In my experience, a DM who tries to limit what players do from the very start is going to be a bad DM—they are the kind of DM who lacks the creativity to make something unexpected work for their world; are the kind of DM who is going to be inflexible and see the game as “theirs” rather than a collaborative story; and they are the kind of DM who is going to cause problems throughout the campaign whenever something does not go exactly their way.

That is not to say every DM who imposes restrictions is like that—but the overwhelming majority of DMs who favour restrictions I have played under or talked with decidedly are. And, as in all things, there are degrees.  A restriction of “please play a race from Eberron” is effectively no restriction at all given how many racial options there are on that plane; a restriction of “please play one of these 4 grimdark races from this third party supplement and nothing else”, which is decidedly not and the potential DM had zero takers on the campaign.

Still, unless I knew the DM really well and trusted them completely, I would see this as a yellow flag.  Perhaps not something that would necessarily break my desire to join a campaign, but certainly something that would cause my guards to go up.

So, hmmm. 

I am a DM or GM or whatever the rules of that game say that I am. I don't do the other stuff. I have issues with control, lol.

in 40 years, I have maybe seven or eight times in total been told that it wasn't fair.  Had someone who wanted to do a werewolf character, and had to inform them that lycanthropy was a nasty curse that pretty much ensured they would be dead and mindless within six months.

I have always limited heritages in my games except fo the "open" ones where there are no restrictions on anything and the whole point is always a dungeon crawl -- no world interaction.

I have always had "new heritages" come available based on the actions of the PCs -- so suddenly a given group now is an option. I never have more than 25 "human like" kinds of people in total on the world, and they all have to have a place in it, a basis, a foundation. So fundamentally I have to limit the number of playable choices for heritage out the door.

I have frequently limited classes.  Early on, I hated illusionists and assassins (who were pretty much the only actual subclasses in the game at the time), but not so much these days. The artificer isn't generally included because I don't like the mechanical function of the class -- and they do require a certain zeitgeist "in-game" to have a place, much like the Blood Knight. There needs to be a reason they exist in the world, a way of grounding them in it.

I have blocked spells, I have had "fake rules", where I said something was blocked but it wasn't.  I don't often allow wish because holy cow, I am evil.  But when I do, and it is used, there is a lot going on there.  New campaign coming up, there are five ways to get a wish: a contest to claim a chalice, a genuine honest to goodness elemental Power, a boon from the Powers That Be, any one of seven magical rings, and a secret chair in a secret place that is dangerous to sit upon.

That's it. But Wishes through them are overwhelmingly powerful.

I have some changes to summoning spells, because they are done via rituals now. 

I have rewritten all the classes, all the allowed peoples, and most of the magic system. To say my game has limits on what folks want is an understatement, lol, even though I have something that is going to be somewhat similar to anything they might want to create. Seriously -- I put a lot of effort into trying to make all of that possible -- I even finally (after 4 years and three different prior attempts) figured out how to bring in Druids. It was my own preconceptions that were hurting me -- I was too narrow on the archetype.

I gutted multiclass characters. Like, so heavily it is kind of sad. Still possible, but they are not "normal rules". They are more old style, and have serious limits (the biggest of which is Affinity).

all of that -- all the things folks are supposed to not like. And yet, even when you step outside my regular players, I *never* have to worry about finding players too much. Might take me a bit, I grant.  But that is where three paragraphs about each class, each people comes in handy. Mini stories that give their flavor. and, of course, the setting itself and the campaign.

and that's the point of all of this. I create a story. A big story, a whole thing. I bounce through genres like they were a pinball machine, and I chop up popular culture into a patchwork quilt of reference, innuendo and straight played excitement.  Then i set that story down and and I let them do what they want.  Even if what they want is to ignore the story entirely. 

That is why there is a big ole book for the setting. That is why I am creating a new Handbook.  There is a lot there, but most of it is for new people to the game, or to allow others to drop stuff in. Takes new to table players about 2 hours to fully get caught up -- it isn't *that* different.  It isn't that restrictive. and it all has a reason.

A Witch, a Runewright, and a Nomad walk into a bar...

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Linklite >>

If the DM has the control of the world, and the players have full control of the character, then how does it follow that there's no point if the DM can't dictate player choices in character?

In my games, I don't hand characters to players. I create the world, and the players bring their characters.

 
The DM isn’t “dictating” player choices by saying there’s no Species X in their world, they’re just restricting one thing as it fits into their world. I restrict certain species all the time, usually based on geography as certain species don’t live in certain areas of my world or only live in other areas. The way I look at it, if you travel more than a certain distance then you’re no longer a 1st level character. Therefore there’s no 1st level characters of Species X in certain kingdoms. There’s nothing wrong with that. I also ruled that there are absolutely none of some species in my world, there’s nothing wrong with that either.

