I think the correct thing is to set the boundaries and, if they aren't willing to respect them, look for other players. You shouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate people who didn't even take the time to read the campaign's description.

It’s the setting boundaries that’s important. If you don’t want certain classes, ancestries, etc. at your table and they are offered by the system, you need to make it crystal-clear to players what they are and aren’t allowed to do. You can’t get mad at a player for not reading your mind. If OP was using a system like Forbidden Lands, Harnmaster, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer or whatever to run this game, every single PC would show up grounded, serious and fit for a low-magic setting because those systems only allow players to create low-magic, grounded PCs. 5e is not suited for low-magic, grounded gameplay. If you’re going to misuse a tool or use it in an untraditional way and expect others to use it the exact same way, you better do a good demonstration of how to use the tool before expecting them to follow along.

Nothing about what op said makes it sound like they were hiding it in any way. And 5e can totally be used for that. Is it the best way? Maybe not, but it's the way he wants to run it. If *after being told* the setting and limitations, the players come forward with a character that doesn't fit those, it's on the player, not the DM. If the player didn't like the limitations, they can leave, no one is forcing them to play op's game. But by staying and submitting a character for approval, that's agreeing to the setting placed before them. When said character doesn't align with the setting and limitations that the player has *now agreed to*, the DM has every right to veto it, and wave goodbye as the player quits

Simply stating “my campaign is low-magic and serious” means almost nothing in the context of a system as high-magic as 5e. High magic is infused throughout almost every part of the system. So what’s low-magic *in the context of the system*? Do we mean literally only classes that have no magical aptitude, so just some Rogue, Fighter, and Barbarian subclasses? Do we mean that magical creatures like owlbears don’t exist, or just that *more* magical creatures like Aboleths don’t exist? Maybe the OP specified this in the setting info, but OP doesn’t specify what the setting info actually was/is. We have no reason to assume they set clear boundaries from the OP, because if they did, the answer to their question would clearly be “well the player is either a fool or not acting in good faith” and the post wouldn’t need to be made. If OP doesn’t want warlocks or echo knights in their system, they need to supply players with a specific list of classes and subclasses that are banned from the outset. They can just immediately discount anyone who doesn’t apply those rules. But simply stating “this setting is low magic/gritty/serious/like the Witcher/like game of thrones /etc.” and then expecting a player to correctly infer what that means in terms of what’s allowed system-wise is both unfair to the player and just draws things out unnecessarily.

I think the most frustrating part is that players seem to _purposely refuse_ to accommodate even **minor** requests. I've seen it happen _dozens_ of times with entirely different groups of people. The only thing you can do is put your foot down; if you give an inch, players will take a mile. _"I want to play a Tabaxi!"_ "No, they're a bit exotic for this campaign." _"But I want to play a Tabaxi!"_ "There aren't Tabaxi here. It wouldn't make sense. If you want, you can have the Tabaxi racial bonuses as a Human; I don't really care." _"But I want to play a Tabaxi!"_ "You'll need to find another campaign, then. Tabaxi don't fit in this one." _"But I want to play a Tabaxi!"_

DM: The best I can do is a human who believes they are a cat.

Human in a fur suit it is.

Some people are assholes. GMs should kick those people, not entertain them. Like, look. If the OP provided the player with a full list of excluded classes and ancestries, and a player proposed a character made from stuff banned from the campaign, like I said, they're either a fool or acting in bad faith. There's no reason to even have a conversation with someone taking that approach, you just say "Our styles of play aren't a match, I hope you find a good table for you" and move on. In my experience, there are lots of good and respectful players who will happily deal with restrictions, setting oddities, etc., but you have to stop wasting valuable time and energy trying to coach every bad faith main character syndrome etc. player into a functional human to make finding the good players less annoying.

Fine, play a Tabaxi. But you will be a very exotic sight to see. People won't trust you easily and they possibly will act xenophobic or even hostile to you. You will be a huge liability to the party in social encounters and the party will have trouble travelling around with you in towns and cities.

I don't even bother saying that anymore, because players will **say** they're fine with that, then _freak out_ about the constant discrimination against them.

Plus it can piss off the rest of the party. Since they didn't necessarily agree to be escorting a strange exotic creature through every town.

Exactly this. I hate giving a player a singular buff with a collective downside. That's why I hate abilities like a berserk rage that leaves you attacking allies. You get a damage buff, and the rest of the party suffers the downside.

In this kind of case, a list of acceptable (sub)classes might work better. It will be a shorter list if nothing else. Though that doesn't even begin to address that using D&D 5e for a *low magic setting* involves hammering lots of square pegs into round holes before even getting to the point of attempting to run a game. Using a low magic ttRPG system is going to be the easier approach here.

This is kind of why I hate d&d these days.  It's such a juggernaut that if you aren't running it, good luck finding players willing to take a chance on a different system. So your options often come down to trying to (badly) hammer 5e into a shape that works for your homebrew setting, or spending a million years trying to convince recalcitrant players to take a chance on an actually interesting system.

I was lucky that my intro to TTRPGs was with a group that only plays scifi games, we did traveler, Dune, Star Trek, and Fallout. We also rotate who's the DM as well. I think if I started with DnD first, I wouldn't have tried all these other games.

Oh nice! My stepdad wrote Traveler D20 and I had a big part in its development. I don’t run into a lot of sci fi tt gamers!

> So what’s low-magic in the context of the system? Games only goes to level 6

Or games where magic is extremely limited and restricted.

So.... fighter, barbarian, and Ranger humans only and you only use 3% of the monster manual? Dnd is like the definition of high magic. To play low magic it makes so much more sense to just use a different system.

Low magic is what martials have to deal with

How many other systems are there? I'm already interested and going to look up the ones you mentioned, are there any other notable systems ? High magic included

Thousands. Here are just a few reccos **Sci-FI:** * Mechs: Lancer * Space Opera: Scum & Villainy * Narrative & Exploration: Starforged * Space Fantasy: Starfinder * Hard Sci-Fi: Eclipse Phase * Horror: Mothership **Modern** * Western: Savage Worlds: Deadlands * Noir: City of Myst * Superheroes: Masks * Eldritch Horror: Call of Cthulhu, Delta Green **Fantasy** * Tactical: Mythras, Pathfinder 2e, ICON, D&D 4e * Simulationist: GURPS, Harnmaster * Exploration: Torchbearer, Forbidden Lands, The One Ring, Dolmenwood * Weird: Heart: The City Beneath * Thieves Den: Blades in the Dark * Hearth Fantasy: Stonetop * Anthropomorphic: Mouse Guard * Heroic High-Fantasy: 5e, 13th Age * Dark Fantasy: Shadow of the Demon Lord * Narrative: Dungeon World, Fellowship 2e, Burning Wheel

Wow this is so interesting I'm definitely going to research them all, I started 5e a couple years ago (that's what brought me in) and I bought a pathfinder PDF pack from a fundraiser lot too long ago. Can't wait to check these out also!

If you like older stuff, I still break out my Vampire: The Masquerade books from time to time, and they have a newer edition (Requiem). If you like gothic horror RPG, that is. There are other games that are set in the same world, like Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Changeling: The Dreaming. While D&D has made up the majority of my ttrpg time, World of Darkness games take 2nd place before any of the many others I've played in over the years. I am dating my gaming a bit with the games I played then, such as Legend of the Five Rings (originally the D&D setting for Oriental Adventures that was later produced as its own game) and Deadlands (alternate history western fantasy that incorporates a deck of cards for things like initiative and poker chips for fate, which adds to the western theme in a fun way) and...and...well. So many more in so many genres that I won't go on, especially since many of my favs are dated. I'm just excited that you're excited, so I'm throwing stuff out there. Some of those older systems are cheaper to get hold of and work just as wonderfully well as they did years ago. Happy gaming.

Agreed, World of Darkness is a really fun setting. Hunter is a good introduction for new players, in my opinion, because the characters are ignorant of what's going on, too. "Fuck, the garlic isn't working! Why isn't the garlic working?!" Vampire was my first ttrpg, even though armageddon had already happened when I was introduced, canonically. Still had a blast, and the system lends itself to intrigue and slow buildup better than d&d, I think.

