lot of the full casters are not in play. Have not seen Yora post lately, but their campaign concept really appealed to me).

Boci

2023-08-29, 09:22 AM

As noted above, there seems to be far more available players than available DMs. (But I suspect that varies by location).

Yeah, I live in a capital European city, so I don't think this applies. You can find a DM easily enough that the specific quantities of each don't really matter.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 09:25 AM

Yeah, I live in a capital European city, so I don't think this applies. You can find a DM easily enough that the specific quantities of each don't really matter. Lucky you. :smallsmile:
I am not so situated and neither are any number of folks who post here.

Boci

2023-08-29, 09:26 AM

Lucky you. :smallsmile:
I am not so situated and neither are any number of folks who post here.

Well can't really comment on a social situation I've never experienced. Certainly here I think the idea that a DM is harder to replace than a whole is kinda preposterous, but maybe it isn't in other places.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 09:31 AM

kinda preposterous It's a very real limitation for some people.
Again, I suspect that in large cities (LA, Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, Boston, Minneapolis as a few examples) there's probably much less of a problem than in smaller population base locales.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 09:33 AM

Okay, but the DM is not entitled then, if they refuse to run a game if the players don't agree to their way? Seems like an arbitrary divide.
You think it's arbitrary because your a priori assumption is that the DM and the players are all equal and the same.

Except I don't have to buy and read an adventure module, play all the NPCs, adjudicate all the rules, describe every non-PC thing happening the game, create maps for the combat encounters, etc etc etc. I'm just a player at the table running through the world the DM has created and is controlling.

So no, I don't think it's arbitrary. For me, the DM is providing a world in which to have fun. I'd never dream of strong-arming them into changing something if some opinion I had didn't change their mind. If a concept doesn't interest me as a whole, then yeah, that's no fun and I won't play. But if a DM is like "I want to run Dark Sun" I'm not going to be like "BORING, let's play Dragonlance instead!" My thoughts will be "Oh, interesting, never played in Dark Sun before, let's see what this is like. So, what are the rules for a Dark Sun game?".

Boci

2023-08-29, 09:36 AM

You think it's arbitrary because your a priori assumption is that the DM and the players are all equal and the same.

Right, but doesn't that suggest the possibility that you think it isn't arbitrary because you have a prior assumption that they aren't the same? Or are such biases only things that other people do?

Except I don't have to buy and read an adventure module, play all the NPCs, adjudicate all the rules, describe every non-PC thing happening the game, create maps for the combat encounters, etc etc etc. I'm just a player at the table running through the world the DM has created and is controlling.

A DM does that because they enjoy it (at least I hope so). I don't expect much recognition from my players for doing something that I like, and I certainly wouldn't place myself above them collectively.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 10:03 AM

And therein lies the heart of our disagreement :smallbiggrin:

Boci

2023-08-29, 10:09 AM

And therein lies the heart of our disagreement :smallbiggrin:

So for a specific examples, what about the one back in

I've built and run a game set in a fantasy version of Pre-Christian Ireland. The party is limited to one full caster which must be a Druid.

As far as races go, we are limited to human skins. But if someone wants a nonhuman, I will allow some if I can justify a reskin with a reasoning. For example, I reskin half-orc and dwarf as a big or short Scotsman.

What if the players consider this, and tell the DM they are with Pre-Christian Ireland and limiting full casters (maybe one double checks warlocks, since they seem to fit with irish mythology. Are they considered full casters for this purpose?), but as a group they don't keen on the "non-humans only as reskins" idea, enough so that they would likely pass on the game if its going to aesthetically be nothing but humans, because that's not what they play D&D for.

Are the players here at fault, for shooting down one of the DMs ideas?

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 10:15 AM

You keep bringing this back to differences in interest. The comment I replied to was talking about telling the DM they can't use parts of the DMG. I'm not sure why you keep equating these things but they are not the same to me.

Boci

2023-08-29, 10:18 AM

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 10:23 AM

Are the players here at fault, for shooting down one of the DMs ideas? In a word, yes. If that's the game the DM offers, then there's no game if the players aren't willing to embrace the setting and the concept.
That means that in this case, if the Players refuse there is no game and it's their fault.
The DM offered a game and the players did not accept the offer.
Any of the other players can offer to be DM so that there will be a game, though.

Can that not be a preference too? "We don't like cursed items, even though they're in the DMG"? You can offer an input, sure, but you cannot tell the DM that they are banned.
What exists in the game world is in the DM's hands. This is D&D, not some other game system.

Can the DM choose to not include them, based on that preference?
Sure, it's choice, but they may include them anyway. It's in the DM's hands to decide.
If the players then declare "if there are cursed items in this world we won't play" then if the DM says "there is no game then" that's on the players.
They are unwilling to accept that the DM is the World Builder, and that points to a problem well beyond anything to do with game rules.
At this point, there's a power play at hand and a small group dynamics failure similar to the one illustrated in your "Boci thought the DM was a jerk" scenario".

With a dysfunctional small group dynamic at hand, maybe a different activity is better than a TTRPG. (Or maybe a DM-less RPG?)

Boci

2023-08-29, 10:27 AM

In a word, yes. If that's the game the DM wants to run, then there's no game if the players aren't willing to embrace the setting and the concept. So in this case, if the Players refuse there is no game and it's their fault. The DM offered a game and the players did not accept the offer.

And the DM chose that "Pre-Christian Ireland with only druid as a full caster, but with the traditional fantasy races present" wasn't good enough. Its on them just as much.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 10:32 AM

And the DM chose that "Pre-Christian Ireland with only druid as a full caster, but with the traditional fantasy races present" wasn't good enough. Its on them just as much.
Yeah I mean... the DM is just "having fun" by DMing. No big deal. The players are really doing the DM a favor by playing in their world and breathing life into it. DMs should be more grateful and give the players whatever they want...

EDIT: I agree with Korvin's take on the small group dynamic.

Boci

2023-08-29, 10:37 AM

Yeah I mean... the DM is just "having fun" by DMing. No big deal. The players are really doing the DM a favor by playing in their world and breathing life into it. DMs should be more grateful and give the players whatever they want...

The players are also not the DM's clowns to entertain them. They accepted the majority of the thematic nature of the pitched game, that wasn't enough for the DM.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 10:38 AM

And the DM chose that "Pre-Christian Ireland with only druid as a full caster, but with the traditional fantasy races present" wasn't good enough. Its on them just as much. Nope. The burdens are not equally shared, unlike in a board game. If you don't want to play in that setting/world, then do something else on game night. You won't have a D&D game if that's the setting offered.

Let me give you another example: there was a couple of years ago a chance to play in a DL game that I chose not to play in as a player. Why? DM said that yes, there would be Kender.
So I opted out.
For me, there was no game since I did not embrace the setting that the DM was offering.

Boci

2023-08-29, 10:39 AM

Nope. The burdens are not equally shared, unlike in a board game. If you don't want to play in that setting/world, then do something else on game night. You won't have a D&D game if that's the setting offered

That's not how it works when I DM. Others can do it differently.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 10:40 AM

The players are also not the DM's clowns to entertain them. They accepted the majority of the thematic nature of the pitched game, that wasn't enough for the DM.
I'm not sure what more there is to say.

Everyone agrees that if a game doesn't interest someone, they are free to not play.

But some of us afford a proper amount of deference to the DM, since they are creating the world and the game. Power plays like what you're describing are very alien to me.

Boci

2023-08-29, 10:42 AM

But some of us afford a proper amount of deference to the DM, since they are creating the world and the game. Power plays like what you're describing are very alien to me.

And as a primary DM, I say what you call proper is too much. Your attitude is very alien to me.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 10:45 AM

That's not how it works when I DM. Others can do it differently. It's useful to separate opinion and personal style from fact.
The OP is asking for general DM advice, not "How can I DM like Boci?" in post #1.
As presented, in the game as published in the three core books clearly lay the world building in the DM's hands.
Constraints on class, splat, race and a variety of other detail are in the DMs hands.
Another example:
there's a Paladin sub class in the DMG, Oathbreaker, which as presented isn't available unless a PC paladin does in fact break their oath during play as ruled by the DM.
And yet
any DM can choose to offer the broken oath as a part of the back story and thus open that sub class/oath to any player for their PC.
Again, it's in the DM's hands.

(TBH, if a player came up with a solid/coherent back story and theme that fit the world I run such that their broken oath fits into the setting, that sub class would certainly be in play; but nobody has to date. once again, work with the DM, don't try to bully them, which is what you have been advocating and what you have told us you did at least once).

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 10:45 AM

And as a primary DM, I say what you call proper is too much. Your attitude is very alien to me.To repeat myself from earlier, therein lies the heart of our disagreement :smallbiggrin:

Boci

2023-08-29, 10:47 AM

It's useful to separate opinion and personal style from fact.

Right, your opinion is fact, my opinion is opinion. Got it.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 10:47 AM

Right, your opinion is fact, my opinion is opinion. Got it. My position is supported by the core rules. Sorry that you can't accept that.

Boci

2023-08-29, 10:49 AM

My position is supported by the core rules, yours is not.

Core rules are still just suggestions, not facts. People can, and do, ignore them all the time.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 10:53 AM

Core rules are still just suggestions, not facts. People can, and do, ignore them all the time.
I am glad that your style works for your games. This is goodness.
Going back to the first post in this thread, the answer to the OP is
"No, it isn't wrong for the DM to limit PC classes and races."

For the rest of this thread, a great deal of advice has been offered by many, which boils down to "DM and players need to sort this out in Session Zero."
Which is a best practice.

NichG

2023-08-29, 11:33 AM

It turns to entitlement when "I can give my opinion" becomes "if I don't get my way I walk". And the key difference here is that the tone of this conversation is not "this doesn't interest me" but rather "if the DM thinks he can do this, I'll show him otherwise".

No one is obligated to play. No one is obligated to run.

Entitlement is when someone says 'even if you aren't going to enjoy it, sit down and fill your role so that I can have the game I want'. Whether it's player or DM. Players aren't entitled to a captive DM. DMs aren't entitled to captive players. There has to be consent on both sides and that should not be under social pressure or expectations.

Someone deciding not to play a game they won't enjoy isn't entitlement. Yes, that means walking if they don't get their way. No gaming is better than bad gaming. Walking away from something you know you will chafe under and get pissed off by and so on is the mature thing to do, even if the consequence is that game doesn't happen. I'd rather a player say 'this isn't going to be for me' and not join before session zero than a player say 'fine, whatever' and then fight me constantly for the next 60 sessions.

Someone saying 'I'm going to threaten to leave as a negotiation tactic, but I'm not actually going to leave and instead argue about why you need me at your table' on the other hand...

In a word, yes. If that's the game the DM offers, then there's no game if the players aren't willing to embrace the setting and the concept.
That means that in this case, if the Players refuse there is no game and it's their fault.
The DM offered a game and the players did not accept the offer.
Any of the other players can offer to be DM so that there will be a game, though.

'Fault' isn't really the right word for the situation. The players have the power to change this outcome, as does the DM, but if everyone is being honest about what they need in order to not regret playing the game, 'no game happens under these terms' is actually the preferred outcome, and it shouldn't be considered something to blame on someone in a negative sense.

Pex

2023-08-29, 11:51 AM

And Yet, these three classes are not integral to the Game, The game is called Dungeons and Dragons and still manages to be that even if you never fight a Dragon or venture into a Dungeon. To YOU its unpalatable to not have the choice to play one of these three classes and that's ok but its also very reasonable to not have any given class in a game, just as long as itr s a upfront known fact. Any change off the expected "normal Core Book experiance" of the game needs to be know before you start. Would you have this adverse reaction if the three banned classes were the core Martial experience?

As I said, it's not wrong, but the point remains. If you aren't using a significant portion of the game system to play then it's worth considering the game system itself is not suitable for the game you want to run and look for another that fits better with what you want to play. You don't play Ars Magica if no one can play a Magus and everyone can only be a Companion or Grog. You don't have to play an Order of Hermes type of game, but if you don't play a Magus that defeats the purpose. Same thing.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-29, 12:11 PM

NichG

2023-08-29, 12:43 PM

@NichG - Saying "Yeah, sure the DM can do that, and the players can do the same to you, it's a 2 way street" strikes me as entitlement, because it seems reactionary and reflexive, to protect the players from a game they might not want to play. It's less collaborative and more "let me see if I can get you to move away from what you suggested, in this combative way".

This is why I say that everyone should be honest about their needs. It's not combatative if you're just informing someone else about what you need in order for it to be worthwhile (or even just a good idea) to participate in their game, nor is it combatative to inform people of what you need as a DM in order to enjoy DM-ing. Walking away is not an inherently hostile action to take, nor should it be seen as one. Standing there and arguing about why someone should compromise with you lest you walk away on the other hand, yes, that's combatative. Once things like 'you need me' come out, we're in a difference space.

But someone who just tells a DM for example 'hey, I really hate cursed items and gotchas like that, I'll get really upset if they come up in game and it'll leave a bad flavor; would you agree not to use them?' and then if the DM says 'no, I can't agree to that' they say 'oh, well, I'm not interested then' - that's exactly how the conversation should go. The player would actually be in the wrong for not mentioning at session zero that there was going to be some trigger that would make them flip; they would actually be in the wrong for playing despite the DM saying 'no, I'm going to have those elements'. The cursed item thing just makes it sound petty because for most of us it seems like no big deal, so we might assume its a power play. But there are often things like that which aren't as obvious as something like 'no graphic descriptions of torture please'. If someone is actually willing to just say 'okay, not the game for me' and leave, well, it certainly wasn't a power play.

To me, 'you have to be more cooperative for sake of our fun' is an entitled position. 'You have to X, for our sake' in general is. IMO, there's not really a standard of reasonableness where its okay to force someone into an uncomfortable social, hobbyist activity for the fun of the group.