 And this is something done do improve the game overall, not because of your personal tastes. I don't have Plasmoids in mine. Not because I hate them and despise the idea of someone else having the temerity to want to play it, but because they don't really fit into the place I'm running (lack of space for their civilisation, being the main problem). They'll never turn up in my games (well, unless I go Spelljammer, etc). If they really want a Plasmoid? The onus is on them to make them fit, to find a reason why they're the only one in that campaign.

That's a different ballgame to what I'm objecting to, and have stated in multiple posts so far. Restricting things to make the game better (eg there just isn't the space in the world for every option, you're wanting a party of Wizards as the theme of this campaign, etc) is one thing, restricting things because "I don't like it when other players make different choices to me and now I finally have the power to stop them" is another. 

DMs should be (and are) free to say whatever they like is restricted from their table in any particular campaign, for whatever reason, period.
But to some extent so are players - that's what session 0 is supposed to be for so that this stuff can be discussed and compramises reached or an agreement to agree to disagree and that the group is not a good fit is made.

If the DM doesn't want Artificers in the campaign, regardless of the reason (Whether it's because they just don't like them or it doesn't fit the world flavour.)
Players are also free to say in session 0 well okay but in that case can we not have anyone make an elf because I think they're well overdone / pointy ears creep me out / whatever reason.

Whether the other players / the DM agree to all the requested restrictions is a matter for discussion.
I've banned pretty much every race from spelljammer from all of my tables - because I dislike them. I don't want to play with blob characters, have to discribe bug men (I think they're disgusting and creep me out, I just don't enjoy it) - The same way I think a player requesting no one play a custom lineage spider person if they hate / fear spiders is reasonable.

DMs and players are both free to say 'Hey I don't want to play with this' in session 0 and it's up to both after that discussion if they want to buy in or not. This idea that players should expect to be able to play whatever they want even if it lowers the enjoyment the DM is having from the game, but the same does not apply to the DM is rediculous. 

If the DM said 'I don't want any adult material in my game, no Sex / lewd' because I don't like it or it makes me uncomfortable or I don't find dming that kind of content fun, or any other reason, but a player really wanted it, they should be able to make the DM accept having that? HELL NO - So why would you apply the logic that the DM should be forced to accept it just because the point of contention is a class or a race? 

My two scents on the other question at hand:

I don't think these kind of restrictions / discussions have a substantial impact on the number of people wanting to DM - The biggest problem I see is that the CR system is a joke, so much additional effort has to go in to make encounters balanced / meaningful after all the power creep that it's just too much work for most people. Pick up any of the premade adventures and run them for a party with newer character options and you will see.
I played mad mage with a party of 4 and repeatedly ended encounters (at the level recommended by the book) on the first turn of combat if they weren't substantially altered by the DM. Nothing by the book ever lasted more than a round.

Why is the DM not allowed to have tastes and preferences, Linklite?

Why does the DM have to sacrifice their fun for the sake of allowing their players to play any kind of zany nonsensical screwiness they feel like?

Where does the compromise and collaboration come in?  Or are players simply allowed to dictate the entire game to DMs and use the DM as a convenient computer program to run RPG Maker on?

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr>>

In my experience, a DM who tries to limit what players do from the very start is going to be a bad DM

I find that somewhat insulting.

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr>>

In my experience, a DM who tries to limit what players do from the very start is going to be a bad DM

I find that somewhat insulting.

 
It was not meant to be - and the following paragraph specifically clarifies that I am not trying to make a blanket comment suggesting that competent DMs can impose restrictions.  Additionally, there is clarification that minor restrictions are less likely to indicate potential problems than severe ones.  Finally, I ended the post by noting severe restrictions could constitute a yellow flag—specifically not going so far as to say they would be a red flag.

So, truly, no offence meant—except perhaps to some particular folks I know in the real world who very much fall into the “I want to control everything” style of DMing.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Why is the DM not allowed to have tastes and preferences, Linklite?

Why does the DM have to sacrifice their fun for the sake of allowing their players to play any kind of zany nonsensical screwiness they feel like?

Where does the compromise and collaboration come in?  Or are players simply allowed to dictate the entire game to DMs and use the DM as a convenient computer program to run RPG Maker on?

Where does compromise come in if the DM simply declares "I think elephant people are stupid, so don't even ask me if you can play one"? If, for the purposes of worldbuilding, a DM wants to say exclude the Eberron and Ravnica races because they want to go with a more classic high-fantasy setting, that's reasonable. Or, alternativley, it's reasonable for someone running Shadow of the Dragon Queen to ask everyone to choose from the Dragonlance race pool. If someone has a serious bug phobia and doesn't want to keep describing and picturing human/insect hybrids, that's also reasonable. Just saying you don't like the concept and are dropping a ban hammer because of that is another matter, and I agree it's a red flag that the DM might be very heavy-handed in curating the narrative of the game based on their personal tastes.