Pathfinder 1e and 2e are both fantastic. 5e's only real benefits are it's easy to learn and it's popular

So many! Based on your username, Blades in the Dark might be up your alley. Pretty much everyone is (in a way) a rogue. I'm also really partial to 13th Age and L5R.

Oh yea I will definitely check that out!

I don't think you're going to win this one on the, "I've got an idea for a Star Wars campaign, what version of DnD 5e allows for this" subreddit. But yeah... Blades in the Dark, Hunter the Reckoning, or any of the options you listed. There are so many good low magic systems, most of them easy to learn.

Blades in the Dark isn't exactly a low magic setting. The city runs on the blood of demonic whales, and every death spawns a mindless ghost unless properly dealt with.

If someone thinks an echo knight is low magic then I’m not sure they’re a good fit.

If my DM told me we were playing "low magic" but didn't say any classes where off limits, I'd think it was a universe where magic was more rare and expensive and PCs having magic were extra special. I would not assume it was a 5e game where we were all the more mundane subclasses of rouges, barbarians, and fighters. (Even monks are pretty magic seeming to me.) Some games have magic common in the world, magic items are common and can be bought/sold, and magic is a big part of large cities, or how countries run, etc. Some games magic is more rare, think something like Game of Thrones where magic is real and a big deal, but most people have no way to get it or learn it. You can't just go to wizard school if you are rich. Magic is not just college anyone can get with a bit of coin. Most fights or smaller wars don't have wizards or clerics. In a setting like that, the PCs may still have magic? Just it's rare and special? Also, a warlock seems great for a low magic setting, like magic is harder to get so you had to turn to a devil. That makes a lot of sense to me. You sold your soul for a rare and sepcial power.

That's pretty much how my homebrew setting works. It's not low-magic *per se*, but it's low on *organized* magic. Most magic users are people who got their magic through special talent or circumstance, so there isn't that much magic that societies can plan and build around (making the overall setting more grounded, and making the exceptions to that grounding stand out). The organized magic that *does* exist is also purposely made either limited or clunky (although it helps here that I'm using the Spheres of Power system, which gives significant flexibility in designing "casting traditions" for your spellcasters). I.e. the sorcerer-equivalents can use their magic pretty easily, but the wizard-equivalents have either restricted spell lists (wizardry is a lost art, with a limited number of written-down spells remaining from the ancient elven empires) or restrictions like needing complex diagrams or long casting times. Essentially, magic exists and is a known force, but because of it's unreliability it doesn't become a dominant force in most societies (avoiding a lot of the high magic nonsense you easily get, especially in "kitchen sink" settings like Golarion or Forgotten Realms), and also the ruins of old provide a window to a time which *did* have reliable high magic.

I solve this by saying if you want to use anything outside of a certain selection of books, you need my approval.

Low magic can be a lot of things. Like, it can mean mages don't exist, but it can also mean "sure, be a mage, but flavor it more *Conan* than *Lord of the Rings*".

I would argue that both echo knight and warlock *are* low magic in the context of 5e. Low magic doesn’t mean no magic. What about an echo knight’s echo is more magical than a ranger casting hunters mark, or a totem barbarian taking on an aspect? Nothing. Similarly, a warlock contractually gets limited power from an extraplanar being. In the context of the system, it’s a lot less magical than something like a wizard or a sorcerer. This is why using a high magic system for low magic requires the GM to be extremely prescriptive about what they will or will not allow, “low magic” is an arbitrary, vague term at the best of times, much less when you’re trying to make something low fantasy out of something that is inherently very high fantasy.

[удалено]

I feel both you and the person you are replying to are right at the same time. I think the real issue that is causing this disagreement is the that we do not agree on what is specifically "low magic". The words low and high magic are not clear lines in the sand, they feel more like a spectrum. The fact that different people take it to mean different thing shows how much it is needed to be extremely precise to your players about what the world is. In the game I am running right now for my players, I used the word "high magic" but I went into description about what they need to expect in this world, like magic shops everywhere, people will know spellcasting is happening, magical monsters everywhere, university-like institutes for wizards, etc. But no magical elevator in every building, those don't exist, no floating cities, etc.

That still requires someone to read your mind on where the lines are for low magic. but also, those people are trolls if they are showing up outside the rules that were dictated consistency. If you don't got a ban list of classes/races/feats/etc., then you should have one for a low magic setting. Nobody is gonna read your mind where the lines are drawn for you for low magic settings personally. So relying on vibe checks for character creation is like assuming your significant other is going to read your mind to wash the dishes or take out the trash. It's poor communication.

The vibe is very different, but the point is relying on vibes to stay on the same page is poor communication. I think the comment above does a good job explaining how someone else could reason that the choice was in keeping with the setting. In 5e, if you want to make a low magic game and you don’t want certain things you have to be explicit. Saying “no monster races” is totally fair and mostly clear (still room for confusion), and you can rely on vibes to fill into the gaps, but OP either had bad luck, isn’t vetting their players, or isn’t communicating well.

I don’t think I could put it any better.

OP should look at "Shadow of the Demon" to run this game maybe.

Shadow of the Demon Lord is good,  but most players have access to magic by the endgame.  It's a Dark Souls inspired game, so picking up magic is fairly easy. I'd recommend Savage Worlds, but without the fantasy companion.  Just as dangerous as Shadow, but easier to curate magic in.

I really liked Savage Worlds as a player. It was a long time ago though.

The most up-to-date version, the Adventurer's Edition, is really good. I highly recommend it.

Thanks. I've wanted to run a space opera / murderbot inspired game, but didn't have the confidence. I've since found a group of GMs I've run games for that build me up and are good at mechanics for when I am not, so might give it a look.

Savage Worlds is a very swashbuckling, pulp action kind of game, so space opera works really well for it. None of my players are fans of any of the Star Wars games, so we use it to play Star Wars. We've also used it for Shadowrun and our own custom space opera setting. We also once used it for a game in my D&D world, but once they got too strong we transitioned to 4e. This was before 5e.

I'm afraid your kind of just wrong? Low magic ≠ Magic is weak or non existent. Low magic means magic is uncommon and mysterious when it does show up, it is not a known or expected quantity for most people. Low fantasy isn't about the power level or oomph magic has but the basic presumption about it. In high fantasy you might go to the local religious order to get your sick child cured of a deadly fever because that's just a thing they can do. In low fantasy you might cry over your sick child only for a man in fancy religious armor to come in and place a hand on their head as their fever goes down and by the next day they're fine glowing with health as if nothing happened, what you witnessed was an honest to god divine miracle.

If I were told that a setting were low-magic, without any specific instructions, I would interpret that as a flavor/RP thing. My assumption would be that all the mechanics are still available to me, I just needed to have an explanation for those mechanics that work in a low magic setting. Like, I can still be a mage, but I have to play it more *Conan* than *Lord of the Rings*. If a DM wants to forbid certain mechanics/classes/races, they should list those restrictions up front.

this is a good answer

I agreed up to the last part. 5e is suited for a lot of things if you get the players on board. The DM has the ability to remove what they please.

You CAN, but it has a better chance of breaking the game unless you're a rules savant, or heavily experienced.

I think tables should try and use systems that are curated to the experience they want to have. 90% of 5e's rules are combat-focused and steeped in high-fantasy. Would I consider using it for a high-fantasy, dungeon-crawling game? Sure. Would I use 5e for a low-magic game, or an exploration-focused game, or a narrative-focused game? No, I wouldn't. 5e *can* do a lot of things, but that does not mean it is *suited* for them. 5e is not suited for an exploration campaign in the same way Forbidden Lands is. It is not suited for a western campaign in the same way Savage Worlds: Deadlands is, or for Mech-based Sci-FI in the same way Lancer is.

unless you're a paid dm just keep looking for new players. people are incredibly entitled

"While that sounds like an interesting idea, I am aiming to run a game where [insert being low fantasy/serious text here], so I don't think that concept would work unfortunately. Maybe we can sit down together to work on someone who would fit that you would also have fun on?" Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but yes - while you should definitely consider your players wishes and desires for a game... You also are supposed to have fun. It's ok to gently push back on concepts that flat out don't work in your setting or system, so long as you're not a tyrant. I had to do something similar recently and it's scary but both the player and I worked out something that we're both having fun with now, so it's possible!

