I recall a while ago there was a recommendation form WotC to limit player options for your campaign to just the PHB and one campaign book. I have never done that but with the huge amount of options these days I am seriously considering it for my next game.
Does anyone limit player options or is it a free-for-all?
I always do, but I limit them based on the lore of the campaign. Ravnica and Eberron don’t fit in the Forgotten Realms for example so I don’t let players use those when I’m running an FR campaign.
Those were Adventure League rules for a long time. I’m a FRee for all fan….if someone bought official content, they should be able to play it (imo). I also allow any other content by the world creators (Ed greenwood, Keith baker, etc)
I always do, but I limit them based on the lore of the campaign. Ravnica and Eberron don’t fit in the Forgotten Realms for example so I don’t let players use those when I’m running an FR campaign.
Those were Adventure League rules for a long time. I’m a FRee for all fan….if someone bought official content, they should be able to play it (imo). I also allow any other content by the world creators (Ed greenwood, Keith baker, etc)
yes, it went from 'one of' to 'all of'...for what it's worth though, the 'all of' is still a subset of books. You could do that, limiting options somewhat, but still giving gobs of options. Starting day 1 adhering to AL rules for character creation and then setting them aside is pretty sound advice (imo...despite my prior response)
As a DM, you have the prerogative to limit character options. However, players complying with those boundaries requires a bit of social finesse on the DM's part where it's better to come up with in game world reason beyond "I just don't like 'em." Easiest way to play limits in game is have the campaign begin in a very parochial area where there's a handful of races, and a lot of subclasses or even whole classes don't exist and yes the PCs will be from there so no exotics passing through to join the party. It's probably best the table does "collaborative" character building together than everyone making characters on their own if you want to be restrictive but want to make the parameters fun. Let them co-create within the boundaries, if that's what you want.
There's also the "I honestly don't have the bandwidth to keep up with all the options out there" claim. Some players will accept that, especially if they and the DM are new. Other players may grief, but I think the DM capacity argument is another way of establishing limitations on a given game. I mean if it overwhelms the DM, that jeopardizes the game's existence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
As a DM, you have the prerogative to limit character options. However, players complying with those boundaries requires a bit of social finesse on the DM's part where it's better to come up with in game world reason beyond "I just don't like 'em."
I don't necessarily view that as a bad reason. "I don't like X so it isn't in my game, sorry" is perfectly valid as-is, given that DMs have the right to their own sense of fun. I'm not convinced a DM owes an in-universe explanation or justification for their preferences, though they're welcome to give it if they like. Besides, if a player is attached to something that a DM doesn't want in their game, or doesn't like that the DM's sense of fun diverges from their own, it's probably not a good match anyway.
That aside, I do concur with working collaboratively during character creation to ensure everyone at the table has some creative input and ends up with a fun character they're excited about. I also think that sometimes DMs can be a bit knee-jerk with their content-banning, and being open to dialogue is a great way to foster that creative collaboration.
I don't necessarily view that as a bad reason. "I don't like X so it isn't in my game, sorry" is perfectly valid as-is, given that DMs have the right to their own sense of fun.
I disagree that it isn't bad reason.
The DM gets plenty of opportunity to derive fun from their role. They get a creative outlet in creating and presenting a world, the themes and aesthetics, creating and roleplaying NPCs and monsters, building the stories and arcs, and so forth. Banning certain aspects of the game in order to serve that purpose, say to maintain a certain aesthetic, is fine. If you want to maintain a LotR tone? Banning the Artificer makes sense and is fine. You want a campaign set in a secular, irreligious world? Then the Cleric is an obvious choice for the block. You want it to be set in a Shire-like.area that is forgotten by the outside world and the inhabitants generally never leave? Then restricting what races are available is a natural conclusion. Even if the concern is powergaming/the DM not being able to keep up with all the options and so wants to restrict options, that's fine too.
However, a DM that is just stopping players from making choices simply because he doesn't like those choices...is controlling. The DM's domain is the world, the PC is the domain of the player, and that must be respected. Sure, there may be a degree of mismatch, but that is always going to be the case anyway. The DM can't just change player's decisions by mandate. He can influence and shape them by directing the world around them, even beg the players to stop trying to seduce that carp, but not control. The only difference between a DM and another player in that respect is that the DM has the power - which is actually a red flag.