Also, you're rather quickly jumping from "is the DM allowed to arbitrarily dictate what races the players can use?" to "is the DM allowed any control of the plot at all?", which really does not track with this discussion.

Quote from Linklite >>

If they're just doing generic FR campaign and makes the same restriction because they love Dwarves, I'm probably going to back out. Not because I hate Dwarves, but because that's a prelude to a campaign where a DM thinks it reasonable to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy. 

What an utterly bizarre take

DM: "Hey gang, I'm starting a campaign that, for story reasons, will involve all the PCs being dwarves from the same clan"
Link: "Are you going to tell me what spells my bard will take, too?"
DM: "Umm, what?"

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Linklite >>

If they're just doing generic FR campaign and makes the same restriction because they love Dwarves, I'm probably going to back out. Not because I hate Dwarves, but because that's a prelude to a campaign where a DM thinks it reasonable to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy. 

 

What an utterly bizarre take

DM: "Hey gang, I'm starting a campaign that, for story reasons, will involve all the PCs being dwarves from the same clan"
Link: "Are you going to tell me what spells my bard will take, too?"
DM: "Umm, what?"

Uh, that's an objectively different scenario since it's about a specific campaign plot rather than the DM simply dictating their preferences as law for what picks the players are allowed to make.

Here's the thing: the DM can totally arbitrarily dictate what species the players use.  At last count there's over a hundred different species from a massive pool collected across numerous wildly different and often clashing sources.  Not only can a DM cull that morass, a DM should cull that morass.  A game world in which every single species in every single book across every single edition of D&D exists at the same time is a game world where species is an untenable blob and none of the individual species matter.  if that's what you're going for, an interdimensional melting pot where hundreds and hundreds of disparate peoples are living in tandem?  Go for it.  But there's something to be said for a curated world that makes sense within the scope of the adventure being offered.  if that means species restrictions, subclass restrictions, or even entire classes off limits?  Well heck - then I guess it depends on how bad I want to play that game on offer as opposed to making whatever my girlish little heart imagines with no regard whatsoever for the game the DM is offering to run.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Linklite >>

If they're just doing generic FR campaign and makes the same restriction because they love Dwarves, I'm probably going to back out. Not because I hate Dwarves, but because that's a prelude to a campaign where a DM thinks it reasonable to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy. 

 

What an utterly bizarre take

DM: "Hey gang, I'm starting a campaign that, for story reasons, will involve all the PCs being dwarves from the same clan"
Link: "Are you going to tell me what spells my bard will take, too?"
DM: "Umm, what?"

 

Uh, that's an objectively different scenario since it's about a specific campaign plot rather than the DM simply dictating their preferences as law for what picks the players are allowed to make.

And what is the difference, exactly, between a DM explicitly saying "You will all be dwarves for story reasons" and a DM saying "You will all be dwarves in this campaign?"

Like, what do you think "story reasons" means, other than "this is the direction I've chosen for the campaign?"

I think we're getting in the weeds with what is obviously a difference in playstyles. To some, any curtailing of choice goes against their brand of fun. To others, limitations in choice supports their brand of fun. Neither of these is wrong. What is wrong, in my estimation, is the value judgment going on that one is bad and the other is good, and that the people in one camp must conform to the preferences of the other.

Not all DMs are good matches for every player. If someone doesn't like that I have banned fey races in my semi-modern, urban campaign, they are welcome to find another DM. And if I am uncomfortable at a table whose DM allows "anything goes" homebrew, I am welcome to leave - and have. That's not my jam. There's plenty of D&D out there for me to find a table that is, in fact, my jam. 

Quote from AttackMatrix >>

The hobby is facing a DM crisis. There aren't enough of us.

I've a few theories about why that is but one concerns how the game has seen a shift in orientation. Some are left not really wanting to run games because it's getting harder and harder to find players willing to put aside all those choices now available to them, give up some of the autonomy typically afforded them during the character creation process, and conceptualize something that instead fits the campaign's setting.

With periodically released playtest material presenting players with new options and new feats, players are spoiled for choice. But shouldn't players, as I said elsewhere, accept that the setting revolves around the sun particular to it? Not them? D&D is not a role-playing video game made to simulate one vast world. It is a game made to simulate many.

