Kitchen Sink or Limits, Which for You?

[The Human Target]

What's your point?

Like I said, I prefer limitations based on campaign reasons, not personal dislikes. That gives me a coherent, understandable world-based reason for why I as a player cannot play a PC concept I have in mind.

I did NOT say that restrictions based on personal dislikes ever prevented me from playing in some campaign...because none ever has. I've been told countless times that Monks or Paladins were not permitted in a game due to DM preference. In no case did those restrictions prevent me from playing in the game.

Sometimes, it didn't even prevent me from playing the same concept using another class (or classes). Don't want me to play a Monk? Fine, I'll play a Shaman (if they're allowed), a Cleric or Favored Soul (both with IUC) and the Metamagic Touch Spell feat.

Or, more commonly, I'll simply play something else- I've got thousands of PC concepts that just need to be dug out to be ready to play...



If I were really intent on playing a Dragonborn fighter, but Dragonborn were not permitted, I might then ask if feats like Draconic Heritage were available, and if so, go from there.

If it were strictly a M-E campaign, I'd design a warrior PC with scale mail (spiked?) and some kind of suitably "Draconic" weapon (Greatspear?)...and the skillset/multiclassing (whichever it took) to make & use alchemist's fire. He'd be a member of the "Dragonborn" mercenary company (which may or may not be extant at the time of the campaign).

Oh, I mean I was just being silly to illustrate my agreeing with you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh, I mean I was just being silly to illustrate my agreeing with you.

Kewl & cool!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm just saying, keeping everyone happy is a good thing. Not just the DM.

Not at the cost of verisimilitude. Not at the cost of things that make a game more believable and fun for the other players, including the GM.

The GM is responsible for the setting. What classes/races/feats are available is part of that responsibility.

I would boot that player in a New York second.

I already have people waiting for seats, so the chair would not have a chance to grow cold.

Part of the reason I have folks waiting is that I run a believable game.

Yet another reason why I will never, ever run 4e. 'Everything is core!'? Not in my settings, bub.

The Auld Grump

 

[Vegepygmy]

I'm just saying, keeping everyone happy is a good thing. Not just the DM.

"Keeping everyone happy" is not a realistic goal. If everyone at the table (including the DM) will be happy with a dragonborn fighter, then obviously there's no problem. But then the DM wouldn't be saying no, would he?

I'm one of those DMs who doesn't hesitate to say no, and I never have any trouble finding players.

 

[Lwaxy]

I think we need to make a new poll, with the option 'I'm fine with limits when it makes sense in the setting' included. As far as I understand, almost everyone is ok with not putting the wrong type of characters in the GM's setting.

I've gone to ask the GM of our planned new game what types of characters he would like to see in a game - as it happens, I got quite a list, longer than the no-nos. May be worth a try

 

[Knightfall]

I voted for the sink*, but I do like more limited settings. Plus, with a no limits setting, as a DM, I can apply limits to it if I so choose.

Regardless, if a setting has an interesting hook then it doesn't really matter if it is expansive or limited.

*If there has been an option for both, I'd have chosen it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Do you typically DM and/or play in kitchen sink settings, or limited settings? That is, is your group’s setting one where any PC race and class is pre-approved or are certain options just not available? Which do you prefer?*

I'm fine with kitchen sink settings once in a while, but if it's always kitchen sink then it becomes monotonous.

My setting tastes match my cooking tastes I strongly believe in giving character to each of your soup, if you put everything in the soup it just tastes like "soup" and always the same; I never use more than 1-2 spices because if you use too many spices the the soup only taste of "spices", but no individual flavor.

So I definitely prefer limited settings!

If you like limited settings, feel free to answer any or all of these follow-ups:

Does it matter whether the restrictions stem from DM fiat (“I just don’t like sorcerers”), from setting themes (“The gods have abandoned Athas, so no divine PCs”), or from print origin (“Nothing from the Essentials books”)?

It doesn't matter, but the best reason is setting theme.

Print origin is mostly a good reason for avoiding balance issues, and for allowing the DM to better know what to expect from the PCs therefore controlling the campaign better.

DM's fiat is not particularly nice, but I also believe that players should concede the DM her little habits and preferences. After all, she's taking the hardest job for everyone's benefit at the gaming table. So if the DM has some own wishes, I just try to see them again as setting themes.

If you like strongly thematic settings, is such a setting any less acceptable if your favorite races or classes aren’t part of the theme?

Not at all. My favourite non-traditional and strong-theme setting is Rokugan, where there are no elves (my fav race) and no wizards (my fav class).

What about strongly thematic settings that naturally foster a kitchen sink attitude, like Planescape?