The DM can restrict things based on what is needed to serve the story, but they have no more right to control a player's choices than any other player at the table outside of that mandate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The DM can restrict things based on what is needed to serve the story, but they have no more right to control a player's choices than any other player at the table outside of that mandate.
oh my, i strongly disagree with this. quite frankly the DM is the judge, jury, executioner, and god. It is their table, their time, their props, their prep work, their rules. If the players don't like it, they can leave..better yet, they can DM and allow whatever rules they want. If a DM says 'this isn't allowed and you don't have that choice'...its not allowed and they don't have that choice. If the DM doesn't want to deal with flying races at level 1, that's the rule.
I'm a huge fan of trying to figure out a path when a player says 'i want to do this'...but its still my table and still my rules.
and this is more than just an opinion...it is a fact at my table.
Feel free to disagree...it is your opinion, nothing more. That you can kick someone out of your table doesn't make it justified or superior.
Tell me, if we were playing a campaign and I was DMing, and you decided to use Fireball, but I didn't like it so said nope, can't do that, would you be happy? Is that a happy, healthy table?
DMs have the power of God, and should have the humility to use it properly. The changes to rules that they employ should be for the betterment of the game and enjoyment of all, not just the DM. I don't particularly like Dragonborn, but I'd never dream of pressuring and bullying a player ("do what I say, or you can't play with us") into changing their decision to play as one because of my personal preferences. If we, as a group, decided we wanted to do an all-Human party as part of the aesthetic, then yes, I'd enforce that rule. I would never enforce my personal choices in what makes a good character on another on a whim though.
With great power comes great responsibility. The DM has great power to alter the game, and is charged to do so for the betterment of the game and everyone's enjoyment. If a DM were to ever force a decision on someone arbitrarily, my reaction is going to be that I can't trust that DM to play properly. If the DM is trying to create an aesthetic or make things manageable so having something banned improves the game, that's great. A DM who thinks their opinion on what makes a cool character and is willing to bar players from the table over it? Well, my reaction would be to declare that I will be DMing a new game where the DM respects the players and respects their agency. Any restrictions imposed will be to improve the game - they need not worry if I think their character is awesome or not. Everyone is there to have fun, and the rules are there to facilitate the everyone's fun, not the DM's need to control everything and shape the PCs according to his will. Want to play as a Dragonborn? Awesome, I'd love to have you. I might play a few jokes at your expense, but it's all for laughs. All players are welcome.
I'm wondering who would have the players at their table.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't necessarily view that as a bad reason. "I don't like X so it isn't in my game, sorry" is perfectly valid as-is, given that DMs have the right to their own sense of fun.
I disagree that it isn't bad reason.
The DM gets plenty of opportunity to derive fun from their role. They get a creative outlet in creating and presenting a world, the themes and aesthetics, creating and roleplaying NPCs and monsters, building the stories and arcs, and so forth. Banning certain aspects of the game in order to serve that purpose, say to maintain a certain aesthetic, is fine. If you want to maintain a LotR tone? Banning the Artificer makes sense and is fine. You want a campaign set in a secular, irreligious world? Then the Cleric is an obvious choice for the block. You want it to be set in a Shire-like.area that is forgotten by the outside world and the inhabitants generally never leave? Then restricting what races are available is a natural conclusion. Even if the concern is powergaming/the DM not being able to keep up with all the options and so wants to restrict options, that's fine too.
However, a DM that is just stopping players from making choices simply because he doesn't like those choices...is controlling. The DM's domain is the world, the PC is the domain of the player, and that must be respected. Sure, there may be a degree of mismatch, but that is always going to be the case anyway. The DM can't just change player's decisions by mandate. He can influence and shape them by directing the world around them, even beg the players to stop trying to seduce that carp, but not control. The only difference between a DM and another player in that respect is that the DM has the power - which is actually a red flag.
The DM can restrict things based on what is needed to serve the story, but they have no more right to control a player's choices than any other player at the table outside of that mandate.
The DM has to do the work to create the world, they get to choose what goes in it.
I always restrict characters to be appropriate for the setting/campaign. Actually, my new game doesn't have any races except humans. It also doesn't have any spellcasters who aren't sorcerers.