Like, in my case, I absolutely hate board games even though I like tabletop RPGs, and unfortunately a lot of the people I know who like tabletop RPGs also universally like board games, and often 'hey lets play a board game' comes up. I know better than to say 'sure, I'll do it for the group' because what has happened every single time I've done that is that I end up tuning out, read stuff on my phone, and respond to people's enthusiasm with 'actually this is pretty terrible, I hate it' which tends to put a damper on the whole thing. Likewise, I will never play in horror games. That doesn't mean arguing strongly that the group not do that, or threatening to cut off my friendships if they decide to play a board game. It does mean stepping out and letting them do their things they want to when those things would piss me off and when likewise I'd be a negative presence at the table for everyone else. The only entitlement there is that I am in fact entitled to choose how I spend my own time.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-29, 01:49 PM

'Fault' isn't really the right word for the situation. OK, the Onus is on them.
I think your point about word choice is a valid one.

This is why I say that everyone should be honest about their needs.
Here's a radical thought: DM's are allowed to have fun too.
If it's fun for Kurt K to run a setting as he describes it, who are you or I or Boci or for that matter any prospective player to throw shade on that preference?

If it attracts players, great!
If not, fine. Kurt K can hold that thought until a group to whom it appeals shows an interest...and then it's game on!

NichG

2023-08-29, 02:21 PM

Here's a radical thought: DM's are allowed to have fun too.
If it's fun for Kurt K to run a setting as he describes it, who are you or I or Boci or for that matter any prospective player to throw shade on that preference?

If it attracts players, great!
If not, fine. Kurt K can hold that thought until a group to whom it appeals shows an interest...and then it's game on!

This is my point though? There's not a privileged position in the DM/player dynamic when it comes to making the choice whether to play together or not. The DM can say 'this is what I'm willing to run', the player can say 'this is what I'm willing to play', if they match up or can find common ground between those things then they can game together, if there's no match then they won't. Whether it's harder to find one or the other, whether one side or the other puts in different work or resources, that doesn't change the right that everyone has to say 'I'm only going to participate in my hobbies in a way I'll actually enjoy'.

rel

2023-08-30, 12:07 AM

No one is obligated to play. No one is obligated to run.

Entitlement is when someone says 'even if you aren't going to enjoy it, sit down and fill your role so that I can have the game I want'. Whether it's player or DM. Players aren't entitled to a captive DM. DMs aren't entitled to captive players. There has to be consent on both sides and that should not be under social pressure or expectations.

Someone deciding not to play a game they won't enjoy isn't entitlement. Yes, that means walking if they don't get their way. No gaming is better than bad gaming. Walking away from something you know you will chafe under and get pissed off by and so on is the mature thing to do, even if the consequence is that game doesn't happen. I'd rather a player say 'this isn't going to be for me' and not join before session zero than a player say 'fine, whatever' and then fight me constantly for the next 60 sessions.

This is well put enough that it bears repeating. If a player isn't enjoying the game, they shouldn't be playing.

And that also applies to the GM (who is another one of the players, same as everyone else), if you see GMing as a chore, or a burden, or work, or anything other than a fun activity to enjoy with friends then you really shouldn't be doing it.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-30, 07:57 AM

This is my point though? There's not a privileged position in the DM/player dynamic when it comes to making the choice whether to play together or not.
But I think we all know that. Without a DM there's no game, and without players there's no game.

I've played in many homebrew worlds, right here on the forums, and I've never entered into negotiations with the DM as part of the process. I'm in a homebrew game RIGHT NOW that only allows humans and doesn't allow any full caster, and no one made demands of the DM in return for these restrictions.

The gotcha response of "yes you can, and the players can prohibit you from using parts of the DMG", alongside the idea that all players will unite to revolt, coupled with the notion that the DM's workload is irrelevant, are all framing this to portray campaign restrictions as something above and beyond a DM's purview, and something that has to be reflexively challenged and balanced against the player's wishes.

One of my friends has offered to run BESM numerous times. I'm not interested, so I never take him up on the offer. But if I WAS interested, I wouldn't return to him with a list of demands about what he can and can't use from the rulebooks.

So I agree with you that there isn't a privileged position when it comes to making the choice on whether to play together or not. But I don't agree that there isn't a privileged position otherwise, and I don't agree with the framing that if we consider the unbalanced work load, then it has to be characterized as a terrible burden, but if we say the DM enjoys running games, then we can dismiss the DM's workload right out. This IS creating a privileged position for the players, who get to run one character, once a week, and still have equal say as the DM, despite the fact that the DM is doing much more.

Not to mention that this attitude of "there is no difference between players and DMs" obviously doesn't carry over after campaign restrictions. Imagine if every time the DM adjudicates a scenario or makes a ruling, the cabal of players get into a huddle and vote whether or not to accept it or reject it because "they're all equal and have equal say".

This, to me, is a dysfunctional way to look at the dynamic. I respect the effort my DM puts into creating a world and compelling story for me to play my character through. No, I don't think it's a terrible burden, nor do I think he suffers under it. But It's certainly more work than I have to do for the game to occur on a weekly basis and be as interesting and engaging as it is. I'd never dismiss it as the DM simply having fun, and I understand that, despite all of us having the freedom to give our opinion, pushback on his rulings, provide feedback, etc., at the end of the day he is the DM. If things get real bad and he doesn't respond to the feedback, then the game ends for me. Pretty simple. But my limit for what I can tolerate isn't undermined by a sense that anything the DM restricts or imposes I can meet with my own equal demands. I don't think about it in those terms, and that tit for tat attitude seems really inappropriate for D&D.

Arkhios

2023-08-30, 08:05 AM

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-30, 08:07 AM

I've played in many homebrew worlds, right here on the forums, and I've never entered into negotiations with the DM as part of the process. I'm in a homebrew game RIGHT NOW that only allows humans and doesn't allow any full caster, and no one made demands of the DM in return for these restrictions. Amazing how one can have fun in such a game.

The gotcha response of "yes you can, and the players can prohibit you from using parts of the DMG", alongside the idea that all players will unite to revolt, coupled with the notion that the DM's workload is irrelevant, are all framing this to portray campaign restrictions as something above and beyond a DM's purview, and something that has to be reflexively challenged and balanced against the player's wishes. Good call out.

...but if we say the DM enjoys running games, then we can dismiss the DM's workload right out. This IS creating a privileged position for the players, who get to run one character, once a week, and still have equal say as the DM, despite the fact that the DM is doing much more.
Which you correctly described as a sense of entitlement.

This, to me, is a dysfunctional way to look at the dynamic. It is. I get the feeling that it is importing two things into a D&D group:

1. Assumptions from other games that have a different formal structure. (Basically, bringing a clutch for a VW Bug to repair a Chevy Vega).
2. Player vs DM attitude. (Which is often a small group dysfunction symptom). It isn't healthy from either direction.

Unoriginal

2023-08-30, 08:11 AM

I think it bears repeating:

The Game Master decides the game, the player decides if they play.

If the GM presents a game with something that is a deal-breaker for the player, then this player shouldn't play in this game.

If the player states they will only play if something that is a deal-breaker for the GM is included, then this player shouldn't play in this game.

The goal of a TTRPG is to have fun. To have fun, people need to not tolerate what is deal-breakers for them. But a player leaving the table because someone considers X a deal-breaker has a different impact if you're the GM or if you're the player in question.

Derges

2023-08-30, 08:55 AM

As the DM you totally have that right.

A few points to consider:

1) Are these classes/roles completely gone from the world, replaced by other classes (Merlin is mechanically a Sorcerer but still loves books and lives in a tower) or just not for players?

2) What is the aim - to remove features you don't like/find problematic? To fit a theme or in-universe event? Because too many players are picking a class and it's getting boring?

3) What will your reaction be if a player wants to dip into a class for a feature/theme unrelated to your reason for banning it?

Brookshw

2023-08-30, 08:57 AM

snip

Good thoughts. I'll add that the opinions expressed in this thread conflate the notions of "everyone gets to decide if they want to play the game" with "everyone gets to decide the rules/options/content/etc. of the game", they are not the same thing; an ability to decide in the first category does not equate to a decision to decide in the second category. (None of which is to suggest anyone can't express their opinions or desires, or suggest no compromise is possible).

KaussH

2023-08-30, 09:14 AM

In general, of course not. Especially if it's your own setting.

However, if it's a setting that includes races you want to restrict by default, you may need to make a compelling case why they're restricted for your campaign.

Actually, I dont see why I need a compelling case. If someone really really wants something I restricted then we can talk, but I tend to put together a list of Races/species that are PC races in the game, write up a paragraph of details (Common locations, any oddness, major culture or two, some local appearance range suggestions, ect. ) and present that as the PC options. Now I do have reasons (Mostly theme or I have plans for X group that would take them outside the normal PC build) but I dont really feel as a GM I need to justify it per say.

Arkhios

2023-08-30, 09:41 AM

Actually, I dont see why I need a compelling case. If someone really really wants something I restricted then we can talk, but I tend to put together a list of Races/species that are PC races in the game, write up a paragraph of details (Common locations, any oddness, major culture or two, some local appearance range suggestions, ect. ) and present that as the PC options. Now I do have reasons (Mostly theme or I have plans for X group that would take them outside the normal PC build) but I dont really feel as a GM I need to justify it per say.

May need ≠ Will need.

My point is that, for example, if your game is set in a setting that you didn't create, such as Greyhawk, and you wish to ban the Drow from players, there's no need to explain this, because (IIRC) drow in Greyhawk are considered evil through and through with no exceptions (no Drizzt Do'Urdens, Jarlaxle Baenres, or other drows in general worshipping a non-evil aligned deity such as Eilistraee in Forgotten Realms).

But, if you're running a game in Eberron (specifically in Xendrik) and decide to ban the drow, you may need to explain why, because 1) Drow are not predominantly evil and 2) Drow are native to Xendrik.

In a setting that is your own making, whatever you say, goes. No need to explain the why's.

Vyke

2023-08-30, 09:50 AM

I would be bothered if even elite NPCs can be a banned class. The DM gets to play with toys he's denying players by fiat. That is not playing fair.

Tell me about your Beholder character. Why does an archmage not have a subclass?

DMs always get to play with different toys. That's why they're the DM.

Vyke

2023-08-30, 09:55 AM

It’s not wrong. It”s also not wrong for one of your players to inform you that certain pages of the DMG are off limits for you. In the end, it’s a two-way street.

You can do it. But as DM I'll explain that that's really not your job and maybe you'd be happier with a different game. Which is good because you're not in mine. I'd add that maybe next time you could ask me to look at the rules with less smug entitlement. And it's not a two way street. My job is building the world, the game, curating the rules, developing encounters, accounting for the differing tastes of a group of people while trying to structure a fun and meaningful narrative. You have to turn up with one block of stats that vaguely makes sense. How about you don't make my life difficult and pass me a beer instead yeah?

KaussH

2023-08-30, 10:14 AM

I would be bothered if even elite NPCs can be a banned class. The DM gets to play with toys he's denying players by fiat. That is not playing fair.

Why is that not fair? I mean the GM can, say an earthquake happens just because. They can declare the weather and decide is a ship out in the sea just sinks. The GM can even make spells and magic items that have huge issues and drawbacks for a one use plot device. My point being is that the GMs toybox is much much bigger than the PCs toybox due to the fact the GM runs everyone and everything else.

Derges

2023-08-30, 10:30 AM

Why is that not fair? I mean the GM can, say an earthquake happens just because. They can declare the weather and decide is a ship out in the sea just sinks. The GM can even make spells and magic items that have huge issues and drawbacks for a one use plot device. My point being is that the GMs toybox is much much bigger than the PCs toybox due to the fact the GM runs everyone and everything else.

Perhaps the better thing to say would be it may not feel fair to a player. Being denied something for some reason only to see the person who banned it using it could certainly rub me up the wrong way if executed badly. Depending on the reasoning for the ban it might completely undermine it.

KaussH

2023-08-30, 10:45 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-30, 10:45 AM

Perhaps the better thing to say would be it may not feel fair to a player. Being denied something for some reason only to see the person who banned it using it could certainly rub me up the wrong way if executed badly. Depending on the reasoning for the ban it might completely undermine it.

Semi-blue: Then the best tactic is to not use monsters with actual PC classes. "He's not a wizard, he's a mage, there's a difference."

Only half tongue in cheek because I do think it best if classes are considered to be archetypal amalgams designed for play, not actual in-world things. It might be that a PC Fighter is the only one with that particular power set in the whole world. There may be many people who fight with weapons, but they have different (possibly overlapping, possibly not) power sets. Etc. And "monsters with class levels" tends to produce, IMX, bad monsters (ie monsters who are not particularly fit for purpose). The tongue in cheek part comes because that explanation in quotes will likely go over like a lead balloon, especially if the player is already sensitive to this disparity. So don't actually try that as a live explanation.

NichG

2023-08-30, 10:58 AM

But I think we all know that. Without a DM there's no game, and without players there's no game.

I've played in many homebrew worlds, right here on the forums, and I've never entered into negotiations with the DM as part of the process. I'm in a homebrew game RIGHT NOW that only allows humans and doesn't allow any full caster, and no one made demands of the DM in return for these restrictions.

The gotcha response of "yes you can, and the players can prohibit you from using parts of the DMG", alongside the idea that all players will unite to revolt, coupled with the notion that the DM's workload is irrelevant, are all framing this to portray campaign restrictions as something above and beyond a DM's purview, and something that has to be reflexively challenged and balanced against the player's wishes.

One of my friends has offered to run BESM numerous times. I'm not interested, so I never take him up on the offer. But if I WAS interested, I wouldn't return to him with a list of demands about what he can and can't use from the rulebooks.

