They're banned because your GM is lazy. Close thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every rule in our 'tome' has to have the Reason behind it, the GM 'at the time's take and has room for discussions. In a nearly 40 year old group, there are a host of left overs from earlier incarnations. At one point, a Wizard could cast ANY spell she knew, just limited in spell count. They didn't see that as a problem (no wizard players) until I helped them move to 3.0. Foolish of me as I play the main Wizard currently.
House Rules should be talked about, but the GM should have veto power over his game. I disallow a lot of 'time' magic due to it hurting my head to keep up with. After our last experience, we ruled that 'he who wanted it' could run it: just volunteer! It has been 8-9 years and no one dares.
Are GMs weak for banning things? Not if it makes them not want to run! They should make it known and have better reasons than just 'no'. One of our GMs effectively banned naval adventures because she didn't Grok the rules! She ran a sky pirates series a few years back, having finally understanding a 3pp set of rules. Growth is good.
As a DM who made some SERIOUS changes to my own campaign I'd say there is probably a reason he chose to limit what happens at his table, and the list you are looking at probably started as a "black list" of things he seen be abused and swore would never again be allowed at his table. Thus your challenge to him of "But WHY!?!" is getting met with a "Because I said so!"
Honestly if you seen the full list of things not allowed at my table you would be shocked...but then there is an equally full list of things which have been buffed to work better and fill in the holes created by those omissions which my players love. In our case the changes were pretty carefully thought out and well balanced. Is this same true of your DM? Is he simply being cautious? Is he just being a jerk? The only real way to know any of this is to simply try out his campaign and see for yourself.
Personally I'd give such a campaign 3 game sessions to see what direction he is going with this. This of course assumes everyone is getting along and it is not immediately obvious that you are in the wrong place within the first hour you get there and are like, "Wow...this guy is a real jerk."
If in those first few games sessions you are like, "Nope...outta here." it leaves open the door for you to have met other gamers, some of whom may have felt the same way and are looking for a new gaming group. Or the DM may feel "My table, my rules. If you want to DM I'll play by your rules." This is more or less the approach I took as a DM.
When I DM we are playing a low magic / gritty style game with some serious limitations on magic / magic items and the system has been rebalanced to assume combat is a dangerous affair. If the players don't like this they are welcome to find another gaming troupe or simply offer for one of them to DM. I'm easy either way, but don't sit at the table I've spent a lot of time preparing to run a particular way (which you will likely never seen again) and complain about it. And God forbid, don't tell me it was done wrong. NOPE. It was done DIFFERENTLY, and that difference was not an accident.
Really it comes down to a simply question of if the environment he is offering is one in which everyone is having fun. Forget about everything else you've seen in other groups and give a chance to this new concept he is putting forth. It may be the most fun you've ever had, with new friends made in the process. And in the worse case scenario? Look for a different group and consider it a lesson learned.
The main problem I have is the apparent attitude that the OP is met with when he asked about it. Maybe I'm just used to playing with the same group for 30 years. We're all friends. Friends talk to each other and explain things. If this is a new group, it wouldn't hurt to give it a try, but if the GM has the mentality of "It's my way or the highway", I'd just head on out. That kind of attitude is counter-productive to a fun GROUP experience. Nobody likes a self-important jerk... especially if he's the ones making up all the rules and doesn't care (apparently) at all about what anyone else wants. The GM is the one who puts the game together, but if you plan on making that many drastic changes, you should discuss it all with your players while coming up with the concept. Otherwise, you may end up doing a lot of work to sit and play by yourself.
Personally, while I definitely agree with Chuck Mount, I would tell such a DM to do the same thing I did: Print it out as a players survival guide to the campaign, one copy for each player, and encourage them to take it home and read it over during the next couple of weeks. The argument that you have put it all together in a website doesn't work as well as you might think because there will always be a few that argue that they don't have reliable access to the internet. I had one gentleman for example that worked on a military installation where the internet was not accessible. Well it was, but was heavily monitored for security reasons. As a result he loved the hard copy.
One of the biggest complaints I hear about home brews and heavily modified house rules seems to always come back to the argument of "I didn't know about that ahead of time, and thus could not adjust my play style." Acknowledge this well in advance and create a well worded handout. This allows your players to figure out early on if they want in or not.
I'd point out that this is no different from a player saying, "I want to game with you, but I won't do so unless we are using the "Kobold Guide to Completely Overhauling the D20 Magic System" as a standard for the campaign. At which point the DM will either refuse to consider it, check it out and decide yes or no, or accept it sight unseen. Either way, everyone has the opportunity to be informed in advance, it is up to them to take advantage of the opportunity do so.
I'd also mention this opportunity to be informed (when handled such as I'm suggesting) is absolutely no different than when supplements like Pathfinder Unchained was released and everyone in the party too a look to see if they wanted to use it. Some groups loved it and implemented it the same day, where as others hated it and refused to allow it at their table. I see this as very little difference. Now, in the spirit of fairness, do most DM's go to this extent to offer their house rules in advance, and in such a well documented format as what I've suggested? The unfortunate answer is no, and from which is where we see 99% of the angst coming from such customized settings.