Are these limitations on Player choice too much-- Long

[Lord Zardoz]

While there is nothing wrong with wanting the adventuring party to make sense within the context of the campaign, you want to be careful when applying race / class / alignment restrictions. The enjoyment of the game by all of the players must come before pretty much everything else. I personally cannot stand it when a DM starts putting arbitrary restrictions on what characters I can or cannot play just because he want's the campaign to be 'just so'.

About the only restriction I ever put on my players is that they may not act in such a way that overly disrupts the game, and must be able to plausibly work as a team.

[BOLD]

I do like these guys on the whole but I don't want a campaign screwed with so I was thinking of imposing the following limits and house rules (sorry about the OT but I need to put this with the main body of the question)[/BOLD]

Of all of the things you say in your post, this is the one that gives me the most concern. I differentiate between the game world and the campaign. The game world is entirely the GM's domain. But the campaign belongs as much to the players as the GM. Try not to set your self up to lose hours of work setting up an adventure that your players have no intrest in following. You will either end up having wasted a great deal of your own time, or have a bunch of players who are unintrested in your game.

If your players want to play a character archtype that you do not like, that is their call, not yours. However, you do get to decide the consequences of the players actions.

I would relax the race and class restrictions. There is no reason why a foriegner cannot save the land just as ably as the local talent.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Storminator]

You mentioned the first three of your gamers as the problem, but I think those three (based only on that tiny description) will just roll with those rules. The hard core gamers are the ones that don't like fetters. They usually have a vision of how the game is played, and imposing your vision has the potential for clashing.

The casual gamers will just play what you tell 'em.

And I think those rules are very sensible.

PS

 

[Voneth]

I know you said you wanted to run a traditional DnD game, but with those restrictions, it sounds like d20 Star Wars sounds closer to what you want since SW has Dark Side points which sort of mimic what you are doing and even tempts players to play with Dark Side at first, with a price later. As for your players:

Casual Gamer (RP Oriented)
Gamer who likes to play Gothy Charcters
Casual Gamer (Disruptor)
Hard Core D&D (Combat Monkey)
GAmer into Long Term Games and World Immersion

Casual Gamer: Let him play a noble class and he will be fine

Gothy Character: Let him play an ex Imperial and perhaps be Force Senstive (Will he be Jedi or be seduced by the Dark Side?)

Disruptor: Ewoks are harmless if you don't let them near the dashboard.

Combat Monkey: Well, if he like ranged combat, he wills still love SW, if he is into hand to hand, make him a Jedi Guardian, and tell him to think of it as a Sor./Fighter that doesn't take forever to make effective.

World Immersion and Long Term: How many tech manuals and novels are out there for Star Wars? People have been losing themselves in SW for more than 25 years now.

Just give it a think.

[addendum: Oriental Adventures and Rokugon has a Taint system that slowly conusmes the character through the use of black magics and failed Fort saves]

 

[Ace]

Thanks for the suggestion Voneth but



#1 It was tried and die with the group leaving some seriously sour memories. I wasn't the GM but still

#2 I Hate Star Wars with a passion, I don't know why I have seen the movies multiple times and loved the first three but after FandomMenace everytime I see Star Wars especially an RPG it makes me queasy


and the OA taint system suggestion'

Great Idea!

 

[Voneth]

Thanks for the suggestion Voneth
and the OA taint system suggestion'

Great Idea!

Thanks for compliement. I have found that OA has some great tidbits for any game, if you shave off the serial numbers.

Heck, in further thinking about OA, if you have the book, you may just want to run that version of DnD. Things will be different enough to add some spice and yet, you won't be throwing out much except for the Tolkein cliches.

Casual Gamer (RP Oriented)
Gamer who likes to play Gothy Charcters
Casual Gamer (Disruptor)
Hard Core D&D (Combat Monkey)
GAmer into Long Term Games and World Immersion

Casual gamer will either like the court politics or playing a strange OA race

Gothy may have some problems, though Scorpion clan may help.

Disruptor may have to learn to honor and respect others or have to make up a new character. The Numzi Ratlings would fit him well.

Combat Monkey will be estatic with a setting that lets Monks shine in mutliclass and prestige classes.

Long Term boy, plenty of Rokugon stuff out there and lots of extra suppliments he can volunteer to help you buy.

 

[Kichwas]

The three characters you described from the Ars Magica game sound like what I suspect many people would find as perfect fits for a Ravenloft game.

So I'd wager you're 'encouraging them' with the choice of Ravenloft and the whole Shadow issue. Some players will see that rule as a whole excuse to do the 'Vampire trying to avoid the dark side' cliche. But without using an actual Vampire.

If you're fine with that good, but if you want to avoid the kinds of characters they've made in the past, you'd be better off rethinking your premise.

In the end however, the campaign most likely to last is the one that does match both DM -AND- player tastes.

 

[David Argall]

rules

Can't say I would want to play under those rules, but that is personal style.

However, saying only 1 non-human is just asking from bad feelings. You have an excellent chance of at least one player feeling abused for not getting to play the desired race while another [obviously less deserving] player gets that advantage.
Far better to allow most any CORE, or to say only humans, period.

 

[Tonguez]

Re: rules

Can't say I would want to play under those rules, but that is personal style.

However, saying only 1 non-human is just asking from bad feelings. You have an excellent chance of at least one player feeling abused for not getting to play the desired race while another [obviously less deserving] player gets that advantage.
Far better to allow most any CORE, or to say only humans, period.

I like the Corruption mechanic your suggesting and don't see it as overly limiting at all. As to the 'human bar 1' rule I say at least be generous on what 'human' is. IMC (for instance) half-elf and half-orc are all considered 'humans'. PC races include all 3 'human' types, gnomes and goblins.
The game has no dwarfs, and elves and halflings are 'fey' and thus 'monsterous races'

 

[Maldur]

the list seems reasonable. You actually reward people for doing good, so they should at least try to do so