So I agree with you that there isn't a privileged position when it comes to making the choice on whether to play together or not. But I don't agree that there isn't a privileged position otherwise, and I don't agree with the framing that if we consider the unbalanced work load, then it has to be characterized as a terrible burden, but if we say the DM enjoys running games, then we can dismiss the DM's workload right out. This IS creating a privileged position for the players, who get to run one character, once a week, and still have equal say as the DM, despite the fact that the DM is doing much more.

Not to mention that this attitude of "there is no difference between players and DMs" obviously doesn't carry over after campaign restrictions. Imagine if every time the DM adjudicates a scenario or makes a ruling, the cabal of players get into a huddle and vote whether or not to accept it or reject it because "they're all equal and have equal say".

This, to me, is a dysfunctional way to look at the dynamic. I respect the effort my DM puts into creating a world and compelling story for me to play my character through. No, I don't think it's a terrible burden, nor do I think he suffers under it. But It's certainly more work than I have to do for the game to occur on a weekly basis and be as interesting and engaging as it is. I'd never dismiss it as the DM simply having fun, and I understand that, despite all of us having the freedom to give our opinion, pushback on his rulings, provide feedback, etc., at the end of the day he is the DM. If things get real bad and he doesn't respond to the feedback, then the game ends for me. Pretty simple. But my limit for what I can tolerate isn't undermined by a sense that anything the DM restricts or imposes I can meet with my own equal demands. I don't think about it in those terms, and that tit for tat attitude seems really inappropriate for D&D.

This is why the focus on session zero or even 'pre-session-zero recruitment'. That's when everyone has a chance to establish the terms under which you all agree to play. Those terms may be 'the DM has these powers and can exercise them totally at their discretion including bolts from the blue to smite pesky PCs too big for their britches' or 'the DM has these powers but they are expected to use them in such and such a way (non-adversarially, maintaining a certain genre, whatever)' or 'the DM has certain powers but as a group we can vote to overrule a ruling' or 'the DM has almost no powers whatsoever, except to precisely follow the encounter budgets laid out by such and such a document'. If potential DMs don't want to operate under the constraints all the players coincide on, well, that game doesn't happen for that group of people. If some players need a stricter thing and some players are fine with a looser thing, the DM runs a game for the players who are fine with a looser thing and the players who need a stricter thing might have to wait longer or look elsewhere for a game. They're all valid things to look for though, and not inherently adversarial. Just like 'no PvP' or 'no arms races' or 'low op only' or 'I'm going to homebrew' are conditions a DM could make on being willing to run.

The key point being that a player having conditions on being willing to play is not an adversarial negotiation. The DM can just say 'play elsewhere' and thats the end of it. While that can certainly hurt the chances of the DM getting to run what they want, a potential player doesn't (yet) owe a potential DM anything.

Now once everyone has agreed to play under whatever those conditions are and the game is underway, that does change. In that case, if someone changes their mind three sessions in and starts to push back against the agreed-upon rules (whatever they may be), what weighs against that is that they already agreed to abide by those rules. The low stakes of hobby activities means that even if someone has agreed to play or run, its not enough to really say 'they must absolutely follow through' - if someone is miserable and they walk, I wouldn't really hold that against them unless it becomes a pattern. If someone says 'okay I didn't anticipate that this would be a problem but it's becoming a problem, can we do something about it?' and then if nothing gets done they walk, I wouldn't hold that against them, again, unless it becomes a pattern.

But if they try to use the threat of walking as leverage to force the group to change or if they try to use their power as DM to prevent the game from continuing unless they get their way (against the pre-agreed terms of play) to force the group to change then yes, that's wrong, and I would hold that against that player or DM going forward.

The difference here might be subtle but there is a difference. If someone is using the threat of walking as leverage, they don't actually want the group to consider 'them walking' and 'making the change' as equal options to choose between; they're really going to want the group to just make the change. So if the group doesn't make the change, they won't actually walk. They were lying about how important the thing was to them in order to create a stronger negotiating position. That is adversarial, and if that's what's going on then I think the best thing to do is to call them on it.

I will say, quite strongly though, that I've seen this norm of 'the one who puts the more work in should have more say' lead to very toxic behavior among players. I've been in a game that had a no PvP rule, and one of the players spent a lot of effort making a character much more powerful than the other PCs and then engaged in passive aggressive PvP (like doing things that the other characters would find morally reprehensible, killing NPCs that others wanted to interact with, etc) in such a way that the other characters couldn't effectively stop them - then complained with the DM gave those other players bonuses and opportunities to catch them up because 'I worked harder for my character than they did for theirs, I should be allowed to push them around!'. That norm is not one that I would agree to in a session zero discussion. You should not be able to get more say just as a consequence of being willing to put in more work - you should only get more say as a consequence of everyone else at the table being willing to give you that say, which can be conditioned on being willing to put in more work as well. But the direction of causality is not 'I did more work, I get more say', its 'people were willing to let me have more say, but it came with some extra workload'.

Pex

2023-08-30, 11:47 AM

Tell me about your Beholder character. Why does an archmage not have a subclass?

DMs always get to play with different toys. That's why they're the DM.

I knew someone would make this argument. It's not the same thing at all. Monsters are inherently built with different rules because their role is different than PCs. At first glance Legendary Resistance and Actions seem unfair, but they allow for solo boss monsters to be used. It's still unfair, but they allow for the combat to be a game to be played out.* The monsters are an established rule made by the game. Banning spellcasters is DM fiat, so there is an added circumstance if the NPC bad guys gets to be one. The sense of unfairness is greater by virtue of the existence the DM gets to do stuff he's arbitrarily denying to players. Players don't complain a monster has a toy the PC never had, but when you take away a toy the enemy still gets to use, the injustice intensifies.

*The DM trick is not to use them only on spells. Using a Legendary Resistance against a monk's stun or even a battle master maneuver makes the warrior player feel good the monster had to use it for them because their ability mattered. It also helps the spellcaster players because that's one less spell they 'waste'.

Derges

2023-08-30, 11:54 AM

Semi-blue: Then the best tactic is to not use monsters with actual PC classes.

I'm 100% in agreement, but it was the point of discussion so I didn't want to bring up my own tastes.

Even if the guy with the pointy hat in the tower isn't mechanically a wizard it could conceivably feel unfair depending on the rationale the DM has given the players for the ban.

Imagine if the reason given is that "in this world all Wizards died in the mage wars and all spellsbooks have been purged" it doesn't actually matter what the stat block says if the DM isn't seeming consistent.

Derges

2023-08-30, 12:08 PM

Why? and I mean this in all honestly, why would it bug you that the GM can do things you as a player cant? I would get it if only some players got to play x or use Y cool thing, but this is the GM here. They make up whole parts and details of the game world out of hand, and use them as needed for whatever plot is going on.

I didn't say it would. I said it could if handled badly.
Ie the DM says no Druids because the connection to the Fey is broken (which is his right) but then has Druids in world despite that. Could you not conceive of how that might seem unfair?

NichG

2023-08-30, 12:10 PM

I mean, the reason could quite reasonably be: "I'm not skilled or experienced enough to provide a consistent level of interesting challenges and obstacles for a dungeon-centric campaign like I intend to run when the versatility of caster spell lists is in play." Or even just "I've been annoyed in the past with people pulling fragments of rules text out of the pages and pages of spells that have been written, which I have not personally had a chance to vet and rewrite, and I don't feel like dealing with it."

That doesn't mean that a player has to like or approve of that reason or choose to play in that game, but I think its better to be straightforward about why you personally want to play a casterless game than to try to twist the lore around to justify it. I'd much rather a DM tell me 'yeah, dealing with this stuff stresses me out and I don't want to' than e.g. 'oh, magic was judged to be evil by the dominant religion in the setting and they killed all the casters and destroyed knowledge of magic wherever they could'. In the case of the latter, I could read that as 'oh I see, so rediscovering magic from whatever fragments of lost knowledge I can find would be a legitimate motivation in this campaign' whereas with the former its more clear that I shouldn't even start down that path if I decide to play.

KaussH

2023-08-30, 12:17 PM

I didn't say it would. I said it could if handled badly.
Ie the DM says no Druids because the connection to the Fey is broken (which is his right) but then has Druids in world despite that. Could you not conceive of how that might seem unfair?

Not really. To me it looks like a plot hook. It could also be as simple as "No Druids in this game for PCs" and thats the end all be all. I could be planning to mess with their ability's and make them unplayable, I might be making them a main bad guy group, ect. I dont have to say why, I just have to make sure that A) PCs know they are not for PCs in this game or setting and B) if I plan to have them in the setting at all background wise.

Derges

2023-08-30, 12:39 PM

Not really. To me it looks like a plot hook. It could also be as simple as "No Druids in this game for PCs" and thats the end all be all. I could be planning to mess with their ability's and make them unplayable, I might be making them a main bad guy group, ect. I dont have to say why, I just have to make sure that A) PCs know they are not for PCs in this game or setting and B) if I plan to have them in the setting at all background wise.
You are supposed to be empathising with the player in this thought experiment not changing the scenario to justify what you might do as a good DM.
If you genuinely can't imagine how a justification that is undermined by the person making it can cause feelings of injustice I don't know how else to make the point. Maybe just accept that if other people can understand how that can come about then it needs to be handled carefully?

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-30, 12:43 PM

My reading of this thread exchange is that some people don't like the idea of the DM making these restrictions, and it has warped the conversation into a debate that can easily be resolved with "everyone should treat each other with respect and handle things as adults".

If we can agree on that and move beyond it, then I still believe the DM is well within their duties as a DM to come up with a game concept that has certain restrictions. I don't think this means players now should jump up and start making restrictions on the DM, nor that the DM has to mind those restrictions themselves. But those points go back to the first point, be respectful adults about everything.

Unoriginal

2023-08-30, 12:52 PM

You are supposed to be empathising with the player in this thought experiment

Sorry, but you can't just tell people who they're "supposed" to have empathy for.

KaussH

2023-08-30, 12:57 PM

You are supposed to be empathising with the player in this thought experiment not changing the scenario to justify what you might do as a good DM.
If you genuinely can't imagine how a justification that is undermined by the person making it can cause feelings of injustice I don't know how else to make the point. Maybe just accept that if other people can understand how that can come about then it needs to be handled carefully?

Why exactly should I be empathizing with the player in this case? This is not a clear side A and side B issue. GMs do things with their toybox that PCs can not. Be that strange things like control the weather to give a noir feel, or remove some races/classes and then use them in game as the GM. A player should not presume that the GM is out to get them for setting details. There should be no VS in this case for either side.

Derges

2023-08-30, 01:19 PM

Why exactly should I be empathizing with the player in this case?

Because you said you cannot see how feelings of it being unfair can come about. So I painted a scenario where I can see less mature players feeling unfairly treated in the hopes you would try to empathise and see the pitfalls.

GMs do things with their toybox that PCs can not. Be that strange things like control the weather to give a noir feel, or remove some races/classes and then use them in game as the GM. A player should not presume that the GM is out to get them for setting details. There should be no VS in this case for either side.

I agree. This is not in contention at all.

My point is despite the fact that a DM can do what he likes if care is not taken it can feel unfair to players.
"One rule for thee and one for me" could be a difficult one to negotiate without seeming unfair.

Even in the scenario you altered it created a cool RP experience which is then denied to PCs in favour of NPCs. I'd be excited to play your version of it and maybe a little sad if experiencing it as a druid was off the table.

Again I'm not saying a DM can't or shouldn't - only that using elements that have been banned is a thorny subject and not necessarily rational because its centered on feelings.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-30, 01:35 PM

You are supposed to be empathising with the player in this thought experiment not changing the scenario to justify what you might do as a good DM. No. Let's go back to the first post, the one that started the thread.
DM asks Is it wrong to limit races and classes for a campaign setting and the clear answer is "No, it is not wrong."

Further amplification of that answer is that, as a best practice, the DM makes the campaign pitch.
At Session zero the DM and players sort out any questions and adjustments. This is also a best practice.

The DM does not have to justify including, or not including, anything in their campaign but doing so is an option.
To explain "why" and clarify things as questions arise from prospective players can help the players better appreciate that feel that the DM is going for in this instance of a make believe game world.

A few posts up someone mentioned 'deal breakers' and all I offered (a bit further up) a deal breaker that cause me as a player to opt out (Kender). But that was, TBH, only partly on topic considering the Original Post.
A lot of the branches of this discussion are of no value added to the core question at hand. (Gee, when has that ever happened before?)

At this point, I think we need to introduce Star Wars into the conversation ... :smallyuk:

Derges

2023-08-30, 01:39 PM

Sorry, but you can't just tell people who they're "supposed" to have empathy for.

In a thought experiment to explain how a player might feel? I can because empathising with the DM has no value in understanding how carelessly doing this can cause players to feel unfairly treated.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-30, 01:40 PM

In a thought experiment to explain how a player might feel? I can because empathising with the DM has no value in understanding how carelessly doing this can cause players to feel unfairly treated.
Here's some feedback: your "thought experiment" isn't worth the keystrokes it took to type it, due in part to its being so one sided.

Derges

2023-08-30, 01:42 PM

No. Let's go back to the first post, the one that started the thread.
DM asks Is it wrong to limit races and classes for a campaign setting and the clear answer is "No, it is not wrong."

Further amplification of that answer is that, as a best practice, the DM makes the campaign pitch.
At Session zero the DM and players sort out any questions and adjustments. This is also a best practice.

The DM does not have to justify including, or not including, anything in their campaign but doing so is an option.
To explain "why" and clarify things as questions arise from prospective players can help the players better appreciate that feel that the DM is going for in this instance of a make believe game world.