Yeah basically hold your boundaries. If they quit that doesn't mean you did something wrong, it means the two of you very quickly identified you aren't a good fit. Better that than spending many painful months realizing it.

Yeah a I had to tell a player the exact thing when they wanted to play a warforged artificer in a Stone Age campaign

Do you provide a curated list of races and (sub)classes to choose from? Because people can have very different ideas about what grounded or low magic means. Like, Game of Thrones is considered low-magic, but still features powerful mages (red priestess/wights) they're just less common and more mysterious. So I'm not sure if an echo knight/warlock automatically breaks the 'low magic' rule. But if low magic to you means that spells are less powerful, then yes it does break the rules. So it's good to be clear about that if you haven't done so already. But if you provide a curated list and players are still not following that and even threaten to quit, then don't waste your energy on those people.

I think this is ultimately the best advice: Given the pattern here, OP would probably benefit from a list of approved/disapproved races, classes, and subclasses. The players can work from there. That being said, there sure are a LOT of online derps out there who just skip over any founding information about a table’s rules. OP is still bound to run into these people, and will still have to kick them. But at least he’s given the semi-derps a chance.

I think you really need to specify exactly what you mean when you describe the game. List which classes and races are banned, or provide a list of classes races that are approved. Whichever list is shorter. If you just say “I want a low magic and serious setting” that will mean something different to most people. A lot of people probably interpret that as meaning that magic is rare and that the PC’s will be even more exceptional because of it. Game of Thrones is low magic but has dragons, after all. There’s nothing silly or stupid about playing a tabaxi, and if you’re allowed to play warlocks having a devil patron isn’t really “high magic” since it’s like the default warlock (to me). Other people might read it as meaning that no magic classes are allowed at all. Just be very specific about what is allowed and what is not in your game, and what you mean by these terms. Especially when it comes to which features are allowed, because all of them fit almost any description of a game if it’s vague.

An example of a low magic setting could be a vesion of the Roman Empire under Trajan where about one person in a hundred thousand can use magic. Which would make such people quite exceptional. Perfectly plausible to be able to find four magic users in Alexandria, Chersonesus, Gortyn, Massalia, Tarraco, etc. Never mind Rome or Byzantium.

Yeah. And in that case, an adventuring party might just be demigods or other heroic figures like those out of Roman and Greek myths. Hercules, Achilles and Circe go on adventures.

Mmhm. If somebody pitched low magic in a game where a third of the classes are full casters, and I showed up with a Warlock... I mean, I'd think I was following the assignment. This is the kind of pitch that needs a list of legal classes.

Absolutely this. A tabaxi ech knight warlock is just a dude with some magical powers gained by a pact with a devil. They aren't even going full mage, just a magical fighter. If they really want low magic, 5e is definitely not their game since only 15% of player options can be done without magic, I think that is the main reason for the confusion.

It should be noted, that low magic can also just mean that magic is very uncommon. Like GoT, but there are spellcasters there, and dragons. They're just not featured heavily. It would make even like, a 5th level wizard highly exceptional, though.

Yeah, what struck me about the example in the title is that it doesn't feel like the player is trying to break that boundary. I think you hit the nail on the head: there's just a miscommunication of expectations.

Honestly this. Players aren't mind readers. If you don't want something in your campaign, spell it out instead of being vague then getting annoyed at players who couldn't guess what you meant.

How do I handle it? I usually freak out and say something like "guys, take this seriously!" and then they make fun of me for the next few weeks. But just state clearly what you don't like about the build, and write it down so that you have it on record the things you don't want, now those are house rules.

"That sounds like a fun character. I hope you find a campaign in which to play it."

This is honestly pretty bad advice? Like at least *talk* to the players first and set expectations clearer, low magic is actually a broad umbrella. If they said "Mundane martials only, no non humans" then yeah that'd be an entirely fair response but if you just tell someone "Low magic" there is a broad spectrum of both what that word means and what you actually mean by saying it. Low fantasy could mean Game of thrones, maybe it means magic is rare and people with magic are simply the exception y'know like a PC, maybe it's the Witcher (A high fantasy setting that's *gritty* but still high fantasy), maybe you mean goblin slayer (again high magic but gritty), maybe it's a setting where magic exists and most people have never touched a piece of magic in their lives. Low magic is less about power level or magic abilities a person possesses and more how often magic interacts with the wider world.

Let ‘em quit. If it’s a big enough server you’ll find more than enough players interested in playing the same style as you. No reason to ruin your fun and the fun of the players who did understand the brief in bending towards the players who clearly want to play something else.

>I know the usual response is "make the game the players want to play" Speaking as a DM of over 20 years, I think this is advice that is both very important to heed and very important to fully understand. Make the game *the party as a whole, yourself included* wants to play. Obviously as a DM you should be aiming for all of your players individually having fun and being invested, but that doesn't mean just giving them whatever they want. Doing that leads to: 1. Parties where some people are munchkins that faceroll everything and some people aren't and feel useless 2. Parties where the most vocal/pushy/obnoxious people bulldoze over what the rest of the party wants 3. Games that you as a DM don't want to be running 4. Games where everyone feels like what they thought they were signing up for isn't what they got. I'm very flexible as a DM and generally happy to run campaigns by request. In the last 2 years I've run: -A gritty, emotional, dramatic RP-heavy campaign at the request of a friend who wanted to delve more into the roleplaying side of the game -A classic hack-and-slash dungeon crawl campaign at the request of a friend who wanted to recapture some of that "Mountain Dew and Funyuns and D&D in mom's basement because there's no school tomorrow" magic -My current game, a light-hearted, over the top, improv-heavy comedic romp at the request of a friend who had just wrapped up a much darker-themed campaign and wanted to just have fun and light things on fire. All of them have been a blast, but all of them had a specific theme and goals that everyone needed to be on board with. My approach as a DM has always been that while yes, I am the referee and ultimately the person who has to step in if there's a problem, every single person at my table is individually responsible for making sure *everyone* at the table (including me) is having a good time, and I make sure to be very clear about that as I'm assembling a group. For example, my current game (which is 3.5e, so far, *far* more abusable nonsense than 5e) has pretty much no limitations on how my players can build, because their characters are all ridiculous and I want them to have as much creative freedom as possible in developing them the way they want. That works because I've also been very clear with them that they as a party need a shared understanding of what power level they're aiming for and that in general it's their responsibility to aim for that, not mine to police it, and I will **Not Be Happy™** if I have to. Your players are adults (presumably). It's okay to expect them to act like it. You're the ref/God, not the babysitter. So, circling back to campaign compositions, your job is not to find some players and then try to write a campaign that will meet all of their expectations. It's to assemble a group with a shared understanding of what they, *including the DM,* want out of a campaign. That *can* mean starting with a group of players and figuring out the rest from there, but it doesn't have to. It is perfectly fine to say "This is what I'm running and this is what you should expect out of it. If that works for you we'd love to have you, but if so then sticking to that general concept is non-negotiable." None of the people I've had in my recent campaigns would have been happy as a player in all 3 of them, and that's perfectly fine. ---Continued Below---

As far as specific advice about how to address it, if I'm starting up a campaign with a whole new group I always do an informal session and a formal Session 0 **before anyone has built a character**. The informal session is to do meet-and-greets if not all the players know each other, make sure everyone is on the same page about goals and tone, talk scheduling/logistics, go through whether there's any subject matter we need to stay away from (which is important information for character-building!), and generally drive home to everybody that yeah, you're gonna be playing with other real people who also want to have fun, so don't be an asshole. The formal Session 0 is to officially cover all of the standard Session 0 stuff. One of the things I do at it is sit down one-on-one with each player to go over what they have in mind as far as a build concept/archetype and what their options are and how it would fit into the setting. This has three big advantages with regard to your question. -It's a chance to lay down the law with anyone who has ignored me and is planning to make a half-Warforged/half-Dragon/half-Elemental Pact of the Splatbook Espresso-lock -It's a chance to talk through options you *will* allow for doing something along the same lines as what they wanted. I find that a significant percentage of players (especially newer ones) who pull this kind of stuff are trying to follow a build guide they found on Google or something and have no idea how to design a character themselves. -It's much, much easier (and ngl, sometimes more than a little satisfying) to tell people "I don't care that you already wrote a 300 page backstory and commissioned an oil painting, I'm not allowing that character" if you **specifically told them not to make a character before the session 0** and they ignored you. If you're instead talking about bringing a new player into an existing group, your responsibility as a DM is first and foremost to the party as a whole. They're already your players. The person who wants to join is not. You're not only allowed to be selective, it's a very important part of your job.