I did not vote because you tailored the questions to PCs - nothing there for me as DM
How okay are you with class or race restrictions?
I’m okay with limiting class and race. I’ve just done that for a campaign where the party is a bunch of misfit anti-hero’s so no Paladin option
and in general I don’t want PCs as flying penguins, so yes there are limits as to what I’ll accept

you want to be a warforged in my forgotten realms setting? Explain how you arrived without a worm hole - give me a really good reason why and I’ll consider it, also Common in this setting will not be the common you know, expect issues with your ability to communicate 

I'm more than ok with DM placing such limit in their campaign and even see it as a challenge or opportunity to build a character up to spec.

Damn, this poll changed big time since this AM.

Comments suggest that there needs to be a reason that makes sense within the world as a whole for it. And that some degree of flexibility is important.

DM-wise, I've got things I am and aren't willing to work towards.  I set those out very clearly and give reasoning... 

Sometimes it's simply "not the flavour of Campaign I'm prepared to run".  I don't have gunpowder or "tech" in my worlds, I don't like it, it's not the fantasy world I feel motivated to write and that's not going to work out long term.  If you want to be an Artificer, other Campaigns are available.  RP/Combat/Exploration ~40/40/20% split is what I aim for, but...  that's open to everyone's mood and where the session goes, but that's an overall "Campaign" aim, not per-session.  Ultimately Epic Adventures and collaborative storytelling. 

I'm also explicit about no hate-speech and bigotry.

That last one "fell down" quite depressingly recently, but 5/6ths of the players were on board and player 6 isn't coming back.

As DM, I do the facilitation, writing VTT work etc. I'm not a "fun-vending" machine.  If you want to play in a world that I'm putting in work for, that's the "cost"/code of conduct etc. etc.  I'll happily work really hard to integrate your character aims, backstory and do so in a (hopefully) fun reactive/interactive world. 
If you don't want to play in my world because "no Spelljammer"that's fine, other games/Campaigns are available.

I don't really see a problem with either side of the argument, with the possible exception that the small subset of people I've seen in this thread that don't like DM's having "rules" for their Campaign's should really be doing something for the "DMing shortage" themselves and stepping up to run games - the community as a whole benefits that way. 

Quote from Yurei1453>>

A game world in which every single species in every single book across every single edition of D&D exists at the same time is a game world where species is an untenable blob and none of the individual species matter. 

One of the big issues you regularly have in your posting is your tendency to see issues through an all or nothing lens—one that often hurts your credibility even when I agree with your underlying points.

In this case, you are making up and responding to a situation that no one on this thread is actually advocating for.  You have made up a fictional duality that pretends your only options are the DMs limiting character choices at creation and a total melting pot which is, fairly obviously, a nonsensical and false dichotomy.

In the real world, it is really, really easy to give players unlimited options and still keep a tightly controlled world.  You simply say “hey, you can choose any racial option” then work those choices into the world.  Someone wants to play a centaur? Just add some herds to the plains and you have centaurs.  They want to play a Simic Hybrid? They’re a unique lab experiment gone wrong. Minotaur where that doesn’t fit quite thematically?  Maybe they’re an traveller from a distant land. Etc.

Just because every option is available doesn’t mean all those options make it into the final game - it just means you take the options folks actually picked and added them in.  Adding 1-4 new races, some of which can be easily explained away as one-offs barely results in any change to the world… and suggesting the end result of open choice is “an untenable blob” is laughably hyperbolic. 

Which, to be clear, is not to say that your way of playing is wrong as a matter of objective truth, just to point out maybe you could be a bit more understanding and less ridiculously dismissive of others.

Quote from Jokei >>

I don't really see a problem with either side of the argument, with the possible exception that the small subset of people I've seen in this thread that don't like DM's having "rules" for their Campaign's should really be doing something for the "DMing shortage" themselves and stepping up to run games - the community as a whole benefits that way. 

 This presupposes that they don't already DM. I don't think it's fair to insinuate they're not "contributing," or to suggest that a person must be a DM if they feel a certain way about things. Forever Players have the right to their opinions, too. There's bound to be DMs out there who can provide the game they're looking for.

On that topic...This also hasn't been addressed much, but I'm not actually convinced we have a DM "crisis." Yes, more people tend to play than DM, but that's kind of the nature of the hobby. Players will probably always vastly outnumber DMs. And if anything, I've seen a huge increase in LFP posts in the last two years as opposed to LFG posts. Granted, I'm not exactly tracking the metrics, but as D&D continues to grow in popularity and awareness, the DM population will also grow. My two cp there. 

Yes, it is a presupposition...   I hope I haven't aggrieved anyone too much with it. The unfairness of it.  Lazily worded on my part?  How should I offer contrition?

As per "DMing shortage" it's almost as if I put that in quotation marks for a reason.