A few posts up someone mentioned 'deal breakers' and all I offered (a bit further up) a deal breaker that cause me as a player to opt out (Kender). But that was, TBH, only partly on topic considering the Original Post.
A lot of the branches of this discussion are of no value added to the core question at hand. (Gee, when has that ever happened before?)

At this point, I think we need to introduce Star Wars into the conversation ... :smallyuk:

I agree with you and have stated it multiple times.

My point was that carelessly using elements that have been banned can breed feelings of unfair treatment and so should be handled carefully. I was asked how this could possibly be and I tried to illustrate.

Brookshw

2023-08-30, 01:42 PM

At this point, I think we need to introduce Star Wars into the conversation ... :smallyuk:

Ewoks are banned. No, I won't provide a justification. You can decide to play or not as you like.

rel

2023-08-30, 01:49 PM

Ewoks are banned. No, I won't provide a justification. You can decide to play or not as you like.

Sorry this is a game about playing plucky rebels fighting the evil empire. The 'Sith' class is unavailable to PC's.

Derges

2023-08-30, 01:49 PM

Here's some feedback: your "thought experiment" isn't worth the keystrokes it took to type it, due in part to its being so one sided.

It wasn't one sided enough apparently because the poster who asked for it still can't fathom a scenario where a player might feel unfairly done by.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-30, 01:51 PM

I agree with you and have stated it multiple times. Ah, good, we are in violent agreement then. :smallwink:

I had recommended, in case he wanted to, reskin the Mage and Archmage NPCs as Sorcerers (swap INT and CHA scores and remove the spell book, and do not change the spells listed (or double check the list to make sure none are Not on the Sorcerer list, swap as needed).
I also suggested to tie any Priest NPC or Druid/Shaman NPC to locations with narrative coherence.

@Brookshw

Ewoks are banned. No, I won't provide a justification. You can decide to play or not as you like. Wait, won't anyone consider my feelings?
My char concept included a goal to indulge in Ewokicide and rid the galaxy of that scourge once and for all. They are like rats, I tell you, spreading plague lice all over the federation! :smalleek: Quarantine on Endor is insufficient for greater galactic health, they must be burninated. Oh, and yes, Trogdor will be my animal companion/Drake. I am playing a Ranger, Fizban variant ... :smallyuk:
No, I don't care that it's a SW RPG, I want my Dragon Ranger!!

KaussH

2023-08-30, 01:57 PM

It wasn't one sided enough apparently because the poster who asked for it still can't fathom a scenario where a player might feel unfairly done by.

To be clear I dont understand a scenario where in good faith a player might feel "Unfairly done by" in the case I described. GM only banning it for some PCs, yah I can see the issue, that's different. The GM keeping it for themselves, all good.

Derges

2023-08-30, 02:04 PM

Ah, good, we are in violent agreement then. :smallwink:

I had recommended, in case he wanted to, reskin the Mage and Archmage NPCs as Sorcerers (swap INT and CHA scores and remove the spell book, and do not change the spells listed (or double check the list to make sure none are Not on the Sorcerer list, swap as needed).
I also suggested to tie any Priest NPC or Druid/Shaman NPC to locations with narrative coherence.

Nothing violent here at all, good points.

Brookshw

2023-08-30, 02:06 PM

@Brookshw
Wait, won't anyone consider my feelings?
My char concept included a goal to indulge in Ewokicide and rid the galaxy of that scourge once and for all. They are like rats, I tell you, spreading plague lice all over the federation! :smalleek: Quarantine on Endor is insufficient for greater galactic health, they must be burninated. Oh, and yes, Trogdor will be my animal companion/Drake. I am playing a Ranger, Fizban variant ... :smallyuk:
No, I don't care that it's a SW RPG, I want my Dragon Ranger!!

Your feelings are no match for the power of the Dark Side.

Derges

2023-08-30, 02:15 PM

To be clear I dont understand a scenario where in good faith a player might feel "Unfairly done by" in the case I described. GM only banning it for some PCs, yah I can see the issue, that's different. The GM keeping it for themselves, all good.

In the case you described you've made it an awesome and unique experience for druid role play and then restricted it to NPCs. There's a risk of getting a whole different type of player feeling like they're missing out. Heck I'm a little sad I won't get to play it.

The point in the initial scenario was the underming of the justification given to the player feeling unfair.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-30, 02:21 PM

Your feelings are no match for the power of the Dark Side. Aha! I knew that it was time for Star Wars!

Arkhios

2023-08-31, 12:34 AM

Ewok stats:
Ability Score Increase. Charisma +3
Stronger than you appear. Your size is small, but you don't suffer any of the penalties in regards to heavy weapons. You are stronger than you look.
Overwhelming Cuteness. You roll three d20's and take the two highest results and add them together whenever you make a Charisma Check.
Endor Ingenuity. You can fashion a trap from just about anything. Anyone who fails their save against a trap of your making, is immediately destroyed, no matter their size, hit points, or overall power.
Secret Sith. In fact if you were ever to become a Jedi, you'd turn to the Dark Side immediately and take over the whole galaxy overnight.

Beelzebub1111

2023-08-31, 04:29 AM

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-31, 07:54 AM

On the topic of DMs using things the players can't: I think it's fine with a few exceptions. if I ban a spell because it's brokenly powerful and unfun to work around, I won't use it on the players (Silvery Barbs springs to mind). I wouldn't use anything tactically that I wouldn't allow my players to attempt. In fact, I use it as an opportunity to show the players what they are capable of.
I agree with this; if a DM thinks something is too strong or cheesy and doesn't want it in the game, I'd give them the Fry eyes if they start using it themselves.

But if the plot of the campaign setting is that there hasn't been powerful magic in eons, and now some dark power is rising that appears to be capable of using high level magic, I wouldn't get all up in arms about "we can't use the wizard class but you can". It's the plot of the game.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-31, 08:05 AM

Secret Sith. In fact if you were ever to become a Jedi, you'd turn to the Dark Side immediately and take over the whole galaxy overnight. Further affirmation of the need for a galaxy wide campaign and purge ...

I agree with this; if a DM thinks something is too strong or cheesy and doesn't want it in the game, I'd give them the Fry eyes if they start using it themselves.

But if the plot of the campaign setting is that there hasn't been powerful magic in eons, and now some dark power is rising that appears to be capable of using high level magic, I wouldn't get all up in arms about "we can't use the wizard class but you can". It's the plot of the game. Well said.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2023-08-31, 08:24 AM

I agree with this; if a DM thinks something is too strong or cheesy and doesn't want it in the game, I'd give them the Fry eyes if they start using it themselves.

But if the plot of the campaign setting is that there hasn't been powerful magic in eons, and now some dark power is rising that appears to be capable of using high level magic, I wouldn't get all up in arms about "we can't use the wizard class but you can". It's the plot of the game.

On the first point: it depends to me whether it's a one-off or a regular thing. If I can't use silvery barbs as a player but every wizard we fight has it on their spell list, boo! boo! But if it comes up in one fight against a priest of Beshaba, Bringer of Misfortune, fine, no biggie, it's thematically appropriate, especially if that character isn't also using conjure animals.

On the second point: honestly lots of campaigns would benefit from restricting races and classes. I understand why DMs don't do it, of course. But sometimes restrictions open up additional storytelling space. Restriction in the builder can create freedom at the table, if the DM and players are willing to use it and have the world be reactive. If all the NPCs react to dragonborn druids exactly the way they react to warforged warlocks or human clerics, then there's no point, though.

Derges

2023-08-31, 08:38 AM

On the first point: it depends to me whether it's a one-off or a regular thing. If I can't use silvery barbs as a player but every wizard we fight has it on their spell list, boo! boo! But if it comes up in one fight against a priest of Beshaba, Bringer of Misfortune, fine, no biggie, it's thematically appropriate, especially if that character isn't also using conjure animals.

Does frequency not also impact the second point?
Since we're Star Wars now: "No Jedi" but Vader is the BBEG seems perfectly reasonable. If instead, every 3rd NPC is throwing around force lightning or twirling sabres? I don't think a miffed player would be surprising.

Vyke

2023-08-31, 09:23 AM

It's not the same thing at all.

Wrong.

Monsters are inherently built with different rules because their role is different than PCs. At first glance Legendary Resistance and Actions seem unfair, but they allow for solo boss monsters to be used. It's still unfair, but they allow for the combat to be a game to be played out.* The monsters are an established rule made by the game. Banning spellcasters is DM fiat, so there is an added circumstance if the NPC bad guys gets to be one. The sense of unfairness is greater by virtue of the existence the DM gets to do stuff he's arbitrarily denying to players. Players don't complain a monster has a toy the PC never had, but when you take away a toy the enemy still gets to use, the injustice intensifies.

Paraphrasing:
Monsters use rules that are available only to the GM, not the players and are done so at the GMs choice.
NPC using classed banned by the GM use rules available only to the GM, not the players and are done so at the GM's choice.

These are the same. The fact you feel sad about one doesn't change that.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2023-08-31, 11:00 AM

Does frequency not also impact the second point?
Since we're Star Wars now: "No Jedi" but Vader is the BBEG seems perfectly reasonable. If instead, every 3rd NPC is throwing around force lightning or twirling sabres? I don't think a miffed player would be surprising.

I don't think frequency has to affect the second point if it's explained by storytelling. As an example, a no Jedi Star Wars campaign based on Order 66 and its aftermath where the party are non-Force Sensitive Jedi hunters could be quite interesting. You'd encounter a lot of force sensitives and Jedi, but the story justification for the restriction is simple: if you were one you'd have to die too. And in the 5E world, Out of the Abyss is a more terrifying and I think interesting challenge when the party doesn't have a bunch of duergar and drow in it. That's even part of the game notes for running it, if I'm not mistaken.

Beelzebub1111

2023-08-31, 11:03 AM

Does frequency not also impact the second point?
Since we're Star Wars now: "No Jedi" but Vader is the BBEG seems perfectly reasonable. If instead, every 3rd NPC is throwing around force lightning or twirling sabres? I don't think a miffed player would be surprising.

Depends on the context. if the campaign is that you are a squad of clone troopers enacting Order 66 it might be expected. Or bounty hunters working for a sith enclave. You see the idea.

Theme games being what they are, you might expect to not be allowed to play as a Paladin of Tyr but may have to rob paladins of Tyr as part of your job. It's more fun for everyone if you are part of the group than make it all about yourself being a 13th Warrior.

NichG

2023-08-31, 11:16 AM

Paraphrasing:
Monsters use rules that are available only to the GM, not the players and are done so at the GMs choice.
NPC using classed banned by the GM use rules available only to the GM, not the players and are done so at the GM's choice.

These are the same. The fact you feel sad about one doesn't change that.

As a counter-argument though, the fact that you can choose certain details to call fluff and therefore throw them out to create an equivalency doesn't mean that Pex isn't going to feel bad about that. And at least this branch of the conversation is about how players might feel, not about whether the GM is allowed to do a thing. How things are presented can matter quite a bit to how people feel about a thing.

That's not to say that I'd necessarily personally find the one unfair and the other not. I don't draw lines in the same places, and I don't care about the same things. But 'here's a logical argument about why you should not feel what you feel' doesn't really work.

For me, I guess what would matter more than feelings of fairness or not is whether the thing I'm not playing is something I wanted to play in the first place, how much I'm interested in whatever is being presented that makes use of these constraints, and honestly what sort of mood or place the possible GM seems to be in. Even though a GM is fully within their rights to say 'I want to simplify the game because I'm tired of dealing with players getting away with stuff', that does imply some emotional workload I'm taking on by choosing to be a player for that GM - I'm going to be watching their stress level, considering whether something is going to seem 'too far' to them. I'd maybe play if the GM in turn offered 'I just want to run a low stakes game, not challenge the players'. But someone who said 'I want to limit player power because I want the game to be challenging' I'd personally probably avoid. Not because of fairness/unfairness, just because that doesn't sound fun to me - high stress, low payoff, and if you do succeed there's a chance that you'd be resented for it, so for me maybe skip. Similarly if the GM is very protective about their setting, its a bit of a red flag to me that I might chafe in that game - again not inherently something that can't work for a different player, and not an immediate 'skip', but since the stuff I enjoy from play tends to be creating large-scale changes to the world by taking unusual viewpoints, someone who is like 'you have to reflect the societal values and ways of thinking of this fictional society accurately' I'm going to be butting heads with.

Vyke

2023-08-31, 12:28 PM

Summary: Lots of fair things I agree with

Hope you don't mind me summarizing above. I wanted to highlight I was replying to you.

I absolutely agree with what you've said. Especially the third paragraph. Assume I'm nodding.

To clarify a point from the second. I'm not saying people shouldn't feel what they feel. Whatever they feel is valid. But it doesn't matter to this point. The two things are the same regardless of your feelings. You may not like it. You may walk away from the game annoyed. You might never talk to that GM again. And that's absolutely your right. But you didn't do it because the change was unfair. You did it because you felt the change was unfair. And that has no bearing on if it was or wasn't.

I could show you two identical chairs and you could tell me you like one more than the other. You're not wrong. But they are still identical. Neither your feelings nor the identical-ness (that word got away from me) affects the other.

The main reason I want to make the point is that GMs should not feel bad about saying "This is my pitch" and, if players say, "Well what about these changes", responding "No, I made my pitch. Do you want to play? If not, what are you running?" A GM with an IDEA should not be shot down because you really want to play a warforged. They said no PC warforged. Play one next time.

I think the bigger thing is "Do I trust the GM". If I do, I don't care how unfair it looks. Because I trust they have my enjoyment in mind. It might be awful.... but if I trust that they are invested in us all having a good time, I'll give it a go. I don't feel I'm entitled to make demands other than they be trying to make us all have fun.