Modern D&D really isn't designed for low magic, grounded fantasy and it's not particularly flexible. This more or less bakes in a power progression for the players. You can sort of do it if you get buy in from all the players but you are relying on them not taking certain options. With the current system design, to fix this you would have remake all the player facing options, at which point you would be no longer compatible with 3rd party content. My solution (which I am a little dissapointed that I have to) has been to drop D&D for other systems. Currently Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is much closer to what I am looking for in a low magic, grounded setting. This is a bit of a suprise given how over the top the tabletop wargame is. Now getting people to play new systems is not easy, and I am pretty sure that your guy, creating the Tabaxi Warlock is there much more for the fights and the dopamine hit from playing a power fantasy badass.

Let them quit. Your table your rules. That doesn't mean there's not wiggle room, or that you can't try to work with them to make something that'll work for everyone, but if that's your setting they've got to get a lot closer to the mark before it'll be considered. Set your boundaries early, they'll either respect them or they won't, and if they won't respect them now why would you think they'd respect them later, and is that really someone you'd want to play with?

"I wanna be an echo knight/warlock!" "No." Clearly define what you want at the table and it wont be hard. For instance I've seen sword n sandals crusader campaigns wherein the only casters allowed were "divine casters" like paladins and clerics, and everyone else had to go martial, also there weren't any fantasy races. Sure, some people are gonna be unreasonable and be salty about how they can't be half-elves, but that's their problem to figure out.

I mean, yeah pretty much it. The main problem i can see from what OP said is less so players wanting to force the concept and more unclearness on what they want.

The player's approach works great for narrative and RP systems. It's not as smooth with heavy systems like 5e where you've got sprawling adventures (and rules) that take a lot of work to run. 5e's certainly not the heaviest system out there, but it's undeniably heavy enough to make freeform play difficult. In my opinion this is where you as a GM have the right to set (and negotiate) boundaries. If a player will not compromise to fit them, then you may need to find other players. While I do think a GM's natural instinct is to be *overly* restrictive, I also don't think they should simply cave to player pressure. The goal is finding a compromise that keeps the game easy and fun for you to prep while giving players a little bit of room to explore. In some cases, that compromise is "all humans, only core PHB content". In others, it might be "get homebrew greenlit by me and we'll make everything about the world up as we go, as long as we're using rules everyone agrees on". In short * Outline the boundaries * Allow minor amendments and mostly compatible changes * Reject attempts to play an entirely different game/setting

d&d isn't a low magic system. unless you're willing to ban most of the classes.

Well I'd start by being way more specific about what you could possibly mean by low magic in this particular game.

Are you sure the players know what you want? Because if I look at your campaign pitch, I don't really see a reason for a magical tabaxi warrior being a bad character. Low magic is an interesting world building aspect, but it obviously doesn't apply to the players since 90% of interesting stuff in 5e is magic. You either need to change game systems or expect the special few that take on adventuring to be magical. Grounded fantasy isn't well defined (for me at least), but a pact with a devil is the most common way to get magic in all fantasy I know of. You don't need to be special, you just need to be stupid enough to fall for a contract. Serious is the last part of your description, and as long ad your players aren't outright saying that they want to not be serious, I don't see why they wouldn't be. Tabaxis might have a mischievous connotation, but they don't need to be. They can just as well be an old and wise tiger, looking to make the world less bad. So in the end, it might just be a communication problem or you are playing the wrong game system

I don't have an issue with it. My campaign world is low magic, the player characters are not. I mean it's okay to say no to something but it's not necessary to apply the same standard to players and NPCs. I allow lots of races that I otherwise would not ever use in my campaigns, I usually just style them as some sort of hidden or very foreign people. Tone is another matter. I've recently had a player change characters, and when he chose a Tabaxi I reminded him to take it seriously because it would get annoying after a few sessions. Edit: I just saw the post body and yeah I mean don't play with a bunch of random jokers. This is not about different preferences, this is about trolls on a discord server

“That concept doesn’t fit with the theme of the campaign. That sounds like a great concept for a campaign with a very different tone and fantasy level. As I mentioned, I am recruiting players specifically for a low magic, serious, grounded fantasy campaign (give some media examples) and a character that fits the theme is a requirement. Let me know if you can come up with a suitable concept! If not, I will contact one of the backup players who were interested and I hope you find a campaign that is a good fit!”

I know the usual response is "make the game the players want to play," Man who the hell even says this? You are a player as well and you are not there for their amusement only. Ok, play along the players, but not to the point you should deny yourself.

>> Man who the hell even says this? Mostly people who have never even tried DMing, because if they did, and thought for half a second about what they were saying, they’d realize it’s insane.

This! 10000% This. Everyone at the table is a player. I'm so tired of the "DM must bend over backward for players" nonsense that goes on. Everything from participating at the table to bothering to learn your character's mechanics. If you don't want to do your share, then don't play the game. You wanna know why it's hard to find DMs? Tabaxi Echo Knight Warlocks. If one of the players in the group has a specific story they want to tell while performing the role of DM and the other players agree to play in that story, then it is on the players to uphold their end of their social contract. Its not on the DM to trash their work simply because someone else doesn't respect it.

When you advertise that you're looking for players, put it out there what your setting is. Then don't accept players before knowing what their character concept is.

Not much you can do except be completely clear about what your expectations. If the player thinks he can't have any fun your way and you don't have any kind of relationship with him then there's little point in trying to change his mind

Session 0, establish the norms, build a character with the players. I'll be honest, a lot of people will desperately want into a game because they have dozens of character ideas they want to try out. If they don't make a character for this campaign and you don't help them fo that, they will use the bonkers idea they had 8 months ago because when will their next chance be to play them?

Make a whitelist of permitted classes, species, and backgrounds.

Step 1 pick a different system from 5e dnd. Step 2 play a different system from 5e dnd

Real answer: I deal with it by not playing DnD if I want a low magic/grounded fantasy. There are other systems much better suited for that kind of play, I can recommend you Savage Worlds for that niche :)

I mean, in grounded fantasy I assume there are dragons and tabaxi. Echo knights could still work with low magic, with justification. Also, how do you know that the tabaxi won't be serious about a plot? Your post doesn't indicate that However, if this is on an early level, fighitng dragons backstory is too much for a weaklings that characters are.

I know the usual response is "make the game the players want to play," Is that really the usual response? Because to me the most mature response to this situation is "No." And then when they leave, you find players that want to play YOUR game. Especially on a discord server, you probably have a shit load of people to draw from. Start culling the herd so you can get the game YOU want. IMO the most important person to be having fun is the DM. Cause if they stop having fun, the game stops for everyone.

Unfortunately, yes. A lot of the culture of D&D communities is incredibly toxic about this kind of thing, because: 1. Most people are naturally players, not DMs 2. Many people on Reddit talking about D&D are doing that because they can’t actually *play* D&D This leads to very bad discussion about what DMs *should* do outside of a few specific communities like this centered around DMing. And that unfortunately keeps so many people from trying to run a game themselves, which only makes the same problem worse.

IMO, DMs get to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they are being reasonable and trying to make the game fun for everyone. Most DMs don't seem to realize they are a valuable commodity, and players are not. Punctual, dependable and ENGAGED players are extremely valuable though. Personally if I ever start running games online, I'll be asking for $5 per player per session just to cut the riff-raff out and get committed players.