So, if you're telling me that I should let you play a Tabaxi Druid when that literally breaks every rule established in the setting, then... no. Players have responsibilities in games too. They have to try to fit into the world the DM is running. If that means you can't play a Dhampir or an artificer or an evil aligned paladin, then that's how it is. If you don't like it? Run your own game.
The DM gets plenty of opportunity to derive fun from their role. They get a creative outlet in creating and presenting a world, the themes and aesthetics, creating and roleplaying NPCs and monsters, building the stories and arcs, and so forth. Banning certain aspects of the game in order to serve that purpose, say to maintain a certain aesthetic, is fine. If you want to maintain a LotR tone? Banning the Artificer makes sense and is fine. You want a campaign set in a secular, irreligious world? Then the Cleric is an obvious choice for the block. You want it to be set in a Shire-like.area that is forgotten by the outside world and the inhabitants generally never leave? Then restricting what races are available is a natural conclusion. Even if the concern is powergaming/the DM not being able to keep up with all the options and so wants to restrict options, that's fine too.
However, a DM that is just stopping players from making choices simply because he doesn't like those choices...is controlling. The DM's domain is the world, the PC is the domain of the player, and that must be respected. Sure, there may be a degree of mismatch, but that is always going to be the case anyway. The DM can't just change player's decisions by mandate. He can influence and shape them by directing the world around them, even beg the players to stop trying to seduce that carp, but not control. The only difference between a DM and another player in that respect is that the DM has the power - which is actually a red flag.
The DM can restrict things based on what is needed to serve the story, but they have no more right to control a player's choices than any other player at the table outside of that mandate.
The DM has to do the work to create the world, they get to choose what goes in it.
I always restrict characters to be appropriate for the setting/campaign. Actually, my new game doesn't have any races except humans. It also doesn't have any spellcasters who aren't sorcerers.
So, if you're telling me that I should let you play a Tabaxi Druid when that literally breaks every rule established in the setting, then... no. Players have responsibilities in games too. They have to try to fit into the world the DM is running. If that means you can't play a Dhampir or an artificer or an evil aligned paladin, then that's how it is. If you don't like it? Run your own game.
...Banning certain aspects of the game in order to serve that purpose [to improve the enjoyment of the game], say to maintain a certain aesthetic, is fine. If you want to maintain a LotR tone? Banning the Artificer makes sense and is fine. You want a campaign set in a secular, irreligious world? Then the Cleric is an obvious choice for the block. You want it to be set in a Shire-like.area that is forgotten by the outside world and the inhabitants generally never leave? Then restricting what races are available is a natural conclusion...The DM can restrict things based on what is needed to serve the story...
Which part didn't you understand from that? I mean the bolded part seems to pretty much be what you said...
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't usually comment too much on the forums, or at all, but this is something I've had to think about recently since purchasing MOM and now having triple the race options for my players.
I do it like this: What is and what is not allowed is discussed at session zero, or even before that in the game advert when it's posted to the LFG. If the DM wants to give a reason, that's up to them. They could say it's based on the setting, or that they are too inexperienced to run a game with that many options, but they really don't need an excuse to ban stuff from their table.
If the DM is banning something from the table and the player knows about it before the game starts, then the player can always say, "Sorry, no hard feelings, but this is not the game for me." The player can then find another game that is suitable for them.
If the DM bans something at the table and the player still wants to play, then I'm not sure how they can complain when they knew what they were getting into in the first place.
When the DM sets up and start recruiting for their game, they can decide to ban whatever they like. It is the players who have the choice of whether or not to play in that game. Nobody is forcing them to play, but a player can't force a DM to run a game the way they want.
Now, once the game starts I don't think the DM should be able to turn around and ban a race or class after the fact. Not at least without serious discussion and maybe even another session zero to hammer out the details. When it comes to banning anything in the game, post session zero, there should always be a discussion about it with the players first.
Now one example is a DM banning fireball. At session zero that would be fine, but doing in the middle of the game is just being a shitty DM. Again, if something is banned from the table before you start playing, then don't play. If something is banned while you are actually playing, quit and find another game.
However, at the end of the day the DM will always have the final call just based on the amount of time they invest in the game versus a player. Not for nothing, but DM'ing takes a lot of effort where as for a player they just need to keep their sheet straight and show up on time. If being a DM was easy we would have a better ratio to players, but right now players outnumber DM's by a lot. Like seriously, I could DM a game for every night of the week and still have a wait list.