And if I don't trust them... I don't waste my time playing.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-31, 01:07 PM

@NichG: I realize I didn't address a part of your post from our previous discussion.

Re - More work, more deference

Like with all of what we're discussing here, everything is about being mature and handling things in a grown up way. Because it's a group game, people will judge. Vyke's comment about trust is spot on, I think.

So in your example about the PvP player, I can easily judge that as "no, your focus on your character optimization does not allow you to PvP other players". Similarly, if a DM were to say "you know what guys, I put in a tremendous amount of effort and I think you should all pay me for our sessions each week", I would have to say "no, I don't think so, I'm happy to defer to you on campaign setting, content restrictions, rulings, etc., but I'm not prepared to pay money in order to play the hobby with my friends".

Part of being socialized is judging the approaches/actions/words of each other and determining if they are reasonable/tolerable/etc. If not, people will find themselves with problems, less friends, no groups to play D&D, etc. and hopefully, in time, they correct their behavior and things turn around. This thread at some point started assuming that the DM is acting in bad faith by making these restrictions, and yeah, I agree, DMs acting in bad faith are going to have problems. DMs that can't explain their campaign ideas clearly and make their players distrustful are going to have issues. All of that is true.

But if a DM is just restricting things because that's the game they want to run, I don't think that's a bad thing. I personally defer to the DM quite a bit, as my attitude is that I'm just happy to play in the game and see what the DM has in store for us and what kind of story we're all going to weave together. I think that's a reasonable approach, so much so that I expect that to be the sort of default approach for most players. Now, circumstances may change that, such as in Boci's case where they are swimming in DMs and have a little more latitude to be firm with their wants and can move on more often since there is always someone else to run a game.

But that's how I'm approaching this. Assuming the DM is acting in good faith, it's perfectly fine for the DM to restrict some elements for the game they want to run.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-31, 02:27 PM

The main reason I want to make the point is that GMs should not feel bad about saying "This is my pitch" and, if players say, "Well what about these changes", responding "No, I made my pitch. Do you want to play? If not, what are you running?" Yes.

A GM with an IDEA should not be shot down because you really want to play a warforged. They said no PC warforged. Play one next time.
Concur.
I think the bigger thing is "Do I trust the GM".
If I do, I don't care how unfair it looks. Because I trust they have my enjoyment in mind. It might be awful.... but if I trust that they are invested in us all having a good time, I'll give it a go. I don't feel I'm entitled to make demands other than they be trying to make us all have fun.

And if I don't trust them... I don't waste my time playing.
And if it's the first time they have DM'd for you, all you can do is guess and give it a try. If it doesn't work out, such is life.

Tanarii

2023-08-31, 02:36 PM

For a homebrew campaign, if they didn't limit them, I'd wonder if the DM had put enough thought into their setting.

If it's a home game using a published adventure path, I'd expect them to carefully review anything not in the PHB or XgtE before deciding to allowing it, with a default answer of No. And also not permit Hexblades from XgtE. I'd personally prefer no optional rule Multiclassing, but would understand if it's allowed, possibly with some caveats.

Derges

2023-08-31, 02:51 PM

Depends on the context. if the campaign is that you are a squad of clone troopers enacting Order 66 it might be expected. Or bounty hunters working for a sith enclave. You see the idea

Yes, it can be done well especially when planned and communicated.
Equally, there are pitfalls which DMs running a game with double standards should probably acknowledge so they can avoid.

NichG

2023-08-31, 03:01 PM

But if a DM is just restricting things because that's the game they want to run, I don't think that's a bad thing. I personally defer to the DM quite a bit, as my attitude is that I'm just happy to play in the game and see what the DM has in store for us and what kind of story we're all going to weave together. I think that's a reasonable approach, so much so that I expect that to be the sort of default approach for most players. Now, circumstances may change that, such as in Boci's case where they are swimming in DMs and have a little more latitude to be firm with their wants and can move on more often since there is always someone else to run a game.

But that's how I'm approaching this. Assuming the DM is acting in good faith, it's perfectly fine for the DM to restrict some elements for the game they want to run.

I don't think we disagree on the conclusions, just the structure of justifications that allow one to get there.

I would say that its not a bad thing for a DM to restrict things just because that's the game they want to run because its every participant's right to decide what they're willing to play, and if that's what the DM is willing to play then that's all that needs to be said. It's not because the DM has put in any work, or because there are more players than DMs, or anything like that. Those can be true statements that go alongside, but in that case it just happens that they lead to the same conclusion.

The main point where it can matter is if it turns out that there's a situation in which those things didn't align. For me, for example, if there's a town in the middle of nowhere with only 3 potential players and 1 potential DM, and the DM says 'I want to run a horror game' and one of the players says 'I don't like horror games, I'm out' and as a result game doesn't happen, to me that's completely reasonable for that third player to say. Or even if the DM says 'I want to run a game' and one of the potential players says 'I won't play in anything with character death' and the DM says 'well, I want that to be on the table' and the player says 'I'm out' and game doesn't happen - still, completely reasonable. Because it wasn't ever that third player's obligation to make gaming in that town feasible for the others, even if there might in that situation be a strong desire among the other players and DM to pressure that player to make it happen.

What, to me, would not be reasonable is for that third player to make ultimatums like 'You're going to run a power fantasy with no character death, because otherwise I won't play'. It's almost the same statement, but the subtle difference there is that in the former case the player just said 'okay I'm not a potential player for this' and it so happened that the consequence was that game didn't happen (unless, say, the DM figured out a way to make it work with two players, or got a third player online and the game goes remote, or whatever). In the latter case however, the player is trying to block the idea that game could occur without them in order to obtain negotiating power. The unreasonable thing is the form of the interaction, not the final choice they make to play or not play.

But similarly, the discussion tactic of a DM saying 'I'm putting in more work, so I should have more say' would be the thing I would find unreasonable. In terms of trust, a DM trotting that justification out rather than just saying 'this is what I feel comfortable running, you in or not?' would be eroding my trust of them a little bit, because it would be the kind of 'respect my authority!' move that someone who actually deserves it doesn't need to use. It's reasonable for the DM to say 'I'll only run X', its not (to me) reasonable for them to say 'I'll only run X, and you should just defer to me because I'm the one doing the hard work'.

I suppose part of what it is is that it's a pretty strong pet peeve of mine when social norms or systems have ways for people to create a debt in others without their prior consent. Like 'I put in the work (you didn't ask me to) and now you owe me' kinds of things.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-31, 03:03 PM

Yes, it can be done well especially when planned and communicated.
Equally, there are pitfalls which DMs running a game with double standards should probably acknowledge so they can avoid.

My atttitude is that there is no double standard. There is only the RAW standard, which differentiates the roles and capabilities of the DM from those of the players.
1) Players use whatever the DM allows, or they choose not to play.
2) DM uses whatever he wants, including completely new things players have no access to. Or old things the players have no access to.

This is how it is at the core level. Taking exception to this is taking exception to D&D, at its core. And that's not bad, but that, in and of itself, is a substantive change in the core levels of the game that needs extensive discussion before play begins.

Dr.Samurai

2023-08-31, 03:09 PM

I suppose part of what it is is that it's a pretty strong pet peeve of mine when social norms or systems have ways for people to create a debt in others without their prior consent. Like 'I put in the work (you didn't ask me to) and now you owe me' kinds of things.
Understood, and I want to clarify if it wasn't clear previously that this isn't my DM imposing this debt on me, rather I consider it fair to not try and impede on what the DM wants to do, given that he will be the one putting in the time and effort to realize it and keep the game going. The DM has to be excited about what he's going to put together.

My atttitude is that there is no double standard. There is only the RAW standard, which differentiates the roles and capabilities of the DM from those of the players.
1) Players use whatever the DM allows, or they choose not to play.
2) DM uses whatever he wants, including completely new things players have no access to. Or old things the players have no access to.

This is how it is at the core level. Taking exception to this is taking exception to D&D, at its core. And that's not bad, but that, in and of itself, is a substantive change in the core levels of the game that needs extensive discussion before play begins.
Agreed.

Leon

2023-08-31, 08:55 PM

As I said, it's not wrong, but the point remains. If you aren't using a significant portion of the game system to play then it's worth considering the game system itself is not suitable for the game you want to run and look for another that fits better with what you want to play.

Three classes and some of the spell data entries isn't a significant portion of the rules. A significant amount would be the DM saying no class can use magic.
The game system, the actual rules haven't gone anywhere or changed ~ just what amounts to some specific data points, points that are wholly optional to the running of the game system.

KorvinStarmast

2023-09-01, 07:47 AM

I What, to me, would not be reasonable is for that third player to make ultimatums like 'You're going to run a power fantasy with no character death, because otherwise I won't play'. It's almost the same statement, but the subtle difference there is that in the former case the player just said 'okay I'm not a potential player for this' and it so happened that the consequence was that game didn't happen (unless, say, the DM figured out a way to make it work with two players, or got a third player online and the game goes remote, or whatever). In the latter case however, the player is trying to block the idea that game could occur without them in order to obtain negotiating power. The unreasonable thing is the form of the interaction, not the final choice they make to play or not play. I've got a simpler description: an attempt at bullying or otherwise establishing interpersonal dominance.
I suppose part of what it is is that it's a pretty strong pet peeve of mine when social norms or systems have ways for people to create a debt in others without their prior consent. Like 'I put in the work (you didn't ask me to) and now you owe me' kinds of things. Are you entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? Time is a resource. And I don't think that "you didn't ask me to" is in the least been correct insofar as what a DM does in terms of the imbalance in prep time between DM and player for any session of play.
I get what you are saying there, I have had guilt trips laid on me more than once, but I think that is misdirected in this case.

Taking exception to this is taking exception to D&D, at its core. Yes. And there are other games with different structures, which I think folks keep trying to import into D&D and then get upset when it creates friction or is an imperfect fit.
Also, in all the years I've done RPGs, I have had a few bad DM's/GM's but they are/were a distinct minority. The vast majority have been good or better than good.

Three classes and some of the spell data entries isn't a significant portion of the rules. Amen.

As with anything interpersonal, though, it is a matter of talking to each other, not talking at each other.

Let's see what options remain from just the PHB if we remove the wizard, cleric, and Druid from the game.

Warlock with 3 sub classes 'Full caster' pact magic
Sorcerer with 2 sub classes (and a lot of the Wizard Spell list) Full caster
Bard with 2 sub classes (and a mix of divine and arcane spells, as well as the ability to poach various spells) Full caster
Fighter with 3 sub classes (to include a 1/3 caster)
Rogue with 3 subclasses (Includes a 1/3 caster)
Monk with 3 sub classes (not sure how to characterize four elements)
Ranger with 2 sub classes Half caster
Paladin with 3 sub classes Half caster
Barbarian with 2 sub classes. OK, no caster

If the player can't find something there to play, who is the problem here?

Add in Just SCAG and you increase the options.
Add in just Xanathar's Guide to Everything and you substantially increase the options for bard, warlock and sorcerer ...

NichG

2023-09-01, 09:20 AM

Are you entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? Time is a resource. And I don't think that "you didn't ask me to" is in the least been correct insofar as what a DM does in terms of the imbalance in prep time between DM and player for any session of play.

This is session zero stuff. No one has agreed to play yet.

'We agreed I'd do work in exchange for compensation, I did the work, so I should be compensated' - fine.

'I did this work, and if you want it you'll have to compensate me otherwise I'll withhold it' - fine.

'We haven't made an agreement yet, but I spontaneously decided to work really hard on this pitch, and you should compensate me for the effort' - bad attitude.

'We agreed to this standard of compensation, but I feel I worked really hard on this, so I expect this other standard of compensation instead' - bad attitude.

'We agreed on this compensation for this thing, but I found out you didn't have to work hard to give me the thing, so now I won't compensate you' - bad attitude.

It's not the fact that labor occurred that means that compensation should occur, it's that there was a promise, explicit or implicit, but which everyone agreed to. 'I'll DM but I get these privileges as stated in the DMG', 'ok I agree to play by those rules '.

A player is completely justified in saying 'I'm unwilling to trade that level of decision power over me in exchange for this person doing that job'. In which case, they don't play with that DM - the DM does no work for them, receives no compensation.

Tanarii

2023-09-01, 09:39 AM

Establishing requirements and telling folks consequences of not meeting them isn't an issue. That's setting boundaries. Tone and degree of consequences (brinksmanship) might be though.

It only becomes an issue if an attempt to control/manipulate someone else is being disguised as boundary setting.

Of course, the real fun starts when two people see themselves as the one setting boundaries and the other as attempting to control/manipulate. :smallamused:

Pex

2023-09-01, 10:00 AM

Three classes and some of the spell data entries isn't a significant portion of the rules. A significant amount would be the DM saying no class can use magic.
The game system, the actual rules haven't gone anywhere or changed ~ just what amounts to some specific data points, points that are wholly optional to the running of the game system.

So you agree on the principle and just disagree on where the line is.

NichG

2023-09-01, 10:09 AM

Of course, the real fun starts when two people see themselves as the one setting boundaries and the other as attempting to control/manipulate. :smallamused:

If both people really are just setting boundaries, then it should just end up with them both walking away. If it doesn't end that way, I'd be a bit suspicious of whether either is actually being honest about their boundaries...

Tanarii

2023-09-01, 11:41 AM

If both people really are just setting boundaries, then it should just end up with them both walking away. If it doesn't end that way, I'd be a bit suspicious of whether either is actually being honest about their boundaries...
Not all boundaries set have a consequence of "I walk away". That's often an nuke option consequence, or not possible.

In context of hobby gaming in particular tho, it's usually possible and even sometimes a reasonable response.