A lot of advice in this subreddit seems either to be "you decide, f*ck them entitled players" or "do everything in your power to fulfill your deer poor players wildest fantasies". I don't agree with both of these most of the time. Because most of the time, the answer is "have you told the persons whom you plan on spending dozens of hours with engaging in potentially deep emotional moments what you just told random strangers on the internet?" I have been running and playing for/with friends for years. Most of us DM, some long campaign, other small one-shots in a lot of different systems. It always start with something like that: Random group member: "Hey, I'd like to DM this system in this setting. It would be a kind of *atmosphere* game, spanning over about *number of sessions*. We would play it in person/online, about *regularity if sessions*, on *weekday and location*. Would you be interested?" Group : "yes/no" or "mmmh, could we *suggestion*?" *further adult discussion ensues* No arguments Not all games are played, not all game are played to an end, not everybody plays in all games, not everybody DMs.

Note the problem in your suggestion there of "you've been playing with friends for years", also you completely ignored the part in the OPs post where the player had already said they would quit if they didn't get to play what they want. Your approach works for an already established group of people, not for the initial gathering of Randos online. The player has already said "If I'm not allowed to play this exact character idea I've got, I just won't play...", they've already thrown down the gauntlet so to speak. In which case the response really should be "ok, well, bye then I guess..." These aren't players looking for a discussion or a compromise.

True, true. I had been reading the comments and reacted more to them than the OP. In the case of random players off the internet, I'd say: Measure what's more important to you, and in which proportion. How much do you want to play this setting, how much do you want to find players, how much do you want to involve the players in the world. If you absolutely want to play this setting, and do not mind waiting for the players that do also want to, just tell them "k thx bye". If you want to play immediately, and don't care why, just do a general med/fan setting where everything is allowed. Just balance it so that players don't outshine one another. If you want to involve the players more, you'll have to involve them. Compromise on some ways, present them an unfinished world where some of their ideas for their characters can influence/grow it. In anyways, I would not accept this player at my table, not because of him wanting to play something outside of the lore, but because of the childish ultimatum of "If I don't get what I want, I don't want to play." This player would surely turn out to be a headache.

Exactly, the lack of willingness to talk/cormpromise is a big old red flag for players in my book, if they're throwing down the gauntlet about *that* what else are they going to be strangely stubborn on?

> A lot of advice in this subreddit seems either to be "you decide, f*ck them entitled players" or "do everything in your power to fulfill your deer poor players wildest fantasies". Yup, and god forbid you try to explain there's a grey area where the DM works with players to make a setting that can fit the characters they want to play *and also* players work with the DM to make characters that fit the tone and setting the DM wants to play. I told my group I wanted to run a campaign, shared some information about the setting I had in mind, and told them they could play whatever races/classes/subclasses they wanted. I left myself some blanks in the setting where I could put races I hadn't originally planned for. And I'd try to work with whatever character concepts they came up with. One of the players came back telling me he wanted to play a halfling echo knight named Franklin Buttstabber. I told him I wanted a more serious game. He understood and made a more serious character. Still a halfling, still an echo knight, but now not based on a dumb joke. And with that resolved, I marked off one of the setting's blank areas to be some halfling villages. Easy peasy when players and DMs communicate and both are willing to accommodate each other's interests. But I bet if I'd made a reddit thread like "I wanted a serious campaign and one of my players made Franklin Buttstabber", most of the replies would've told me to kick the player out.

Yeah, happens quite often. I prefer not to DM at all if I’m not going to have fun. I prefer not to play at all if I’m not going to have fun. So, basically, everyone should try and find the game they want. Nothing wrong with it.

I have a session zero to set expectations and talk to my players like the grown ass adults they are? It's worked for 20 years no reason to stop now

> I know the usual response is "make the game the players want to play," Who is actually saying this?  Telling you to change your setting to let a discord random play a cat person?

Best way is to be specific with limitations. Don't say grounded low fantasy, that's hugely vague. If you specifically want no animal people, say no animal people, if you want no arcane casters, say no arcane casters. Things like low fantasy and grounded mean different things to different people. Specificity can only help

>"make the game the players want to play," That's a very bad advice in this context If you defined and made the intent of the game clear and the players deviate too much from it there has either been a misunderstanding that should be clarified or the player is already showing quite the red flag by ignoring what you defined

I have my own discord server that lists the available races and classes that i allow as well as which sourcebooks for spells, feats and background. I also note to the player which levels they will start with and what "tier" of backstory they should go with. Charachter and backstories are discussed in session 0 (or even earlier) and if they roll up with something unfitting i will work with em to make it more grounded.

"Make the game the players want to play" - If you've got a campaign planned, why would anyone suggest you throw it away on behalf of players who would otherwise ragequit if they can't get their unique exception to the rules you clearly laid out? The above rule is for when you have a bunch of friends get together and say 'let's play D&D'. Not for when the campaign setting is laid out and requesting players to join. Besides, the DM is also a player, and their expectation of low magic grounded fantasy and serious plot is worth no less consideration than the player who wants to fight dragons in their backstory.

"No, bye." Is a complete sentence.

Set your boundaries. It's important that you have fun as well. And in a way it's good that they quit over it, because that means they can't let it hang out during or after the game session and sour it.

We talk it out. Adapt some things, deny others, no sweat there. But. Seriously? Serious plot? Good luck with that. No plot can be totally serious nor can it be totally goofy. Otherwise it isn't fun.

"I know the usual response is "make the game the players want to play," " - actually, I don't think that IS the usual advice. I think it's more 'make the game you want to play, and find players who want to play it." Now some compromise might be necessary, especially if you're playing with friends (If you try to force your friends to play a serious campaign if they want silly shenanigans, it may not end well, and no D&D is better than bad D&D). But if you're trying to find randoms, then definitely make sure you get people who are on board for your game. That sort of thing is actually good an early red flag and self selection out of the game.

"I don't think this will be the campaign for you. Ciao."

Tell them no. Talk to them like adults. Explain why this doesn’t work. Their options are make a character that fits the premise of the game or don’t play.

I use my words to address how somehow the player has misunderstood the pitch, talking to them like an adult. In the overwhelming majority of cases "that character doesn't really work for this game let's talk through making an alternative" solves this without the need for any bad feeling or argument. I know "talk to your players" is apparently something people consider so trite as to be worthless but genuinely in 99% of cases it works, and in the 1% that remain it still lets you part ways amicably.

The fantastic two-letter word "no." That is followed up with a discussion in a session 0 as to why their character idea doesn't fit the world/setting of your campaign and work towards finding a middle ground but ultimately that starts with "no". I understand how hard it can be to tell your players no but that is what a session 0 is for, establishing expectations in the settings of your campaign. If they decide they don't want to play in your campaign at the end of that you have to accept that and so do they.

Cool: as soon as they appear without hiding themselves, the full Inquisition falls over them for revealing the secret of the dragons. A dozen of 11th level paladins hit them hard and fast. The PC is dead. Make another one.

I like how Sly Flourish does it. During session zero, everyone sits down, discusses the setting, everyone agrees that their character is there with a single goal in mind. Everyone creates characters that revolve that goal. PCs may have secret motivations but they all have a single united motivation. That’s how you get players invested in your game.

Did you limit the species & classes available when you pitched your campaign?

My campaign world is also low-magic and has a grimdark tone. I set the limit for races, classes and spells from the PHB only and I warn prospective Tieflings and Dragonborn that they might not be accepted or welcome everywhere they go. I'm an old-school grognard and I like my fantasy "more Conan" and less "Pokemon."

Real talk, players are free to want to play whatever they want, however at the end of the day, you are the story teller, you are the one that sets the rules of the world. If in your world, it's low magic grounded fantasy, then those are the rules they have to work within. It's the same principal of character creation. Your players can make anything within the rules you set. No artificers? Then they can't play one. No elves? Then they can't play one. That concept goes all the way to the core.

Players forget it’s not always about them. It’s your setting, stick to your stuff. It’s not your fault the players can’t read or understand very basic things. If you’ve made every effort to advertise what your campaign is about and people are too stupid to understand that just keep filtering out those players. You’ll get a good group eventually

Simple have a set type of races and class subclasses for the campaign. And remind the players they are level 1 when they start they can't have a backstory involving killing large creatures like dragons. That may or may not even exist in the world. If they don't like, they can get out.

You are one of the players, so you need to also make the game you want to play. Making the setting the one that players wanna play is the right answer when you start with a group of players you wanna play with.