Honestly, if they made it so DM's had to use everything available, no matter what, I think you'll see a lot of games ending after a few sessions due to the DM not being able to keep up or getting overwhelmed, and then just giving up out frustration. This is the reason why I tell most new DM's I talk to to just stick with the basic books (DMG, PHB, and maybe Tasha's and Xanathar's) for their first campaign or so, until they at least understand the basics and how to run a game.
If you are a paid DM who bans stuff at their table... you shouldn't, and you don't have a choice in my opinion. You are charging money and should be good enough to handle anything players throw at you at that point.
In summary, my opinion is: Banning things (or limiting options) is fine BEFORE the game starts. Banning things AFTER the game starts requires serious discussion with your players, and should be avoided unless deemed absolutely necessary.
You're absolutely right, it is nothing but my opinion and worth <2 cents. The reality is that we would both have players at our tables. Every real world table (across several venues) I've been at for several years now has a surplus of players and a shortage of DM's (to the point where players get turned away). The DM has to be happy or one of two things happen: 1) the DM stops being a DM or 2) the DM stays and is now a bent-out-of-shape DM (and both of those options = no fun for anyone). I'm not talking about flippant "well now you can't do this"...or "surprise, here's my rule" type of issues. I'm talking about "this is the game we're playing and here are the boundaries...doesn't matter if you like them or not".
I often limit player's options for exemple setting specific such as no EBERRON options in GREYHAWK campaign etc and going as far as allowing PHB only in some campaign.
When I run campaigns (my own worlds) I do give players themes and concept of the world and let them go crazy. I limit a small number of options but if the players are passionate about something I'll find a way to let it work. My current world has no priests, so that was the one limit I put in place. Everything else I was fine with. There is no spell complained about online that I am concerned with. if the players have fun with it, then we are having fun.
I don't want to start off by limiting options, but some campaigns worlds are different and that is part of it.
As long as the GM is straight out and says I don't want this in my game then players should learn to adjust. For example what if the GM decides he has a plan for Tieflings being a race of evil who are to rise up and conquer the land and so all are NPCs. As long as he says it before a player turns up with his Tiefling Warlock ready to play that should be fine. Maybe a GM thinks something in his opinion is overpowered and not balanced, it is his game so players do not have to join. Maybe a GM does not want to carry 20 kilograms of books on public transport.
I take lots of my experience from AD&D 2nd ed, we had a player who would frequently die from carelessness and stupidity and would turn up the next time with the most crazy stuff from various books. Anyone old enough to remember all the extras and optional rules in the Complete Book of Elves and the Elves of Evermeet will have an idea of the kind of things I am talking about. Grommam from Spelljammer just so they could have Strength 20.
The DM gets plenty of opportunity to derive fun from their role. They get a creative outlet in creating and presenting a world, the themes and aesthetics, creating and roleplaying NPCs and monsters, building the stories and arcs, and so forth. Banning certain aspects of the game in order to serve that purpose, say to maintain a certain aesthetic, is fine. If you want to maintain a LotR tone? Banning the Artificer makes sense and is fine. You want a campaign set in a secular, irreligious world? Then the Cleric is an obvious choice for the block. You want it to be set in a Shire-like.area that is forgotten by the outside world and the inhabitants generally never leave? Then restricting what races are available is a natural conclusion. Even if the concern is powergaming/the DM not being able to keep up with all the options and so wants to restrict options, that's fine too.
However, a DM that is just stopping players from making choices simply because he doesn't like those choices...is controlling. The DM's domain is the world, the PC is the domain of the player, and that must be respected. Sure, there may be a degree of mismatch, but that is always going to be the case anyway. The DM can't just change player's decisions by mandate. He can influence and shape them by directing the world around them, even beg the players to stop trying to seduce that carp, but not control. The only difference between a DM and another player in that respect is that the DM has the power - which is actually a red flag.
The DM can restrict things based on what is needed to serve the story, but they have no more right to control a player's choices than any other player at the table outside of that mandate.
The DM has to do the work to create the world, they get to choose what goes in it.
I always restrict characters to be appropriate for the setting/campaign. Actually, my new game doesn't have any races except humans. It also doesn't have any spellcasters who aren't sorcerers.