KorvinStarmast

2023-09-01, 11:58 AM

This is session zero stuff. No one has agreed to play yet. OK, I understand your context better. The difference between dreaming up a world and dreaming up a single PC is still orders of magnitude different.
So there is still an imbalance.
But, Session zero is often a tinkering and adjusting opportunity.
And at that point, PHB page 6 covers the rest.

Tanarii: that blue text ain't funny in real life when it involves a family situation. Just sayin'.

Dr.Samurai

2023-09-01, 12:03 PM

OK, I understand your context better. The difference between dreaming up a world and dreaming up a single PC is still orders of magnitude different.
So there is still an imbalance.
It's also not a mystery of how this hobby is generally played and who has to do what. Any session zero already knows that once things are agreed upon, the players are going to go and make a single character of some determined level, and the DM is going to go do literally everything else.

NichG

2023-09-01, 12:12 PM

Not all boundaries set have a consequence of "I walk away". That's often an nuke option consequence, or not possible.

In context of hobby gaming in particular tho, it's usually possible and even sometimes a reasonable response.

Well again, in the stages of forming a game, I'd consider demanding (not just asking for something, but attaching an 'or else') but also not being willing to walk away over it to be a dishonest communication - hostile negotiation tactic, bullying, whatever you want to call it. That 'I don't like what you're offering, but rather than moving on I'm going to debate with you about why you should offer what I want instead' sort of thing isn't setting boundaries, that's manipulation - whether its happening on the DM or player side of the process of trying to assemble a game. As I said earlier I think the thing to do there is to call them on it: 'okay, looks like this game probably isn't for you, hope you find a DM who wants to run what you want to play' or 'well I hope you have fun running that, but it isn't for me'.

It's like, I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not going to sit down at a barbecue place and insist that they accommodate me. I'll just go to a restaurant that serves something I can eat. If a group of my friends all want to go for barbecue I'll mention I can't eat there, but I'm not going to say 'you guys have to pick something else' or go to the restaurant and have a $20 piece of grilled cabbage (yes I did this once, I've learned my lesson), I'll just say 'okay, I'll just skip this one'.

Mastikator

2023-09-01, 12:51 PM

This is such a ridiculous argument that has been raging on for... 5 wow 5 pages. The thing is that everyone is able to play in a campaign where every race and class of their choice is allowed. Just because I have banned flying races in my game doesn't mean you are banned from using flying races. Because you can DM your own game where you allow flying races.

lall

2023-09-01, 06:42 PM

There's a hot take. Also, no. You can certainly express what you don't want in the campaign, but its ultimately the DM's call, if they aren't on board you either find a different game, don't play, or decide you can live with it

Incorrect. Suggest you read the DMG, and pay particular to the bit about "master of rules" - that role falls squarely on the DM. (Though discussing rules variations with players is good technique).

You can do it. But as DM I'll explain that that's really not your job and maybe you'd be happier with a different game. Which is good because you're not in mine. I'd add that maybe next time you could ask me to look at the rules with less smug entitlement. And it's not a two way street. My job is building the world, the game, curating the rules, developing encounters, accounting for the differing tastes of a group of people while trying to structure a fun and meaningful narrative. You have to turn up with one block of stats that vaguely makes sense. How about you don't make my life difficult and pass me a beer instead yeah?

It’s ultimately everyone’s call. The DM is master of rules, not master of players. The players can ask the DM to walk.

Brookshw

2023-09-01, 10:34 PM

It’s ultimately everyone’s call. The DM is master of rules, not master of players. The players can ask the DM to walk.

D&D isn't a DM-less game, the DM walking is (1) there is no game, or (2) find a different game. No one has proposed players are forced to play a game they don't want to.

Tanarii

2023-09-01, 10:58 PM

It’s ultimately everyone’s call. The DM is master of rules, not master of players. The players can ask the DM to walk.
A player (or even all players) can walk. But they usually can't ask the DM to walk, unless something weird is going on. Paid DM, players hosting an outside DM, a group of friends who take turns DMing and having one of them chosen to be DM, something like that.

NichG

2023-09-01, 11:13 PM

A player (or even all players) can walk. But they usually can't ask the DM to walk, unless something weird is going on. Paid DM, players hosting an outside DM, a group of friends who take turns DMing and having one of them chosen to be DM, something like that.

You can't fire me, I quit!

Vyke

2023-09-02, 04:38 AM

It’s ultimately everyone’s call. The DM is master of rules, not master of players. The players can ask the DM to walk.

I don't recall suggesting that the DM can make the player slaves. No one is ever obliged to play with anyone. No DM is obliged to shift their pitch though.

KorvinStarmast

2023-09-02, 08:44 AM

The DM is master of rules, not master of players. Nobody here has stated or implied the bolded part. Inferring that, or concluding that, is less than charitable or just a case of making stuff up.

Tanarii

2023-09-02, 10:05 AM

You can't fire me, I quit!
Indeed. There's a significant difference between "Players all walk" and "Players ask the DM to walk". Because barring unusual circumstances, DMs just go to their waiting list and get the next applicant. Players either have to go join the line for other games as individuals and wait, or try to solicit a DM for themselves as a group that will run the game they want, or one of them has to step up and become the DM. And good luck with those last two, outside a group of friends playing a home game or paying a DM.

Pex

2023-09-03, 10:01 AM

Indeed. There's a significant difference between "Players all walk" and "Players ask the DM to walk". Because barring unusual circumstances, DMs just go to their waiting list and get the next applicant. Players either have to go join the line for other games as individuals and wait, or try to solicit a DM for themselves as a group that will run the game they want, or one of them has to step up and become the DM. And good luck with those last two, outside a group of friends playing a home game or paying a DM.

While it is true there are a lot more players than DMs, there are a lot more things to do than play D&D. If a player can't play D&D he can be disappointed, but he'll just do something else in the meanwhile until he finds a DM he likes. If he keeps trying he will eventually. It's not like the player is The Suck because he rejects one DM's campaign premise.

As a personal matter I'm DMing a second campaign because the original intended DM ghosted out, but we the players still wanted to play. I was the only one with any experience in the game and my desire to play was more than trying again to look for a new group. My first campaign I've been DMing for years.

What? Pex is a DM? Get outta here.

Tanarii

2023-09-03, 10:22 AM

It's not like the player is The Suck because he rejects one DM's campaign premise.
Of course not. But it may well be a choice between DM's rules or No D&D (as that particular group of players). Either is a valid choice to make.

My point was it's just rare where you're going to end up with a situation where a group of Players can reasonable expect they can be the ones to ask the DM to Walk.

A Tyrannical DM (TM Pex) is certainly likely to experience a lot of players, possibly even entire groups, walking. And arbitrary restrictions without reason may make it hard to attract players in the first place.

NichG

2023-09-03, 10:51 AM

My point was it's just rare where you're going to end up with a situation where a group of Players can reasonable expect they can be the ones to ask the DM to Walk.

Asking someone to walk doesn't mean confining them to the fate of never playing/running a game ever. It just means saying 'okay, we've decided we're not interested in playing that'. Just like if a player walks, that's not 'this player has been exiled from D&D-land and may never play again', its that they (sometimes quite literally) walk over to a different table and play something else. 'Walking' as in 'walking away from a negotiation', not as in 'walking the plank'

Tanarii

2023-09-03, 11:18 AM

NichG

2023-09-03, 11:45 AM

Doesn't really matter to the primary point: The situations where the players can ask the DM to walk instead of deciding to walk themselves are outliers.

But no, it's not "walk away from a negotiation". It's "walk away from the table / this game of D&D". Framing it as some kind of negotiation between a DM and applying players misses what's going on.

If a DM offers something no one wants to play in, they don't get to run. If the DM, say, goes to a gaming club and pitches their game and no one is interested unless they change things about their pitch, then the DM can make those compromises, or they can walk.

If a player demands something of their games that no one wants to provide for them, they don't get to play. If a player, say, responds to that call for players and the DM is not willing to budge on something they're not fond of, they can compromise and play the game on offer, or they can walk.

Often, there are things that one side of this cares about a lot more than the other and compromises are made to accommodate that. But either side can end up walking if there are points of contention around which no compromise can be achieved.

It's a negotiation.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-09-03, 12:03 PM

I'll note that there's a different asymmetry here other than just probability--

If the DM walks, chances are that even if that same group of players plays a game of D&D with a new DM, it will be a different campaign. The game dies when the DM walks, 99% of the time.

If any number of players walk, there is a non-trivial chance that the DM can pick up new players and continue playing the same campaign (just as if the original characters had all died and new ones made without changing players).

The campaign is entangled with the DM in a way that's hard to disentangle. It's less (generally) entangled with the players.

This applies most to published campaigns and less so to fully homebrew, especially the ones most tightly coupled to the actual characters. But those latter ones also tend to have issues with character death, even with the same players.

And none of these probabilities are 0 or 100%, just...smaller and larger.

Tanarii

2023-09-03, 03:28 PM

If a DM offers something no one wants to play in, they don't get to run. If the DM, say, goes to a gaming club and pitches their game and no one is interested unless they change things about their pitch, then the DM can make those compromises, or they can walk.
Fair enough. That's exactly how I ended up running 5e instead of BECMI :smallamused:

QuickLyRaiNbow

2023-09-03, 10:38 PM

I'll note that there's a different asymmetry here other than just probability--

If the DM walks, chances are that even if that same group of players plays a game of D&D with a new DM, it will be a different campaign.

I think this is true even when it's not literally true. Like, if we have a group that's doing Adventurer's League rules and we're playing a published AL module, so the most restrictive conditions possible for DM freedom, the variations and interpretations from DM to DM are going to be so different that the world feels completely different. Every DM just has such a different table presence and way of interpreting worlds, even ones with limited improvisational scope, that changing DM is like changing some fundamental law of physics. The way I run something like Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is going to make some of those recurring NPCs unrecognizable compared to the way you might do it, and vice versa.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-09-03, 11:26 PM

I think this is true even when it's not literally true. Like, if we have a group that's doing Adventurer's League rules and we're playing a published AL module, so the most restrictive conditions possible for DM freedom, the variations and interpretations from DM to DM are going to be so different that the world feels completely different. Every DM just has such a different table presence and way of interpreting worlds, even ones with limited improvisational scope, that changing DM is like changing some fundamental law of physics. The way I run something like Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is going to make some of those recurring NPCs unrecognizable compared to the way you might do it, and vice versa.

Yeah. In a very real sense, the DM is the world, is the beating heart of the game. Two DMs can use the same script and make it very different.

But the heart isn't the only important part of the body; nor is the GM the only important part of the game. The players also matter--the two games I run, both in the same world (and literally in the same time period, within a few months of each other, with both parties' actions possible to interact) are quite different because my online group is a different beast than my in-person group. And I'm grateful for both of them and their patience with my bad jokes[1] and restrictions/wild ideas.

[1] I just had a session set in a sub-plane of the Elemental Plane of Earth, where the party had to deal with Glancore PLC (a mockery of Glencore PLC, a major mining concern), which was very proud that they were listed on the Dao Djinns Industrial Index.

NichG

2023-09-03, 11:28 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-09-03, 11:42 PM

I mean, that will also be true of the characters each player plays. But I dunno, in this context I feel that its like saying 'if you choose not to order a hotdog at a restaurant, you might eat something else but you won't eat a hotdog'. True, but that's kind of part of what the choice to walk is about - you're saying that you don't want that particular thing, or at least there's something about it you don't want strongly enough that you don't mind passing up on the rest...

Yes and?

I was talking about the general thing, not responding to you. Just pointing out that "if the DM can, players can" isn't very convincing because they're not in symmetric roles. Without the DM, THAT game, in particular, or anything really close doesn't happen. Without one, or even potentially all of the players, a game very similar to, if not identical, the one they walked from happens regularly.

rel

2023-09-04, 01:39 AM

Not all boundaries set have a consequence of "I walk away". That's often an nuke option consequence, or not possible.

Nah, the nuke option is when you run a game during the GM's timeslot, only with all their unpopular house rules stripped out and replaced with appealing options like high level play and lots of treasure.

Then you come ask them how that game they were advertising is going, after all their players have left to play in your game and they're sitting around GMing for an empty room.

NichG

2023-09-04, 01:41 AM

Yes and?

I was talking about the general thing, not responding to you. Just pointing out that "if the DM can, players can" isn't very convincing because they're not in symmetric roles. Without the DM, THAT game, in particular, or anything really close doesn't happen. Without one, or even potentially all of the players, a game very similar to, if not identical, the one they walked from happens regularly.

Convincing of what though? I'm not sure I actually see the stakes of the argument here are anymore. It just seems like 'but we have to say things that establish the importance of DMs' without connecting that to why the particular players walking away should care, or why any of it actually matters. So what if a particular campaign doesn't happen - if you walked away, you weren't interested in that campaign anyhow.

I mean, we could get into specific examples of player groups replacing a DM but still running the same campaign, or running derived campaigns. Or examples where DMs needed to - poorly - run a character of a player who left because that character had some plot significance. But what are we trying to convince each-other or bystanders of? What are the stakes?

Dr.Samurai

2023-09-04, 09:41 AM

Convincing of what though? I'm not sure I actually see the stakes of the argument here are anymore.
That's because we've been led to discuss a fantasy scenario where unionized D&D players go on strike against cruel and petty DM overlords and leverage their collective bargaining power to make games appear out of nowhere and force a DM to run the exact game they want to play.

And given that the question being asked is "is it okay for the DM to do xyz", this response is a direct refutation of the idea that a DM has the power and authority and creative freedom to do xyz.

It just seems like 'but we have to say things that establish the importance of DMs' without connecting that to why the particular players walking away should care, or why any of it actually matters.
The irony of course is that the other side of the conversation is something akin to "all people are equal and have equal say in things". Which is equal parts true and untrue, and not uniquely relevant or helpful to this conversation about D&D.