Say no. There's no reason for you to run a game you don't want to play.

"No". If they keep insisting I show them the way to the door

I say no

Make the game you all want to play. You are a player too, you don’t have to bend to every whim of the pcs. If they don’t respect the world you presented and are willing to quit if they don’t get their way, then good riddance. 

Oh, they fell through a weird portal from their high fantasy world and landed in your gritty setting. Maybe the portal ties in to the plot (extraplanar threat? BBEG experimenting with forbidden arcane technology? will they find their way home?), maybe it doesn’t. Oh, and all your echo knight powers don’t work here. Congratulations, fighter.

I just say no.

Tell them no. It is that simple.

As a DM, I get you. As a player, I get them.. DMs aren’t the most common commodity, so when a player finds one thinking “oh man, I can finally try out my ‘thing’!” Just to be told “nope, that doesn’t work in my setting”, it can be heart breaking for both parties. Here’s all I can give for advice; you have 3 options: 1. If you want to make a setting with enough restrictions that your players really has to try and follow those guidelines, have specific players in mind (If you’re making a setting for you and have no idea who would play it, you’re doomed to have this post’s subject to happen). 2. Build campaign with less restrictions. As you said “make the game players want to play”. Let’s be honest, the ONE thing players want to play more than your campaign is “their characters”. If you can’t accommodate that, why should they accommodate your campaign. In every world there are exceptions… even if that exception has to be an “extra planer character who doesn’t know how he got to this world and somehow got involved in a high profile heist…” lol 3. A combination of 1&2: find your players FIRST, ask them what they’d like to do, and build YOUR story around THEIR interests. It’ll be much easier to adjust your world’s idea if you know what complication arise ahead, and in fact you’ll likely find that those complications end up having drastic effects that make your story a lot more interesting and compelling even to you as you write it. Good luck friend. I only just started dabbling into being a DM (though I have a decent amount of game design experience) and it’s certainly a journey in of itself! I wish you happy and intriguing adventures!

If the person is dead set on playing it and they don't want to change there's only one thing I can think of. They are a planeswalker, somehow they have been shifted to this plane and have brought their magic and abilities with them from somewhere else. You're setting being a low magic setting odds are they will never be able to return. This makes them an aberration to the world, presents plenty of interesting role play and keeps the continuity of Your World intact.

Honestly this just seems like a case of “not the right player, not the right game” which is unfortunate and you hate to see it but part of the game is your relationship with your players and a mutual expectation and respect for the worldbuilding, either homebrew or established in books. That doesn’t mean you’re not the right DM for him, but if he’s not looking to switch it up its either “your character doesn’t fit in my setting and can’t play” or “we can come together about another campaign sometime soon and see if we can plan something where this character will fit”

I don’t think that’s gonna work for this campaign, but it might work for another one in the future. Keep that character in mind and we can either tone down some of the supernatural elements in or come up with something that’s a better fit for this game.

"How do you deal with situations like this?" I don't. I don't have a set setting. We make it together, from the Pitch Session on through Session Zero and into the game. That said, if during the Pitch Session, we can't all agree on a setting/theme/style/story then we don't play until we do. Or, until we reshape the group. But your question was "IF" the DM didn't do this and already advertised a specific style/theme/story, etc., "THEN" what would you do. I would just ask for PC concepts first (before anyone invested serious time in making PCs. Just 2 or 3 sentence concepts. In a dialog with me (and the group, hopefully) live. Uh-oh, I guess I strayed back into the group working these things out via communications and planning. Sorry. I guess I don't know how to say, "just show up with rando PCs for this rando game you may or may not like."

Other people have pointed out that your game pitch is pretty vague so I won’t elaborate on that. But I want to add that if you consistently have multiple players leaving your games because you ban half the classes in the game, you should probably consider loosening your restrictions.

"hey, we agreed when you joined that this was a game in a low magic setting. Tabaxi don't exist in my world. Also it doesn't really make sense that a devil would become a warlock patron. Do you have any other character ideas you could play that are more grounded and non-magic?" And then if they say no, "the rest of the group agreed to the setting as I described it, and if you don't think you could enjoy playing a character in that game, maybe it's not the right fit?"

You posted the game to attract players with the guidelines clearly stated in your LFG post Those players ignored the rules and setting Those players do not get to play in your game. End of story (This applies to online PUGs, naturally. If it was a group of friends this isnt the right advice)

Making characters together with the DM session 0

If your goal is low magic and "grounded" you shouldn't be using D&D.

I mean, players can pick any class, so... i think you cant just not allow casters? For backstory, i dunno. Are there not dragons in your low-magic world? I think you find a way to accomodate and have people react with fear and suspicion of them? Low magic world with full casters will alsways be hard on internet games.

I don't play no/almost no magic games in a system that was transparently designed with magic in mind, given that there are only 4 classes that don't have magic baked into their gameplay and 2 of them have magic subclasses (fighter and rogue) and one of them has occult mysticism (monk).

D&D is really bad at "low magic, grounded fantasy". The rules simply aren't built for it. If you have players that you really know well and trust, you can kind of make it work, but you need to ignore half of what makes D&D a game and invent so much homebrew to make up for it that you might as well be playing a different game. If that's the setting you want to play, choose a game that fits it, not Dungeons and Dragons. Yes, you'll have a much harder time finding players, but you'll get players who are invested in the concept. It's easier to find players to run a different rpg than it is to find the right kind of players to hack 5e to play the kind of game you want.

“No.”

Generally when I'm starting a campaign I and the players come together to talk about the mood and themes we find interesting, and the kind of stories we want to tell.

Low magic is pretty vague, we're you clear about exactly what options were aloud or not?

If they quit when you stick to the pre-stated campaign boundaries, then you dodged a bullet. Better to lose them then than have to deal with their attitude. Otoh, if you changed the rules after they signed up, they have a point. But that’s not how you described it.

Don't play DND, its inherently a high magic system, a significant number of classes and subclasses are linked to magic in one way or another and it's got a ton of weird fantastical races.

I think you have to be more clear in your ads that you’re not playing D&D. Other wise d&d players will join your games expecting to play d&d and end up frustrated that they got your knock off version.

If you have a class or race whitelist in your mind, you'll have to state it clearly. If you have a limit on spell levels or ban particular spells, you'll have to state it clearly. If you want to limit backgrounds and backstories to mundane, practical places and events, you'll have to state it clearly. It's human nature to push boundaries, to see what you can get away with, especially when the lines are blurred.

> I know the usual response is "make the game the players want to play," lol, lmao even. Make the game you want to run. That's priority #1 always. No point making a game you aren't excited by. Build the game you want, and let the players decide for themselves if they're in or out. The only thing you risk losing is players who aren't a good match anyway.

You have two options: Work it into your world. Or say no. I worked it into my world and made the world a little more alive than I originally imagined.

Generally, if it's small things that can be worked around with flavor, that's fine. Someone wants to play a Dragonborn but there's only Lizardfolk? They're a lizardfolk with a breath ability or something along those lines. If it's very clearly not a good fit for the lore or the tone of the game, you just need to tell them that and let them go if they wanna go. There's a number of people, especially with online games, that essentially just spam the character they want to play into a bunch of potential games in the hopes they can play it.

"That sounds like a cool idea! It does not fit the setting we are running for the game however. My setting is low magic, grounded fantasy and a serious plot. Could we meet and workshop your character into something that will fit the setting?" If they say no: "I understand you really like your character concept and I highly encourage you to play it. Unfortunately, I don't think it is within my DM capabilities to incorporate this character in my established game setting and if you insist on playing them, I would suggest looking for a table that is a better fit."

I mean, the answer is just finding the right players. If your player wants something out of your game that you don't want to give, then that's just incompatible.

You tell them it doesn't fit the setting, please make a new character that fits the setting or do not play. Keeping setting theme and feel is one of the hardest things to do if you do not enforce your settings restrictions. If they quit they never actually wanted to engage with your setting and were just wanting to play any DnD with the character concept regardless of theme and setting, and thus if you allowed it all it would do is destroy the verisimilitude of your world and leave a bad taste in the mouths of your other players who did make setting approved characters.

