Are your players usually ok with restrictions?

[Croesus]

In the past, restrictions haven't been a problem, so long as we discuss in advance, so no one is taken by surprise.

Lately, however, I've had one player who really, really doesn't like them. A year ago, I was trying to run a 3.x game. since I wanted to get away from min/maxed stats, I gave the players various arrays of stats to choose from, with no stat higher than a 16. He wanted an array with at least one 18, preferably more. He looked at the races (just core) and asked why we couldn't have at least one race with a bonus to Wisdom, one with a bonus to Charisma, etc. My explanation that I wanted to get away from no-brainer choices in races and such did not impress him. I'm tired of the min/max merry-go-round, but apparently he isn't. The game never got off the ground and we ended up trying Savage Worlds instead.

He designed an effective character, but I placed some limitations on some of the mutations (we were playing Savage Gamma World), just to keep things from getting too out of hand. During the first session I finally realized a big part of the trouble was that he just wanted to play a character who is the biggest, baddest guy around. Soon after, he lost interest and the game died, though to be fair, I also messed up one of the main encounters which didn't help matters (setup a no-win situation to provide the characters some important info on major bad guys, a really bad way of doing things and I know better).

I think the next game I run I'll let the players min/max to their hearts' content, letting this player get it out of his system. Pull a full-on Monte Haul, with all the trimmings. I figure he'll quickly grow bored with the lack of challenge - and I have no doubt he can design characters that can beat any normal challenge - then maybe we can get back to a more normal game.

Like I say, this is new and hopefully just a phase, fingers crossed.

 

[Nellisir]

Yes. I often disallow classes (I've never allowed psionics or psionic classes, for example), and usually remove a few PH races but substitute others (halfling and half-orc are usually on the block). A few people have asked why, but no one has refused to play.

 

[Soraios]

At first, at least, it's the DM's game. He's going to the trouble to devise the campaign. If the DM says, "gnomes only," for instance, I know what kind of a game I'm getting into, and can choose whether to participate.

Good players say to the DM: what kind of character fits into your planned campaign? It is collaborative.

 

[Alan Shutko]

My players have always been fine with restrictions, because they are restrictions that make sense for a specific game. I have a bunch of people waiting on me to start my Wizard Academy RCD&D game, where the restriction is "you will all be magic users or elves". Similarly, I am confident that I could convince people to play in an all -thief thieves guild game.

For me, it all seems to be it he game pitch. When pitching a game to players, pitch the restrictions as well, and explain how they matter. Reliving the essence of old gaming? Of course the races are limited to human, elf, dwarf and halfling. Want a Planescape cantina game? Anything goes and I want you to TRY to break the game. Want to run an Orcs of Thar one shot? Naturally only the humanoids need apply.

The key thing is people need to know what they are getting into and how long it might last. Most folks will do just about anything for five sessions but will want more options in a longer game.

If I were just saying "here is what you can be, pick" I don't think it would work. But I approach each new game knowing that I need to sell it. It needs to be more impressive than other DMs, it needs to be more fun than WoW, and better than trivia night at the local bar. That is good because it makes me think and explain exactly what is so important about the restrictions that I have decided to make. Since the reason I make the restrictions is usually "it makes for a better campaign with this plot" it resonates with my players and they buy into it.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Yes, my players are generally fine with any restrictions I impose. Having said that, I'm pretty open to what I allow.

Any WotC 3.5E books are fair game. However, anything outside the core 3 rulebooks needs to be approved by me before players can use it in the game. I also retain the right to remove it from the game if it turns out to be a game breaker.

I am also open to considering 3rd party books. However, I'm almost certain that I'm the only one in my group that owns any 3rd party books, so it hasn't been an issue.

This system has worked pretty well for us so far. There have only been a few races, classes, items or spells that I have either nerfed or outright disallowed. Most of these were put to me by the resident powergamer and he is very good at accepting my decision, no questions asked, should I disallow anything.

Olaf the Stout

 

[pemerton]

If I'm going to impose restrictions, I'd generally discuss it with my players, to work out what fits and what doesn't with the game we've got in mind.

I would say that in this process, as GM I'm definitely first among equals, but it's not a unilateral thing.

 

[S'mon]

I think the next game I run I'll let the players min/max to their hearts' content, letting this player get it out of his system. Pull a full-on Monte Haul, with all the trimmings. I figure he'll quickly grow bored with the lack of challenge - and I have no doubt he can design characters that can beat any normal challenge - then maybe we can get back to a more normal game.

That seems like a really bad, passive-aggressive way to solve your problem. If you and this guy don't have compatible gaming styles, don't play with him.

 

[DragonLancer]

As a DM I feel that some restrictions are nessecary. The DM has to be happy with the game not just the players. Thankfully my players are happy to play and enjoy a game whether I impose anything or not.

Most of the time I block aspects such as race and prestige classes because they don't fit IMO the setting that I am using. Other times I block things based on personal mechanical bias such as combi-prestige classes (mystic theurge or any of the mage/thief type PRCs). If you want to play that then duel class.

Different groups are obviously different but I am pleased to say that my players are on the same boat as myself in this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think my players almost never object to the restrictions I give them. I think this is because I have established that I will go well out of my way not to restrict anything they do unless I have to. Thus, they trust that any "no" answer I give is probably for a good reason.

Examples:
*Must play something different for each campaign (nobody plays the same class every time).
*No association between divine magic and dragons, or between divine magic and psychic/psionics.
*I think I might have said no to someone's alternate class once.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

My players are ok with some. Usually theme like things. Like "you are all members of thieve's guild in city that only like people who can pass as humans".

Anything else get's whiny reactions. So I think it depends how well I sell it. Theme selling is easy, otherwise I have to tell one playrs "no paladins" other one "no druid" or generally something I dislike. Not that I generally dislike the classes, some of my playerrs really put griefing when playing some things.

I don't like limits. I usually guit game without saying why if my character consept is not accepted. And I always listen to pre-information what to do/not. Still I often manage to hit something gm doesn't want either. I hate inefective characters and unknown systems too. But if I am given intended theme too, these problems go away. It is really good inspiring way to build limits.