I like it. Yes, it's kitchen sink but at least it has a long and strong tradition, and some elements are actually quite unique. As I said before, as long as it's not always kitchen sink I'm fine.

 

[korjik]

What's your point?

Like I said, I prefer limitations based on campaign reasons, not personal dislikes. That gives me a coherent, understandable world-based reason for why I as a player cannot play a PC concept I have in mind.

I did NOT say that restrictions based on personal dislikes ever prevented me from playing in some campaign...because none ever has. I've been told countless times that Monks or Paladins were not permitted in a game due to DM preference. In no case did those restrictions prevent me from playing in the game.

Sometimes, it didn't even prevent me from playing the same concept using another class (or classes). Don't want me to play a Monk? Fine, I'll play a Shaman (if they're allowed), a Cleric or Favored Soul (both with IUC) and the Metamagic Touch Spell feat.

Or, more commonly, I'll simply play something else- I've got thousands of PC concepts that just need to be dug out to be ready to play...



If I were really intent on playing a Dragonborn fighter, but Dragonborn were not permitted, I might then ask if feats like Draconic Heritage were available, and if so, go from there.

If it were strictly a M-E campaign, I'd design a warrior PC with scale mail (spiked?) and some kind of suitably "Draconic" weapon (Greatspear?)...and the skillset/multiclassing (whichever it took) to make & use alchemist's fire. He'd be a member of the "Dragonborn" mercenary company (which may or may not be extant at the time of the campaign).

If you were really going to go through all that much trouble to get around the no dragonborn limit, I really would walk away from running that game. It says to me that you are not willing to flex at all to fit into the game I am running. Not a headache I care to nurse.

My point was that it isnt always the DM who is the bad guy when there is a conflict about restrictions. If I present a campaign which has some obvious inherent limits on what race/class/backgrounds can be chosen by the players, and a player then makes a choice that is excluded, it isnt the DM that is the problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you were really going to go through all that much trouble to get around the no dragonborn limit, I really would walk away from running that game. It says to me that you are not willing to flex at all to fit into the game I am running. Not a headache I care to nurse.

I think you're reading a lot more into my post than is really there...and taking it outside of the other message in the same post- that part about having thousands of other PCs to play and I'd probably play one of those instead.

My point about the Dragonborn fighter was that if the race were not permissible, and I really were in lebpvels with that concept, I'd talk to the DM about what options might exist within the campaign world to let me model the concept, down to and including a simple fighter who was inspired by draconic legends so much that he adopted fighting tactics informed by them- a common enough theme (in RW* & fiction)- and wore the human armor that most resembled them. The thing about the Dragonborn Mercenary corp was just a name for a group of like-minded mercenaries- hardly out of place on Middle Earth. He's not a Dragonborn fighter, he's a fighter who is a member of an organization that calls/called themselves the Dragonborn.

My point was that it isnt always the DM who is the bad guy when there is a conflict about restrictions. If I present a campaign which has some obvious inherent limits on what race/class/backgrounds can be chosen by the players, and a player then makes a choice that is excluded, it isnt the DM that is the problem.

I didn't say it was- and in fact, I agree that a campaign-based restriction is 100% legit. I said as much at other points in the thread.











* many RW fighting styles were inspired by the way animals fight.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Depends of GM. Some GM start spit out stupid ideas if there are no limits. Those GM:s need limits. Player is not really a problem since GM can always say "no". But do you know many people saying "no" to themselves.

I personally like themes.
I hate to include everything just because. I actually include everything, but we are focusing to that particular area/world/universe so characters must meet that concept.

Plus there are some things I just don't like. People playing elves. I let them play, but if they play out like FR full of themselves gold elves they shall meet quick demise. I like some crazy templates more than other crazy templete on basis of "cool" and "sorta fits".

I dislike certain character personalities/motivations/backstories with crazy red passion, some I just think to be really lame.

Interestingly if I think up really cool theme/adventure ideas some of things I hate might actually in that particular case be really good.

I woudn't play in "everything goes" game. I would have no idea what game is going to be about, only about our maybe crazy group? Something worthy actually happening, something interesting, something that would make fun adventure. Theme as "everything" is warning sign to me.

Even my planar travel games are not about "everything in one place". You can find almost everything somewhere, import, export things/creatures (which might create mess, but then we would know why).

I will refuse to run/play games that don't feel fun. I can't run certain concepts well at all for various reasons. Thus is would not be fun. I have nothing against playing half-shadow-dragon-demon-psychic ghost-chaos sorcerer or something as long as everyone wants that kinda character and I currently feel inspared about it. Honestly more often, than yet another boring core characters. I kinda like to play core only games, so it really varies.