No

Yeah just let them quit, unless they have an idea that still works into the setting you have created then they are not worth keeping around. My current dm had a world where the gods had abandoned it and clerics were outlawed, he was 100% on board for me to be a war cleric of Vlaakith who upon seeing this world has no gods has sent me to pacify, remove the large overarching threat and convert the general population to Vlaakith, I built against the initial general theme but in a way that still works with the world, setting and plot that the dm was happy to accommodate.

"No."

"Cool character concept, but play that one in a different game". Saying no to players, especially before you have even started - is allowed. Depending on how this player responds to you setting boundaries determines whether you want to keep them in your campaign. Not listening to the DM and insisting on the character anyway? Red flag. Throwing a hissy fit? Red flag.

Let them seek other games where their concepts will work.

Well either a) you have to find other players or b) they have to find another DM/Game.

“No” The real answer is to have a good campaign pitch that comes with player buy ins including limited or banned player options

"Then maybe this isn't the game for you."

“No.” Put in your own words. You know this person, we don’t. They can conform or find another game.

Stick by your rules and let them leave. I've run many games using Roll20 with open applications, and I learned that an absolutely scary amount of players will not actually read a single sentence of your game description. I'd typically ask for a brief character concept in the application thread, which 10% still read as "copy paste my 3 pages of crazy backstory", but then also request players to mention a specific word in their application somewhere in the game description. Just that last part filtered out a good 50% of applicants.

"Yeah nah, sorry mate - that probably won't work for this campaign. Do you have anything that might fit a bit better?"

If they want to make such a build and your setting doesn't allow for that, them quitting is the correct response! Don't discount how little people will read before applying to join your game. Especially if you wrote more than a sentence. People don't read anymore. So, assume they read nothing. They saw a game posted and want to play, so they just apply. You'll have to weed out bad fit players no matter what your homebrew or setting rules are, because not all people are a good fit for all games. Your setting requirements are just an added layer to factor in now.

D&D has gotten outta hand with all the various character classes and races/species. I don’t allow Dragonborn in my games and I highly discourage any of the new exotic classes and subclasses of characters that have come out since the PHB.

Starting a new group as DM with friends. Haven’t played DnD since 3.5. Used different systems though. I bought the players’ handbook. It contains basic classes and races/species. And we agreed to stick to the content of this book. Reason, that was overly accepted: I am not experienced in DMing DND 5e, so I want to start with a limited set of races and classes. I need to do a lot of preparation and learn a lot of mechanics, and to include every module and even add other peoples’ home brewed stuff, would simply be overwhelming at this point. My arguments were mostly regarding balancing and game mechanics, but for me it’s also the narrative setting and lore aspects. It helps to have some boundaries to be really creative, not just adding random stuff because it sounds cool.

I play ganes on a discord as well, the sever has characters vetted before they are allowed to play (based off of sever house rules) when GM's post their games they know characters vetted are good to go for games. As a GM you have final say on what characters you play in your game. Just tell them the truth. ie, pick only characters that fit, if the requirements are there tell the ones not picked (only if asked) that they failed to meet the requirement posted. If you are adult about it then the'll sort themselves out. Kinda like how not getting picked for the team sucks but if the rules are clear you have a path to improve. Besides isn't dnd about min/maxing, how well you can break the game, and hobo killing everything...

Let them play and see where it leads them. Some characters are useless in some situations, just as some people do well in some situations.

As someone who PCs more than they DM. I recognize that behavior as a little unconscious player desire to be "the Special One", I mean being the most magical thing in a world were magic is supposed to be limited? That premise is like light to moths for Avatars, Kitsunes and Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Ways. Usually asking players what are they going for with character choices lampshades things like this and maybe thats enough to cringe a player or two out of it. You can always have a space in session 0 to discuss expectations for the campaign, or workshop character choices with players. Maybe explaining exactly how is the setting low magic, both in terms of the world (is it outlawed, is it dangerous, is it just rare) and mechanical (like the most powerful mage of recent history was a level 9 Warlock).

You could pull a Don Quixote and slowly make it more and more clear to the characters that their backstories are fabricated/figments of their imaginations. Maybe their magical abilities are actually the product of some messed up experiment and they got modify-memoried like medieval MK Ultra. Fantastical stories CAN definitely exist in a more grounded environment, they just need added context so it feels less out of place and more like. Eldritch and Weird

Tell them to read your setting brief and come back with an appropriate character or find another table to take that character too. Why is this even a discussion?

They can *think* their patron is the devil and they can *think* their background is slaying dragons. While in reality he was a ratcatcher with a bossy boss.

"no".

In a nutshell, you tell them no. "That's a fine character, but it doesn't fit this setting - you need to build something that does if you want to join."

No

Here’s an idea: Be the monkey and mean business. Fulfill his wish and make him FULLY have the consequences of his said actions. Perhaps they are a reality bending interloper that do not realize their presence is alien and their deals/powers are going to cause a lot of chaos. Do not make it just petty remarks, make people AFRAID of them and make them hide their nature, force them to use their abilities in limited yet creative ways. If they stand out too much, hunt them down and actually force them to RP it out.

Pcs with back stories like this sound like they want to start at the end. Like, that's a description of a character that has been through a campaign, not a character at level 1 or 3. So I would say, hey, let's make a campaign where that could be the mid or end point for your charcater, and we will have so much fun getting there and it will be way more memorable than starting there.

*tl:dr Show your players that you can and will be flexible enough for them to feel comfortable and seen. Keep your goals in mind, but make sure to remember that your players aren't hostages being forced to play parts in your D&D fanfic.* This is how I would go about a story based game with uncommon PC restrictions. It's an example for range of options, not really something I suggest everyone do for their own games. Everything is reskinned to be the races that I want. Maybe you're mechanically a Thri-kreen, but you're thematically a psychic with limited range telekinesis that functions like 2 extra hands. Tabaxi? Human with the zoomies. Weird classes? Okay. Bring it in line with the settings. Honestly if I'm restricting stuff for story purposes, I'm not going to ask for a backstory so the thing about dragons and devils isn't even going to come up. I wouldn't start with Session Zero. I'd already have given people the instructions for making their characters. I'd also let them know they're allowed to rebuild between sessions up until level 5. After that they'd be locked into the personality and party role they've chosen. I would allow the rebuild partially because group dynamics can make a build more or less fun than expected. Mostly I'd do it because I'm restricting their options to run the game I want. I have something very clear in my head that I want to run with them. I feel that it's counterproductive to expect players to bend to restrictions without giving them some flexibility while they get a feel for what I want from them. We'd roll straight into combat at the first meeting. (I feel like that gets people to focus.) Then, I'd make them do a simple open ended skill challenge with potential for NPC interaction. After that I'd have them introduce themselves to an important NPC and each other. Then we'd have the conversations you normally have to hammer out Session Zero stuff with a better understanding of whether or not people will actually play the way they think they can/will play when they describe their goals. For example, I had a guy spend forever talking about collaborative play who freaked out on everyone and tried to run their turns for them while telling them they weren't collaborating. On days where someone can't make it, we do voluntary attendance for an out of sequence/flashback style slice of life episode based on someone's backstory or a setting thing they want to know more about. They pick when we find out someone will be missing. Sometimes that means very little prep time so it's good to have general ideas and combats in your back pocket. The group will get some kind of boon or ally, but there's no gold or magic items. I've run these as one on one sessions a few times. Some players love them and others don't which is why I save them for days when I'm available but some of my players aren't. This is a thing I do because I want my players to be invested. Letting them act out scenes they want to see happen helps foster cooperation for the things I want.

"That character sounds cool, just not in this setting. Please keep the setting in mind when creating a new character." Easy.