So, if you're telling me that I should let you play a Tabaxi Druid when that literally breaks every rule established in the setting, then... no. Players have responsibilities in games too. They have to try to fit into the world the DM is running. If that means you can't play a Dhampir or an artificer or an evil aligned paladin, then that's how it is. If you don't like it? Run your own game.
...Banning certain aspects of the game in order to serve that purpose [to improve the enjoyment of the game], say to maintain a certain aesthetic, is fine. If you want to maintain a LotR tone? Banning the Artificer makes sense and is fine. You want a campaign set in a secular, irreligious world? Then the Cleric is an obvious choice for the block. You want it to be set in a Shire-like.area that is forgotten by the outside world and the inhabitants generally never leave? Then restricting what races are available is a natural conclusion...The DM can restrict things based on what is needed to serve the story...
Which part didn't you understand from that? I mean the bolded part seems to pretty much be what you said...
The part where you make a distinction for settings that allow a DM to use that excuse for any element at any time. Even settings like Forgotten Realms are stressed not to be immutable canon but rather template to build your own versions off of. Therefore, I could say "Oh, hate tieflings. In MY version of the realms Asmodean tieflings don't exist." If you are going to allow considerations for setting, then what's the point of making any sort of criticism. It's not meaningful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I recall a while ago there was a recommendation form WotC to limit player options for your campaign to just the PHB and one campaign book. I have never done that but with the huge amount of options these days I am seriously considering it for my next game.
Does anyone limit player options or is it a free-for-all?
I always do, but I limit them based on the lore of the campaign. Ravnica and Eberron don’t fit in the Forgotten Realms for example so I don’t let players use those when I’m running an FR campaign.
Professional computer geek
Those were Adventure League rules for a long time. I’m a FRee for all fan….if someone bought official content, they should be able to play it (imo). I also allow any other content by the world creators (Ed greenwood, Keith baker, etc)
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I was thinking of something like this.
Did that rule get dropped from AL?
yes, it went from 'one of' to 'all of'...for what it's worth though, the 'all of' is still a subset of books. You could do that, limiting options somewhat, but still giving gobs of options. Starting day 1 adhering to AL rules for character creation and then setting them aside is pretty sound advice (imo...despite my prior response)
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
As a DM, you have the prerogative to limit character options. However, players complying with those boundaries requires a bit of social finesse on the DM's part where it's better to come up with in game world reason beyond "I just don't like 'em." Easiest way to play limits in game is have the campaign begin in a very parochial area where there's a handful of races, and a lot of subclasses or even whole classes don't exist and yes the PCs will be from there so no exotics passing through to join the party. It's probably best the table does "collaborative" character building together than everyone making characters on their own if you want to be restrictive but want to make the parameters fun. Let them co-create within the boundaries, if that's what you want.
There's also the "I honestly don't have the bandwidth to keep up with all the options out there" claim. Some players will accept that, especially if they and the DM are new. Other players may grief, but I think the DM capacity argument is another way of establishing limitations on a given game. I mean if it overwhelms the DM, that jeopardizes the game's existence.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't necessarily view that as a bad reason. "I don't like X so it isn't in my game, sorry" is perfectly valid as-is, given that DMs have the right to their own sense of fun. I'm not convinced a DM owes an in-universe explanation or justification for their preferences, though they're welcome to give it if they like. Besides, if a player is attached to something that a DM doesn't want in their game, or doesn't like that the DM's sense of fun diverges from their own, it's probably not a good match anyway.
That aside, I do concur with working collaboratively during character creation to ensure everyone at the table has some creative input and ends up with a fun character they're excited about. I also think that sometimes DMs can be a bit knee-jerk with their content-banning, and being open to dialogue is a great way to foster that creative collaboration.
I disagree that it isn't bad reason.
The DM gets plenty of opportunity to derive fun from their role. They get a creative outlet in creating and presenting a world, the themes and aesthetics, creating and roleplaying NPCs and monsters, building the stories and arcs, and so forth. Banning certain aspects of the game in order to serve that purpose, say to maintain a certain aesthetic, is fine. If you want to maintain a LotR tone? Banning the Artificer makes sense and is fine. You want a campaign set in a secular, irreligious world? Then the Cleric is an obvious choice for the block. You want it to be set in a Shire-like.area that is forgotten by the outside world and the inhabitants generally never leave? Then restricting what races are available is a natural conclusion. Even if the concern is powergaming/the DM not being able to keep up with all the options and so wants to restrict options, that's fine too.