It's like talking about the authority that managers and owners of a sports team have, and someone coming and saying "yeah but without the players, there's no team".

Tanarii

2023-09-04, 10:08 AM

Nah, the nuke option is when you run a game during the GM's timeslot, only with all their unpopular house rules stripped out and replaced with appealing options like high level play and lots of treasure.
So exactly what I did to AL in three game stores ... by stripping out the variants of Feats and Multiclassing and cutting down on "appealing" options like high level play. And carefully vetting expansion content before allowing it, e.g. not permitting Hexblades. :smallamused:

I was a little surprised at how popular less options was compared to more. I knew I'd get some takers just based on it being a persistent world, and others based on not having high charop (for 5e) options allowed. But the latter ended up being the primary attraction.

It didn't kill AL because I couldn't run enough tables for everyone that wanted to play. And even those that wanted a base game without high char op or upper levels wanted it some of the time (and would play in both). But I was often the first choice.

It's like talking about the authority that managers and owners of a sports team have, and someone coming and saying "yeah but without the players, there's no team".
A rough analogy (since professional sports always includes the money factor) but close enough to get a point across.
Clearly D&D needs to go professional, bring in the money, and players need to unionize and negotiate their salaries.

Not having played non-professional baseball, I still feel like it'd probably be a better analogy. If any purely volunteer leagues that aren't used as recruiting for professional teams exist.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2023-09-04, 10:40 AM

Yeah. In a very real sense, the DM is the world, is the beating heart of the game. Two DMs can use the same script and make it very different.

But the heart isn't the only important part of the body; nor is the GM the only important part of the game. The players also matter--the two games I run, both in the same world (and literally in the same time period, within a few months of each other, with both parties' actions possible to interact) are quite different because my online group is a different beast than my in-person group. And I'm grateful for both of them and their patience with my bad jokes[1] and restrictions/wild ideas.

[1] I just had a session set in a sub-plane of the Elemental Plane of Earth, where the party had to deal with Glancore PLC (a mockery of Glencore PLC, a major mining concern), which was very proud that they were listed on the Dao Djinns Industrial Index.

For sure. I'm not saying the GM is the only important bit of the game, far from it. The players react to the GM and the GM reacts back. It's a two-way street.

Pex

2023-09-04, 11:38 AM

Yes and?

I was talking about the general thing, not responding to you. Just pointing out that "if the DM can, players can" isn't very convincing because they're not in symmetric roles. Without the DM, THAT game, in particular, or anything really close doesn't happen. Without one, or even potentially all of the players, a game very similar to, if not identical, the one they walked from happens regularly.

This point sounds like pedantry. The DM can still run his game as he wants with other players who agree to his terms, but that doesn't change the fact the original players he pitched the game to told him "to walk" and had the power to do so. Players telling the DM to walk never meant the DM was forbidden to ever run that campaign. The DM is just not running that game with those players.

However, if the DM is never finding players then he may want to question the parameters he set up. He can choose not to in his own self-righteousness and blame everyone else for their ignorance in not seeing the beauty he created, but if he really wants to DM a game he would have to change his campaign premise.

Tanarii

2023-09-04, 08:46 PM

This point sounds like pedantry. The DM can still run his game as he wants with other players who agree to his terms, but that doesn't change the fact the original players he pitched the game to told him "to walk" and had the power to do so.
The attempted (and failed) pedantry is claiming that players collectively taking a walk = the players telling the DM to walk and have the power to do so.

lall

2023-09-04, 08:53 PM

D&D isn't a DM-less game, the DM walking is (1) there is no game, or (2) find a different game. No one has proposed players are forced to play a game they don't want to.

A player (or even all players) can walk. But they usually can't ask the DM to walk, unless something weird is going on. Paid DM, players hosting an outside DM, a group of friends who take turns DMing and having one of them chosen to be DM, something like that.
Yes, a player steps into the role.

I don't recall suggesting that the DM can make the player slaves.

Nobody here has stated or implied the bolded part. Inferring that, or concluding that, is less than charitable or just a case of making stuff up.

How about you don't make my life difficult and pass me a beer instead yeah?

rel

2023-09-05, 12:38 AM

So exactly what I did to AL in three game stores ... by stripping out the variants of Feats and Multiclassing and cutting down on "appealing" options like high level play. And carefully vetting expansion content before allowing it, e.g. not permitting Hexblades. :smallamused:

Different specifics, but same basic idea and results.
The GM insists that they are the most important player, that the game can't possibly run without them, that they're putting in so much more *work* than anyone else and that means they get to call the shots.
The other players put up with it till someone eventually flips the table and runs the game everyone would rather be playing.

The viking hat GM hopefully learns something about compromise, or at least manages to get out from behind the screen for a while. Because if you see game prep and GMing as work, then you will probably have more fun leaving it to someone that doesn't.

Vyke

2023-09-05, 03:59 AM

@lall

I don't see the point you think you're making with those last three quotes.

Mastikator

2023-09-05, 04:18 AM

Different specifics, but same basic idea and results.
The GM insists that they are the most important player, that the game can't possibly run without them, that they're putting in so much more *work* than anyone else and that means they get to call the shots.
The other players put up with it till someone eventually flips the table and runs the game everyone would rather be playing.

The viking hat GM hopefully learns something about compromise, or at least manages to get out from behind the screen for a while. Because if you see game prep and GMing as work, then you will probably have more fun leaving it to someone that doesn't.

Does that actually happen in reality? A player decides they can do better and tries their hand at DMing, I mean. Not only does a player step up and take on the mantle, they greenlight everything, indulge everything with no vision or voice of their own, and the ensuing kitchen sink freakshow ends up better than the tyrannical restrictive game based on the DM's vision.

Brookshw

2023-09-05, 05:49 AM

Yes, a player steps into the role.

Sure, that's called finding a different game, I covered that option in my original post :smallconfused:

Then the players and new DM try to sort out the game they want to play and the cycle continues :smallsigh:

Unoriginal

2023-09-05, 06:26 AM

I don't recall suggesting that the DM can make the player slaves.

Yeah, that is a whole different kind of Dungeon Master. And a whole different kind of roleplay.

Dr.Samurai

2023-09-05, 08:40 AM

A rough analogy (since professional sports always includes the money factor) but close enough to get a point across.
Clearly D&D needs to go professional, bring in the money, and players need to unionize and negotiate their salaries.

Not having played non-professional baseball, I still feel like it'd probably be a better analogy. If any purely volunteer leagues that aren't used as recruiting for professional teams exist.
This makes sense.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it does remind me of a point I made earlier. I didn't have to buy Against the Giants in order to play in our campaign. Or Descent into Avernus. Or Curse of Strahd. Nor did I have to purchase a subscription to Roll20 to benefit from the best features the site has to offer, or to purchase cool high quality maps to use with it. Hasbro themselves have said that DMs are the big spenders in this hobby, not players.

My other two games are homebrew, so the DM put in the time to create a world. One game has custom maps and tokens, the other has a deep pantheon and world history. I didn't do any of that, but I'm playing in it.

The reality is that DMs put in their own time, money, and creativity to let players play out a power fantasy (that's what 5E is all about). And the idea that players can ignore this and expect an equal say as the DM in what the world will be like doesn't seem right to me.

KorvinStarmast

2023-09-05, 08:42 AM

As a personal matter I'm DMing a second campaign because the original intended DM ghosted out, but we the players still wanted to play. I was the only one with any experience in the game and my desire to play was more than trying again to look for a new group. My first campaign I've been DMing for years.

What? Pex is a DM? Get outta here. Be the change you want to see. (And have fun)

It's "walk away from the table / this game of D&D". Framing it as some kind of negotiation between a DM and applying players misses what's going on. Correct.

[1] I just had a session set in a sub-plane of the Elemental Plane of Earth, where the party had to deal with Glancore PLC (a mockery of Glencore PLC, a major mining concern), which was very proud that they were listed on the Dao Djinns Industrial Index. Sorry I missed that.

Nah, the nuke option is when you run a game during the GM's timeslot, only with all their unpopular house rules stripped out and replaced with appealing options like high level play and lots of treasure.

Then you come ask them how that game they were advertising is going, after all their players have left to play in your game and they're sitting around GMing for an empty room. That's looks a lot like a **** move, and if the players weren't such ***** they'd have invited the GM to play. Then again, with friends like those ...

So exactly what I did to AL in three game stores ... by stripping out the variants of Feats and Multiclassing and cutting down on "appealing" options like high level play. And carefully vetting expansion content before allowing it, e.g. not permitting Hexblades. :smallamused: I was a little surprised at how popular less options was compared to more. A lot of players don't get into the weeds and just focus on the play.
Because it's a game. :smallsmile:

NichG

2023-09-05, 11:39 AM

Does that actually happen in reality? A player decides they can do better and tries their hand at DMing, I mean.

Yeah. Everyone in my current group has also DM'd at least once. Not everyone in the group likes to DM equally, but everyone can and knows it. If they said 'we want to play something else' it wouldn't be difficult for them to do so.

Outside of the specific group, I've been in a gaming club environment where this sort of motivation has led to lots of let's say reviews of the available DMs, and people stepping up when there was no other way to play what they wanted. That's what got me DM-ing in the first place - I was interested in Planescape but no one was running it.

I've also seen several cases (usually with very good DMs instead of very bad DMs though) of players picking up the torch and running sequel games of another DM's campaign. That was out of 'this was so awesome I want to continue it' rather than 'we need someone else in the chair', but again same principle that players can adapt and run campaigns that aren't theirs originally. That was also in one case at least a guy who had not DM'd before doing it.

Another example was someone porting the club's living world multiple DM campaign to a totally different system and forking the campaign to continue it over summer break for locals (since most players/DMs were undergrads and scattered over the summer).

rel

2023-09-06, 01:43 AM

Does that actually happen in reality? A player decides they can do better and tries their hand at DMing, I mean. Not only does a player step up and take on the mantle, they greenlight everything, indulge everything with no vision or voice of their own, and the ensuing kitchen sink freakshow ends up better than the tyrannical restrictive game based on the DM's vision.

I've seen people decide they aren't having fun playing in a game and set out to do better semi-regularly.

When I was much younger and more spiteful, I ran an everything allowed 3.5 game for a few years as a direct reaction to GM's in my area running 3.5 with the PHB only.

The GM running a game that's too lethal, or doesn't have enough downtime are the common causes of frustration, but I've seen complaints leveled against home brewing or even not following the published adventure that everyone agreed to sit down and play.

If people are finding a game frustrating and unfun, but not so frustrating they've actually quit, sometimes all it takes is a better offer...

As to whether a no holds barred kitchen sink game is more fun than something more themed and restrictive? There's no right answer, depends on the game, depends on the group.
Forgotten Realms and Golarion are both popular settings, but so are Ravenloft and Darksun.

Tanarii

2023-09-06, 08:31 AM

Yes, a player steps into the role.
Good luck with that. :smallamused:

KorvinStarmast

2023-09-06, 09:16 AM

Yes, a player steps into the role. You can't count on that. It may or may not happen. This is hugely dependent on each individual in the group.

Example 1: a friend started Curse of Strahd, and at about level 4 or 5, could not keep his interest up as DM. Campaign folded. One of the players offered to DM, but rather than port the players over, we all started from scratch again. Campaign is still running.

Example 2: GM pitches and then runs a Tunnels and Trolls game. Player base is a bit fluid, only person who showed up to all sessions was me. DM got tired of the lack of investment by players (in general) and folded the campaign.

Example 3: Three person party. One player, me, left the game due to pace of play issues. Game folded.

Example 4: Three to five person party. Tomb of Annihilation. DM had to retire due to RL issues and attendant scheduling challenges. No player created a game. That group simply folded. (I am still in touch with all of the players, though, and the DM).

Example 5: Against the Giants campaign. Halfway through the fire giants module DM loses motivation to DM. (Also, work issues). I start a Salt Marsh campaign. It's still running it, but we have had three players drop out and three new ones join. And, bonus, the Against the Giants campaign started again this year since DM's work schedule changed. (Some overlap in groups membership). I have members from two of the various previous groups in Salt Marsh.

Example 6: Another three person game, DM is very imaginative but doesn't know the basics of chapter 9 very well. After discussion of "what kind of game are we playing here?" I choose leave the group based on an expectations mismatch. They don't pick up a new player. Game folds.

Example 7: (Some years ago) DM begins to tire of adversarial push back from a couple of players. In the middle of a session, when the arguments started yet again, DM says "I don't get paid enough to do this" and puts his stuff away. The two players who were the prime frictions causers were not invited to the next game, GM'd by me. The DM, after a session or two, joined in as a player. And then the two find out we've been playing, they asked why excluded. One of the other players said it concisely:
"Unlike you two, we are here to play not to argue."
They were invited to find another group.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-09-06, 09:59 AM

@KorvinStarmast

Yeah, one of the big game-killers I've seen and read about is GM burnout/lack of interest. A game can survive a "just there for social reasons" player or one who isn't super into it but shows up. And games can survive (sometimes) the loss of a player. But if the GM isn't feeling it or is having a bad time? Chances are the game is going to end.

I've also found that the opposite is true--GM excitement about a world and a campaign makes a huge positive difference in how long games run. Player excitement can help drive GM excitement, so it is a two-way street there. But being threatened (with revolt) or browbeaten into accepting a world I wasn't excited about and a campaign I didn't care for? Yeah, no.