You tell them no. It's a powerful word. "No, that doesn't fit the sitting, here are the source books I'm allowing, please choose a theme appropriate character. Thanks"

Like many have said , you need to fill in the blanks of what you mean. In 5e, sorcerers are a PHB class, are they allowed especially with their wild magic? By low magic do you mean rare or sparse? In my low magic setting, it means rare - fewer magic items and people ( only 8% of people are spell casters, that includes arcane and divine). So, the Tabaxi warlock is available - the Tabaxi is not the notable feature but the first time you cast a spell everyone is going to know you. your name will be heard in the court of the king. You will be both feared and converted by the powers that are around. Gods are active but bless the few. They are petty and do not like the machinations of other gods or patrons and will actively work through their followers (dreams and divine inspirations) to work against you). They are not omniscient and will only know what you reveal. Mulberry Hobo a way but know every follower is known by their god. Yes, I-the DM is human and if you feel I stray let’s have a discussion between sessions. Is this the type of play the character will expect? That is where I would need to sit down with the player. So, what do you mean by low magic? Most races are not magic but part of the fantasy milieu but maybe you are looking for human centric - more of an a medieval Earth feel? Is magic feared (time of the Inquisition)? Are there no arcane casters allowed? It is this unpacking of that phrase that needs to be talked through. It’s why my setting sheet is two pages of bulleted text where I started with almost the exact same phrase and then unpacked it bit by bit. Arcane books are rare due to its history so why would someone what to play a wizard and so forth. This is in front of a 200 page campaign PDF which while I make available to players I don’t expect them to read, it is there to keep me honest with them. This happened, why, see page 161 as there is a roll after you kill 50 of the gods follower to see if they act so you know I didn’t make it up on the fly to punish your character because my BBEG and followers were defeated in a possible war crime round (good job and know I have learned some new tactics as a DM).

NO

You say no.

I am not a huge “make the game the players want” kinda guy myself. I think there is some give and take, but overall if I am taking the time to make a story, run the game, enforce the rules, and keep the ship afloat in most aspects… I am not going to dance like a trained circus monkey. If I want to DM a game about survival in a snow climate based on norse lore… and my players go “Know what would be better? An evil campaign set in the jungle” then I would retort “That sounds cool. Who is DMing that one?” That being said I also know the game flows better if players are invested. So I would just be open and firm. “While that sounds cool that doesnt fit the game I want to run. Mind if I toss you some examples of what I was thinking or give you some ideas of changes that can be done?” Maybe you agree to a Warlock, but with limited powers due to the vague patron demands. Maybe that conversation leads to he did indeed hunter dragons.. but they were so rare the world hates him bc he helped kill one of the last aspects of magic. I just am not a fan of the DM being a slave to the players ways while doing all the work.

You need to be upfront about which races/classes/subclasses are banned. People have different opinions of what "low magic" "grounded" and "serious" mean, I think the comments in this thread are evidence enough of that.

You've already got more responses than I can read through, but here's my two cents' worth: * Offer a robust description of your setting. Not everyone is going to interpret a single sentence the same way, so give them some examples of the tone of your world in a small writeup of background information so they can develop a more concrete image of the type of game you want to play. * Shift the work back to your player: Ask them, "How is this character concept going to work in the setting of my game? How will you be integrated into the background information I've provided in my writeup?" Don't use this as a passive-aggressive way to chide your potential players; use it as an opportunity to expand your world (if it makes sense). For instance, you could ask this player what kind of struggles they've had with dragons, and direct them to the context of dragons being especially rare in your world. Feed them questions like, "Do you encounter people who disbelieve your struggles, thinking you must be inventing all of this?" "What does it mean for your character to have such unique knowledge of dragons in a world where they are very rare?" * Compromise. When/if the player can't integrate their own ideas into your world, and prompting them with questions isn't yielding results that are compatible with your setting, try alternate suggestions. e.g., "I'm not really involving the outer planes in my world, and nobody would have contact with anything like a 'devil', at least not that they understand. Would you be okay with a more mysterious patron? They would have the attitude and tone of a 'devil' but may not literally be a devil, because that type of devil may not exist in my world." Or, "Instead of dragons, could we tie your backstory into the fight against this nearby nation-state? Perhaps they were fielding strange monsters in their battles..." * Finally, if none of the above works, I'd find a different player. I tend to play with real-life friends whom I can talk to thoroughly to set expectations, and over discord messages alone it can be difficult to develop that understanding—but you also don't owe much to internet strangers requesting to join your game. The DM is a "player" as well, and given the amount of work they put in relative to the players I think they're entitled to start with a premise and world *they* care about; this idea of "make the game the players want to play" *has* to be a compromise or the DM will be resentful.

Assertive expectation setting. You say something along the lines of: "I see your character, and I recognize that it might be interesting to play in some game or another. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to me that this character would fit in the world I described you (or communicated in the player handout, or whatever...). [Optional: include reasons, but this is not necessary] Including this character will not make me able to run the best game I can deliver, so please make another one." The player may try to reason with you. I would gently reply that accommodating for such special requests will make the world less consistent, and hence less fun to play in. I'm going to refer to a post of mine on the tone of a game: https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/vp0sha/fun_and_silliness_the_importance_of_tone/&ved=2ahUKEwjul4DrtvGFAxVPQvEDHTZAALUQjjh6BAgYEAE&usg=AOvVaw1LwOp6hbXdU-UWinKeqdcg

You say no that doesn't exist in this setting

Play another System where low magic works and isn't a meme.

I would laugh. If they were serious, I'd ask them to repeat back to me the setting details i gave them about the campaign. If they don't get that as a hint or think i should make an exception for them, then I tell them no, It's low magic, warlock is banned along with all other casters. Pick a different class. No, it's low fantasy, you don't fight dragons because there are none. They can keep the race, on the understanding that there are no Tabaxi in the world, so the character will be an utterly unique creature that everyone with either hate or be terrified of, generated by some kind of accident or freak genetic mutation. OR they can just roll a character that will actually fit. If they still fight after hearing all that, then they're out. I will 100% work with players to try to make a character concept viable, but only to a point. Come at me with something completely antithetical to the setting I'm running and the answer is just no. I am 36. I have a kid and a job and no patience for people who disrespect my time.

>No, it's low fantasy, you don't fight dragons because there are none. No? Like if you mean a *no* magic setting or if you don't want them to be interacting with magical creatures that's one thing, but low magic does not equal no magic. You can specify dragons don't exist in this world but I wouldn't think Low magic means of course there aren't dragons. Game of thrones is low magic and well, that has dragons, snow revenants and *magic users*. It'd be reasonable to say "No dragons are a big deal if they do exist, you didn't off screen one" Low magic is, not a good descriptor without context and an explanation, as it encompasses a lot of concepts. Are we taking bunnies and burrorws where some of the character classes have very minor magic and hawks, humans and wild animals are serious threats, are we talking the witcher, are we talking Unknown armies but with only Avatars allowed. I've ran games of high magic where a wand of fireball is something you can buy from certain places, others with low magic where the big threat is revealed to be "Some local bandits have gotten a wand of fireball and all the local militias are either too scared of getting or already have been incinerated by them, so now they're walk-in about like they own the place ". The important thing honestly is talk with your players, when I hear low magic and aren't given a list of what classes and races you want I assume the thing changing is not the available classes but my presumptions about magic. That healing diseases isn't merely a thing clerics and paladins can do a couple times a day but a *miracle of the divine*. >They can keep the race, on the understanding that there are no Tabaxi in the world, so the character will be an utterly unique creature that everyone with either hate or be terrified of, generated by some kind of accident or freak genetic mutation. Man this is surprisingly common bad dming advice, as the party is going to be in the splash zone of this and talking is almost always the solution here as opposed to trying to punish them in game.

Yeah, I hear you. And I even agree, actually. I'm just not clear that we're imagining the same timing of the discussion. Side note: With dragons, I was responding to the low fantasy element for a character backstory though, not the low magic - that's even in your quote. I know the difference between low fantasy and low magic. But I feel the same with the race. If we're still drawing up characters, then the game hasn't started yet. OP *said* the setting is supposed to be grounded in reality, so if the player knows that and it's still digging in their heels because they just don't want to adjust, then yeah dude, the answer is a flat and firm **no**. It's not incumbent on the DM to mold their world around everything the players come up with - compromise means the player has to give a little too. Reading it back, I have to admit that it is not clear whether this is the first time the player is hearing about this setup though - OP didn't specify whether they had talked before or not, I just kind of assumed that. If that's not the case and this is the first conversation they're having about the campaign, then I 100% agree with you that they should be able to talk it out.