However, a DM that is just stopping players from making choices simply because he doesn't like those choices...is controlling. The DM's domain is the world, the PC is the domain of the player, and that must be respected. Sure, there may be a degree of mismatch, but that is always going to be the case anyway. The DM can't just change player's decisions by mandate. He can influence and shape them by directing the world around them, even beg the players to stop trying to seduce that carp, but not control. The only difference between a DM and another player in that respect is that the DM has the power - which is actually a red flag.
The DM can restrict things based on what is needed to serve the story, but they have no more right to control a player's choices than any other player at the table outside of that mandate.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
oh my, i strongly disagree with this. quite frankly the DM is the judge, jury, executioner, and god. It is their table, their time, their props, their prep work, their rules. If the players don't like it, they can leave..better yet, they can DM and allow whatever rules they want. If a DM says 'this isn't allowed and you don't have that choice'...its not allowed and they don't have that choice. If the DM doesn't want to deal with flying races at level 1, that's the rule.
I'm a huge fan of trying to figure out a path when a player says 'i want to do this'...but its still my table and still my rules.
and this is more than just an opinion...it is a fact at my table.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Feel free to disagree...it is your opinion, nothing more. That you can kick someone out of your table doesn't make it justified or superior.
Tell me, if we were playing a campaign and I was DMing, and you decided to use Fireball, but I didn't like it so said nope, can't do that, would you be happy? Is that a happy, healthy table?
DMs have the power of God, and should have the humility to use it properly. The changes to rules that they employ should be for the betterment of the game and enjoyment of all, not just the DM. I don't particularly like Dragonborn, but I'd never dream of pressuring and bullying a player ("do what I say, or you can't play with us") into changing their decision to play as one because of my personal preferences. If we, as a group, decided we wanted to do an all-Human party as part of the aesthetic, then yes, I'd enforce that rule. I would never enforce my personal choices in what makes a good character on another on a whim though.
With great power comes great responsibility. The DM has great power to alter the game, and is charged to do so for the betterment of the game and everyone's enjoyment. If a DM were to ever force a decision on someone arbitrarily, my reaction is going to be that I can't trust that DM to play properly. If the DM is trying to create an aesthetic or make things manageable so having something banned improves the game, that's great. A DM who thinks their opinion on what makes a cool character and is willing to bar players from the table over it? Well, my reaction would be to declare that I will be DMing a new game where the DM respects the players and respects their agency. Any restrictions imposed will be to improve the game - they need not worry if I think their character is awesome or not. Everyone is there to have fun, and the rules are there to facilitate the everyone's fun, not the DM's need to control everything and shape the PCs according to his will. Want to play as a Dragonborn? Awesome, I'd love to have you. I might play a few jokes at your expense, but it's all for laughs. All players are welcome.
I'm wondering who would have the players at their table.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The DM has to do the work to create the world, they get to choose what goes in it.
I always restrict characters to be appropriate for the setting/campaign. Actually, my new game doesn't have any races except humans. It also doesn't have any spellcasters who aren't sorcerers.
So, if you're telling me that I should let you play a Tabaxi Druid when that literally breaks every rule established in the setting, then... no. Players have responsibilities in games too. They have to try to fit into the world the DM is running. If that means you can't play a Dhampir or an artificer or an evil aligned paladin, then that's how it is. If you don't like it? Run your own game.
Let me quote for your the relevant parts:
Which part didn't you understand from that? I mean the bolded part seems to pretty much be what you said...
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't usually comment too much on the forums, or at all, but this is something I've had to think about recently since purchasing MOM and now having triple the race options for my players.
I do it like this: What is and what is not allowed is discussed at session zero, or even before that in the game advert when it's posted to the LFG. If the DM wants to give a reason, that's up to them. They could say it's based on the setting, or that they are too inexperienced to run a game with that many options, but they really don't need an excuse to ban stuff from their table.
If the DM is banning something from the table and the player knows about it before the game starts, then the player can always say, "Sorry, no hard feelings, but this is not the game for me." The player can then find another game that is suitable for them.