I've walked from one table as a (pure) GM. That's because the party went out of their way during session 1 to be obnoxious. Didn't make a fuss about it, just...walked away. I've walked away from one mixed-situation table (it was a "shared world/multiple-DM" kinda thing where we'd play and DM on different weeks) because I had strong disagreements about the underlying premises of the world (purely artistic differences--the world's creator was going for an "oldschool" vibe that I wasn't excited at all about). Plus it was a 45 minute drive away each way. Assuming good traffic.

KorvinStarmast

2023-09-06, 10:42 AM

... I had strong disagreements about the underlying premises of the world (purely artistic differences--the world's creator was going for an "oldschool" vibe that I wasn't excited at all about). Sometimes, old school is great. Sometimes, maybe not so much.
Plus it was a 45 minute drive away each way. Assuming good traffic. Man, that's a lot of travel for a game. It would need to be very good for me to do that.

Pex

2023-09-06, 11:52 AM

Sometimes, old school is great. Sometimes, maybe not so much. Man, that's a lot of travel for a game. It would need to be very good for me to do that.

I've taken commuter rail to play in a game. When it's fun it's worth it.

Sigreid

2023-09-06, 12:07 PM

To get back to answering the original question, my recommendation is to outline/thumbnail your vision and present it to the players you're interested in running it for. If they're interested, put in the work to flesh it out. If they want some changes, talk and see if you can come to an agreement on modifications to the idea that everyone is ok to excited about, put the work in. If there's no interest, don't waste your time.

Witty Username

2023-09-20, 10:48 PM

I've walked from one table as a (pure) GM. That's because the party went out of their way during session 1 to be obnoxious. Didn't make a fuss about it, just...walked away. I've walked away from one mixed-situation table (it was a "shared world/multiple-DM" kinda thing where we'd play and DM on different weeks) because I had strong disagreements about the underlying premises of the world (purely artistic differences--the world's creator was going for an "oldschool" vibe that I wasn't excited at all about). Plus it was a 45 minute drive away each way. Assuming good traffic.

It is kinda weird that we (as a community I mean) see the DM in an elevated position, with obligations to the table beyond the other players and greater power associated.

GMs are here to play a game like everyone else, and they need a game to be exited and have fun with, and it is not a burden on the players for the GM to have needs and wants in the direction of their own fun. I am a pretty accommodating DM when it comes to player wants (I have goofy ideas like players should be actively involved in world building and whatnot).

rel

2023-09-20, 11:59 PM

It is kinda weird that we (as a community I mean) see the DM in an elevated position, with obligations to the table beyond the other players and greater power associated.

My intuition is that this is an idea that only flourishes where the ratio of GM's to non-GM's is unbalanced. Whenever I've come across a gaming group where very few people actually GM, I find viking hat GM's.

Whereas in groups where about half the players are happy to GM, anyone bringing that kind of attitude rapidly finds themselves GMing for an empty table.

Arkhios

2023-09-21, 12:51 AM

It is kinda weird that we (as a community I mean) see the DM in an elevated position, with obligations to the table beyond the other players and greater power associated.

GMs are here to play a game like everyone else, and they need a game to be exited and have fun with, and it is not a burden on the players for the GM to have needs and wants in the direction of their own fun. I am a pretty accommodating DM when it comes to player wants (I have goofy ideas like players should be actively involved in world building and whatnot).

GM is playing a game, for sure. But it is justified that a GM decides whether some rules are in use in each game being played or not, and races/species are an equal part of the rules.

As I've said before, whether certain races/species are in play or not depends largely on the campaign setting, and if it's a setting of their own make, rather than one of the fully established official settings, it's perfectly within GM's rights to rule out certain races/species, and there's absolutely nothing wrong in that nor does it require explaining; The GM isn't abusing their power by doing that, either.

If, on the other hand, the setting is one of the official ones (say, Forgotten Realms or Eberron), with certain races/species having an officially established place within, the GM might have to elaborate the reasons 'why' they decide to rule those options out for that particular game.

That said, this is something that should be discussed in advance before starting the game so that the players understand the limitations before they pour their blood, sweat, tears ...and weeks... into their character.

LibraryOgre

2023-09-21, 10:52 AM

GM is playing a game, for sure. But it is justified that a GM decides whether some rules are in use in each game being played or not, and races/species are an equal part of the rules.

I think Witty Username was going to a different place, with regards to players not respecting the time and work a DM puts into the game.

"Hey, I've prepared a game set in this area. I've got some plot hooks and some things fleshed out."
"Yeah, we understand that, but we've all decided we're going to set out for the other side of the world, where you have nothing."

THAT is not respecting the time and effort the DM puts into the game. I'm not talking about "We threw the DM a curveball solution to the problem that they didn't anticipate"... that's part of the game. It's the "We are abandoning the game you've prepared, but still expect you to DM."

PhoenixPhyre

2023-09-21, 10:56 AM

I think Witty Username was going to a different place, with regards to players not respecting the time and work a DM puts into the game.

"Hey, I've prepared a game set in this area. I've got some plot hooks and some things fleshed out."
"Yeah, we understand that, but we've all decided we're going to set out for the other side of the world, where you have nothing."

THAT is not respecting the time and effort the DM puts into the game. I'm not talking about "We threw the DM a curveball solution to the problem that they didn't anticipate"... that's part of the game. It's the "We are abandoning the game you've prepared, but still expect you to DM."

One thought--

If a DM/setting/whatever vetoes a player's proposed character, well, there's a near infinity of other characters to play. Sure, it's annoying. But making a new one, even one that has most of the same thematics/behavior, is fairly straightforward and only a small investment of time. Most of the time, anyway.

If the players veto a setting or a game...that's a huge investment of time to replace at best. At least if you want a world that has more depth than cardboard.

These two are not symmetric.

Arkhios

2023-09-21, 12:50 PM

I think Witty Username was going to a different place, with regards to players not respecting the time and work a DM puts into the game.

"Hey, I've prepared a game set in this area. I've got some plot hooks and some things fleshed out."
"Yeah, we understand that, but we've all decided we're going to set out for the other side of the world, where you have nothing."

THAT is not respecting the time and effort the DM puts into the game. I'm not talking about "We threw the DM a curveball solution to the problem that they didn't anticipate"... that's part of the game. It's the "We are abandoning the game you've prepared, but still expect you to DM."

Tbh, you might be right. Then again, I didn't mean to oppose, or criticise directly, but rather, offer support in general for DM's deserving more respect for their efforts.

Witty Username

2023-09-22, 09:05 PM

I think Witty Username was going to a different place, with regards to players not respecting the time and work a DM puts into the game.

Er, yeah, sorry I believe I trailed off, work has been rough this week.

My thoughts on being accommodating was meant to be an overall point that I am coming from the other end personally, but if you need a game to have X or Y as a DM, thats not being a bad DM, that is having expectations for a good table experience. Not something a player to necessarily gripe about.

LibraryOgre

2023-09-23, 09:08 AM

QuickLyRaiNbow

2023-09-23, 10:00 AM

Long ago, I read a letter in White Wolf Magazine (which should give you an idea of just how long ago this was),

Must have been nice to have some light reading material while that long wagon train headed west.

MeimuHakurei

2023-09-26, 10:44 AM

Long ago, I read a letter in White Wolf Magazine (which should give you an idea of just how long ago this was), about someone who was setting a game in Chicago. When he got around to asking what everyone was doing at the start of the game, one guy said he was in Denver. Where his character lived. The ST went on to explain that he had to go to great lengths and a bunch of game time to get this guy to Chicago.

Now, obviously, this could have been handled with a session zero, which weren't as common at the time (IME, at least). But there's also a huge degree of player entitlement involved... "I make whatever character I want, and screw the work that the GM has put into the game." To say nothing of the "You now have to cater to me to get the game going." That, in particular, is an example of play disruptive to the whole group... but even an intentional derailing by the entire party is disrespecting other players... namely, the DM.

To that end, and to wrap it around to the OP, I don't see a problem with limiting races and classes. The GM sets out the type of game they want to run. The players choose to play or not. Now, there's always going to be social factors, here... if you always play with the same group, you should be willing to tailor it to their experience a bit, but they should also be willing to tailor their play to your wishes. It's a give and take at every level... but, when you get down to it, it always comes back to "Do I want to run/play in *this* game?"

To me, the litmus test on who's to blame is the players on the rest of the group. For this, I'm assuming you're discussing game preparation aka session zero because just dropping in players without discussing anything beforehand quickly results in friction like this. If the rest of the group preferred to be in Denver, it's probably a smart idea to reconfigure a bit. Maybe change a few paragraphs to move around the setting. If the other players are annoyed that the Denver person wants to force the attention on them, they should be one willing to adjust. Maybe this one's studying abroad, or they're a detective tracking a criminal on the run. After all, both campaign settings and player characters can be tweaked to line up better.

And it's completely fine if there's some arguing because there isn't a clear consensus. That's not a dysfunctional table, but a table actively working towards a solution. You may have a administrative function as a DM, but your players should be certain that your decisions to establish a campaign world is meant for an interesting experience and not you throwing your weight around.

Zuras

2023-09-27, 08:42 AM

To me, the litmus test on who's to blame is the players on the rest of the group. For this, I'm assuming you're discussing game preparation aka session zero because just dropping in players without discussing anything beforehand quickly results in friction like this. If the rest of the group preferred to be in Denver, it's probably a smart idea to reconfigure a bit. Maybe change a few paragraphs to move around the setting. If the other players are annoyed that the Denver person wants to force the attention on them, they should be one willing to adjust. Maybe this one's studying abroad, or they're a detective tracking a criminal on the run. After all, both campaign settings and player characters can be tweaked to line up better.

And it's completely fine if there's some arguing because there isn't a clear consensus. That's not a dysfunctional table, but a table actively working towards a solution. You may have an administrative function as a DM, but your players should be certain that your decisions to establish a campaign world is meant for an interesting experience and not you throwing your weight around.

If a player tried something like this in a game I was running, assuming I briefed everyone on the game concept beforehand I’d just completely ignore them at the table until they came up with their own explanation for how they got to Chicago. Unless your setting is generic and fairly meaningless (i.e. Chicago means “large city”, not anything specific) moving cities basically trashes all the GM’s prep.

I don’t think that example is really a setting issue, though. It’s more like the player who wants to play a pumpkin merchant in Barovia or a bard who just wants to tour taverns playing for gold rather than risk their life in a dungeon. As GM I’m not going to tell you what your character’s motivation is for engaging with the plot, but they need to have one.

As far as the advice to use a different system rather than D&D 5e if you want to run a low-magic or other campaign that deviates widely from the PHB baseline, I agree—not because 5e can’t manage low fantasy (the core is pretty flexible, as seen in the LotR 5e books) but because going with a different system will free you from player expectations on how things are “supposed” to work.

Human psychology is weird, and the same player who would sulk if you imposed wild magic rolls on all casting in 5e may think it’s hilarious when their wizard dies spectacularly to a spell misfire in DCC.

Unoriginal

2023-09-27, 09:22 AM

Human psychology is weird, and the same player who would sulk if you imposed wild magic rolls on all casting in 5e may think it’s hilarious when their wizard dies spectacularly to a spell misfire in DCC.

Expectations and setups play a large role in how accepting someone is of that kind of things.

Alice in Wonderland ends with the protagonist waking from a dream, which works because of Wonderland itself being full of dream logic and the like. If the Lord of the Rings ended with Frodo waking up from a dream, that would be *significantly* less acceptable.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-09-27, 10:02 AM

If a player tried something like this in a game I was running, assuming I briefed everyone on the game concept beforehand I’d just completely ignore them at the table until they came up with their own explanation for how they got to Chicago. Unless your setting is generic and fairly meaningless (i.e. Chicago means “large city”, not anything specific) moving cities basically trashes all the GM’s prep.

I don’t think that example is really a setting issue, though. It’s more like the player who wants to play a pumpkin merchant in Barovia or a bard who just wants to tour taverns playing for gold rather than risk their life in a dungeon. As GM I’m not going to tell you what your character’s motivation is for engaging with the plot, but they need to have one.

As far as the advice to use a different system rather than D&D 5e if you want to run a low-magic or other campaign that deviates widely from the PHB baseline, I agree—not because 5e can’t manage low fantasy (the core is pretty flexible, as seen in the LotR 5e books) but because going with a different system will free you from player expectations on how things are “supposed” to work.

Human psychology is weird, and the same player who would sulk if you imposed wild magic rolls on all casting in 5e may think it’s hilarious when their wizard dies spectacularly to a spell misfire in DCC.

Expectations and setups play a large role in how accepting someone is of that kind of things.

Alice in Wonderland ends with the protagonist waking from a dream, which works because of Wonderland itself being full of dream logic and the like. If the Lord of the Rings ended with Frodo waking up from a dream, that would be *significantly* less acceptable.

Agree with both of those.

For me, the biggest thing the printed rules actually do has nothing to do with the actual details of the rules. Because no two groups really play the same way when you get down to it and look at details. So rules trying to prescribe that sort of thing is just futile, a waste of everyone's time. No, what the printed rules are most important for (IMO) is setting these expectations. Setting the broad-brush strokes of what is possible and what is normal.

5e is fairly blatantly a game about adventuring. It doesn't really pretend to be a game that supports "pumpkin merchants" or "touring bards" (etc). It's also fairly blatantly a game where magic (spells or not) is normal for adventurers. Even the ones who don't have explicitly magical powers will likely gain magic items. And often have powers that are pretty darn fantastical when you think about them. Etc. So playing a game about a real-world slice-of-life high school in 5e is going to take significant modifications and especially explicit, enthusiastic player buy in. The further your game is away from the (broad) norms of 5e, the more buy in, and the more explicit, enthusiastic buy in you need to get.

On the main topic, setting-based class/race restrictions are fairly clearly normalized by the intro to the PHB. So I'd say those are well within the game's "normal operations" region. As, to be sure, are the lack of such restrictions.