Are your players usually ok with restrictions?

[S'mon]

The other player wanted to play a Tauren. I'm not a WoW player so he explained to me that they were cow people. What he really wanted was for me to custom create the race. I guess it wasn't enough that I already put together a list of 30 different races I would allow, he wanted me to custom build him a race. The Minotaur was a much higher ECL than our level, but I remembered the Krynn Minotaur from Dragonlance. So I allowed him to use that.

But you are absolutely right. It didn't take long for that player to throw a hissy fit over some other stupid issue and then quit. It was a constant thing with this person. I take it that you've dealt with the same sort of player? Funny how we can make a prediction like that.

This is what I mean about using acceptance of restrictions as a marker for whether someone is the sort of player I want to play with. I'm tempted to stick in some completely arbitrary restrictions just to winkle them out!

On the other side, a GM who sets no restrictions may indicate that they don't really care about their campaign, and/or that they are not going to exercise control at their table, so that it may devolve into a munchkin fest dominated by the most aggressive players. On the other hand, a completely open game may be better than the GM who sets restrictions, but then selectively relaxes them for the more aggressive/domineering players. Like the Savage Worlds zombie game where we were supposed to be 'normal people', but then one guy turns up with his ex-SAS officer - that was a warning sign. If the GM had put his foot down it would have been a much better game. Or if he'd just told us to go wild with cheesy OTT character concepts in the first place - but I think it was supposed to be a 'serious' horror game.

When I first ran 4e I allowed all sources, but then had to selectively ban or nerf stuff. My best experiences as a player have been with GMs who list a limited set of allowed sources and let the players create PCs with those. I was very impressed by the result, and adopted this approach for my own games. If I want to allow in additional material I then consult with the players, who often say 'No'. Eg I allowed the Martial Power books in my Swords & Sorcery campaign, they fit great with the theme. I then suggested allowing them in my Forgotten Realms campaign, but the players objected and I think they were right.

 

[billd91]

As far as the BLT goes, I want the cook making the food he likes making! I certainly don't want him making food he dislikes.

Anyway, this is England - we're just happy to get something edible.

Hey, I thought the food improved dramatically between my visits in 1989 and 1997.

But I think there's a difference in focus between, say, a diner and a chef's personal restaurant. The diner is going to be oriented toward serving the staples of restaurant fare - burgers, eggs, pancakes, BLTs, grilled cheese, meatloaf - that people want on a routine basis. The chef's restaurant is going to serve more of what the chef specializes in by style of cooking and/or materials.

Applying this to the gaming world as a metaphor, the diner represents the GM who doesn't bring many restrictions from their end, thus they have broad appeal for lots of different gamer preferences. They're more player oriented. The chef's restaurant brings restrictions which limits the appeal's breadth, but may attract people because of the particular specialties. They're more GM oriented.

 

[Water Bob]

You must have a really good group of players. I imagine doing something like that would be very hard to pull off with most players. There seems to be so many high maintenance players around. I haven't encountered very many in my groups that were that easy going.

I didn't realize the situation was so unique. Do many players think choosing character class is a player right?

I mean, if I want to start a game that doesn't have a strong story, then I'll open it up and allow players to pick any class within reason.

If I've got a "theme" I'm attempting to start, I'll restrict classes. For example, let's say I want to start a game centered around the Church. I might restrict class to fighters (Holy Guard), paladins, and clerics. And, I may be flexible if a player is creative--let's say a player really wants to play a thief and he gives me a background of how the thief has been doing "odd jobs" for the High Priest. Even though the thief is not a believer, I could see that work.

With my current game, it's set in Conan universe. The players run characters that are all Barbarians of the same clan. So, that's why I had the restriction. I mean, if a player wanted to play a sorcerer, it just wouldn't fit--thus, I don't allow it.

 

[ggroy]

There seems to be so many high maintenance players around. I haven't encountered very many in my groups that were that easy going.

More generally, I've found this to be the case in just about any niche which attracts numerous individuals with a compulsive/neurotic/obsessive type mentality.

The end result is that it leads to stuff like "fandumb".

Fan Dumb - Television Tropes & Idioms
Urban Dictionary: Fandumb

 

[Oryan77]

I'm tempted to stick in some completely arbitrary restrictions just to winkle them out!

I wanted to give xp for that but I can't. That's pretty funny though. The sad thing is, I bet it would be helpful.

Now I'm wanting to create a list of really odd restrictions for my next campaign and just see how the players react. It would be a complete joke, but I would be serious about it at first just to see their reactions.

I'll start a new thread about this. We could come up with some pretty funny restrictions.

Do many players think choosing character class is a player right?

Oh definitely yes. From my experience at least. I am forced to play with randoms I meet from the internet. Not everyone is like that. But there is for sure a bunch of people that feel entitled to do whatever they want with their characters even right down to making backgrounds and such.

I've had a player get mad at me because I didn't want her 3rd level PC backstory to involve divine intervention and direct contact with a god (that she made up). She preferred to make an entirely different PC (class & race) instead of changing the backstory. She told me I have control issues and I think creating a new PC was her way of telling me that I can't control how she makes a PC. All I did was ask for a tweak to the backstory.

I think the biggest thing that helps DMs avoid player entitlement is the word "core". Players are less willing to argue about character creation when you say "core" only. And since sourcebooks are not "core", then they can't demand to use the material in them because they are not "core".

I couldn't imagine how difficult players would be if the PHB only had basic rules and all of the racial, class, feats, and spells were all sourcebook only material.