If the DM bans something at the table and the player still wants to play, then I'm not sure how they can complain when they knew what they were getting into in the first place.
When the DM sets up and start recruiting for their game, they can decide to ban whatever they like. It is the players who have the choice of whether or not to play in that game. Nobody is forcing them to play, but a player can't force a DM to run a game the way they want.
Now, once the game starts I don't think the DM should be able to turn around and ban a race or class after the fact. Not at least without serious discussion and maybe even another session zero to hammer out the details. When it comes to banning anything in the game, post session zero, there should always be a discussion about it with the players first.
Now one example is a DM banning fireball. At session zero that would be fine, but doing in the middle of the game is just being a shitty DM. Again, if something is banned from the table before you start playing, then don't play. If something is banned while you are actually playing, quit and find another game.
However, at the end of the day the DM will always have the final call just based on the amount of time they invest in the game versus a player. Not for nothing, but DM'ing takes a lot of effort where as for a player they just need to keep their sheet straight and show up on time. If being a DM was easy we would have a better ratio to players, but right now players outnumber DM's by a lot. Like seriously, I could DM a game for every night of the week and still have a wait list.
Honestly, if they made it so DM's had to use everything available, no matter what, I think you'll see a lot of games ending after a few sessions due to the DM not being able to keep up or getting overwhelmed, and then just giving up out frustration. This is the reason why I tell most new DM's I talk to to just stick with the basic books (DMG, PHB, and maybe Tasha's and Xanathar's) for their first campaign or so, until they at least understand the basics and how to run a game.
If you are a paid DM who bans stuff at their table... you shouldn't, and you don't have a choice in my opinion. You are charging money and should be good enough to handle anything players throw at you at that point.
In summary, my opinion is: Banning things (or limiting options) is fine BEFORE the game starts. Banning things AFTER the game starts requires serious discussion with your players, and should be avoided unless deemed absolutely necessary.
You're absolutely right, it is nothing but my opinion and worth <2 cents. The reality is that we would both have players at our tables. Every real world table (across several venues) I've been at for several years now has a surplus of players and a shortage of DM's (to the point where players get turned away). The DM has to be happy or one of two things happen: 1) the DM stops being a DM or 2) the DM stays and is now a bent-out-of-shape DM (and both of those options = no fun for anyone). I'm not talking about flippant "well now you can't do this"...or "surprise, here's my rule" type of issues. I'm talking about "this is the game we're playing and here are the boundaries...doesn't matter if you like them or not".
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I often limit player's options for exemple setting specific such as no EBERRON options in GREYHAWK campaign etc and going as far as allowing PHB only in some campaign.
When I run campaigns (my own worlds) I do give players themes and concept of the world and let them go crazy. I limit a small number of options but if the players are passionate about something I'll find a way to let it work. My current world has no priests, so that was the one limit I put in place. Everything else I was fine with. There is no spell complained about online that I am concerned with. if the players have fun with it, then we are having fun.
I don't want to start off by limiting options, but some campaigns worlds are different and that is part of it.
As long as the GM is straight out and says I don't want this in my game then players should learn to adjust. For example what if the GM decides he has a plan for Tieflings being a race of evil who are to rise up and conquer the land and so all are NPCs. As long as he says it before a player turns up with his Tiefling Warlock ready to play that should be fine.
Maybe a GM thinks something in his opinion is overpowered and not balanced, it is his game so players do not have to join.
Maybe a GM does not want to carry 20 kilograms of books on public transport.
I take lots of my experience from AD&D 2nd ed, we had a player who would frequently die from carelessness and stupidity and would turn up the next time with the most crazy stuff from various books.
Anyone old enough to remember all the extras and optional rules in the Complete Book of Elves and the Elves of Evermeet will have an idea of the kind of things I am talking about.
Grommam from Spelljammer just so they could have Strength 20.
The part where you make a distinction for settings that allow a DM to use that excuse for any element at any time. Even settings like Forgotten Realms are stressed not to be immutable canon but rather template to build your own versions off of. Therefore, I could say "Oh, hate tieflings. In MY version of the realms Asmodean tieflings don't exist." If you are going to allow considerations for setting, then what's the point of making any sort of criticism. It's not meaningful.