The players run characters that are all Barbarians of the same clan.

Cool. I'm in a group now that started a new campaign where we are all Monks. Monks are my least favorite class. I would probably have never played one. But I didn't care. I made a PC that I think could be a fun character to play and I've enjoyed myself so far. I never once thought to complain about this restriction.

BTW, it just dawned on me that Half-Orcs were banned in this campaign! After all my talk about Half-Orcs as an example, I totally forgot about this. And not a single one of us has asked the DM why Half-Orcs are banned. Why in the world am I just now realizing this? For all we know, he simply banned them because he just doesn't like them.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The other player wanted to play a Tauren. I'm not a WoW player so he explained to me that they were cow people. What he really wanted was for me to custom create the race. I guess it wasn't enough that I already put together a list of 30 different races I would allow, he wanted me to custom build him a race. The Minotaur was a much higher ECL than our level, but I remembered the Krynn Minotaur from Dragonlance. So I allowed him to use that.

Hooo boy! Yeah, I had a player do something similar. During the first session of my last campaign, a player made an off-hand comment about riding a griffon and I said "You know, that's a cool idea and makes perfect sense for this game." So I wrote up simple rules for the PCs to have flying mounts. It was basically "Here's a stat block, flavor as you like." But then a different player complained that my flying mounts were boring. Repeatedly. As if all the game's builds, powers, feats and items didn't give him the options to make his character a special enough snowflake.

So anyway, questioning restrictions is one thing; demanding special home brew options is quite another. And I like making home brew races on request.

But you are absolutely right. It didn't take long for that player to throw a hissy fit over some other stupid issue and then quit. It was a constant thing with this person. I take it that you've dealt with the same sort of player? Funny how we can make a prediction like that.

Eh even if I hadn't had a similar experience, I could have made an educated guess based on your posting mannerisms here.

Just like I've never seen alignment cause a big fuss IRL, but whenever I see someone nerdrage that "Alignment is a straightjacket for creatively-stunted role players!" during a forum discussion, I can pretty much guess that they've been traumatized by some RL alignment incident.

Not that you've done any raging, but you clearly feel strongly that it's best to simply accept DM restrictions with a smile.

As far as the BLT goes, I want the cook making the food he likes making! I certainly don't want him making food he dislikes.

Anyway, this is England - we're just happy to get something edible.

Don't say that! I hope to visit England someday...

I didn't realize the situation was so unique. Do many players think choosing character class is a player right?

I don't know that I'd call it a 'right.' But the only time I've played a character that I didn't make wholecloth myself is at con one-shots. A whole campaign with a pregen PC would be a very hard sell for me. I mean one of the biggest selling points of a ttrpg over a video rpg is making my own character.

You sound like a charming guy, and I'm sure you run a great game. But I'm sure you can see how "Welcome to my campaign, here's your character" might be a red flag for a lot of gamers? I mean that's practically the frustrated-novelist-railroad-DM's motto.

A campaign with severely limited options, rather than pregens, would be marginally easier to sell. But it still implies a very controlling DM, and I'd still be ready to quit at the first sign of trouble if you did make the sell. Quit, or run a campaign myself.

 

[Oryan77]

Anyway, this is England - we're just happy to get something edible.

Your food isn't all that bad. When I was in London, I tried out a McDonalds just to see if there was a difference and it was the best McDonalds I've ever been to.

 

[Azgulor]

My players, regardless of group, have never had an issue with GM restrictions. That's not to say I've never been asked to allow this race or that class, but no one has ever viewed it as a showstopper.

The primary reasons I think that this has been my experience include:

1. The players recognize that I'm developing the campaign & adventures and that I'm going for certain themes/genres and some things just may not fit within those boundaries.

2. The players recognize that I've got a greater investment in terms of time and money dedicated towards the game. While they may buy a sourcebook, I may not have done so and asking me to incorporate rules into my game that I haven't read & assessed doesn't make a lot of sense. (And yes, they can loan me their copy and we can come to a consensus together.)

3. Most players have lived through at least one example of where allowing "everything" has introduced a detrimental aspect to the game.


Honestly, reading threads over the years, I've been very surprised at the sense of entitlement some players have. Yes, it's a shared experience. Yes, everyone should have fun. But dictating to a GM what needs to be included in a game isn't justified -- especially if the player in question isn't willing to shoulder the GM burden.

But then I don't get the mindset of players who want to play "gotcha" with the GM and find a way to exploit a particular build to make a munchkin character, either....

 

[Dordledum]

We have some restrictions in our campaigns all the time never been an issue. On the other hand we also are not afraid to change classes and their restrictions/abilities. (i.e. I'm now playing a favoured soul, who uses the bard spell list and we also have a chaotic good paladin in the party)

Generally, what we do is: a player has an idea for a character, checks the possiblities on how to work it out with all the various source books. comes with a suggestion to the DM. DM agrees or disagrees and helps to find an alternative.

Also, if the DM in question is uncomfortable with say alternative magic systems, we agree not to include psionics/arcanum/etc.

Restrictions are fine as long as everyone knows them before creating characters. It's not right if you put a lot of effort in a build, you sit down to play and the DM says: you can't use that!

ps. as a DM I really hated high level monks and the druid PRC Master of many forms. Both are really overpowered IMHO and can damage the party balance beyond repair.

 

[Greg K]

But the fact that they "grilled" me about it until I gave them their way was extremely annoying. No matter what explanation I gave, it wasn't good enough.

At which point, I would thank them for coming and show them the door.