Are these limitations on Player choice too much-- Long

[Ace]

Ok I am thinking of starting up a "traditonal" D&D campaign if only to settle the clamour of my players for a long term game

The problem is I have a group that looks like this

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

These guys, on the whole are tolerable but the first 3 of them have a little problem with making and playing appropriate characters

In the ARs Magica game they made

A contagious werewolf
A paladinoid mage in black anime style armor
a blood mage

This is in friggen midieval Europe!

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)

The concept is called "Shadow on the World" It is set in a RavenLoft style world with a Dark Power that permeates the place.
Willfull Evil means loss of self to the Gathering Shadow

My rules restrictions

Good Alignments Only---
Core Races Only with a maximum of 1 (2 if we get a 6th gamer) non humans--- for flavor not balance reasons
European Style classes Only except maybe 1

Use of Certain Spells and doing certain actions on the list (Torture, Murder, Rape etc) gains you points of Shadow Touched.

When your total ShadowTouched goes above your total of stats plus level you fall to Evil

Also I can add the Shadow Dice to any roll against you I wish as Opposition Dice or to twist chance against a player (at a cost). This will relive half the dice used from the pool



When You do Good acts you get Light Touched which work like Action Dice in Spycraft at your disposal or can counter Shadow Touched Dixce and remove them

Good Roleplaying gets bonus EP


If I declare an unlisted action as Evil you get a warning and it doesn't count

If you become Evil the GM controls the character. I will allow a little drift to Neutral though I would prefer Good only

I figure as long as I give them a good mix of Combat (1-2 per session) Roleplaying, World Exploration and Treasure Hunting they should be happy

Let me ask though, is this too restricitve to be much fun?

I want YOUR opinion, I think my players would go for it but if you were hypothetically one of my players, Would these rules chafe

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I would tell them about those restrictions, but be prepared for them to say that they don't like it. I don't think they're too harsh, but make sure you stick to your guns, and tell them that for this campaign only you want to do things your way.

It sounds like an interesting campaign to me, but if they don't go for it, shrug and think of another equally good idea. You're clearly not short on creativity.

 

[Kusuf ibn Zaid]

These are really rather minor restrictions in my opinion. The framework that you have detailed leaves a sufficient latitude for players to be creative. The only players who might have a problem, are those that create the same character over and over again. But, those are just the players who need such a framework to kick them out of their rut.

 

[La Bete]

not a biggie at all - in fact these days I prefer it if the gm lays down the "heres roughly what I want" rather than end up with a zoo.

as a gm, im probably slightly more restrictive with classes, etc.

 

[ced1106]

Pick up a copy of "Robin Law's Guide to Good Gamemastering". Looks like you're in a classic case of "what do players want".


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[sword-dancer]

Good Roleplaying gets bonus EP

I´ve often a bad taste with it, because to often it serves as play as the GM likes it to play the PC.

The rest is okay.

 

[Celebrim]

I consider the restrictions you are imposing to be the bare minimum restrictions. That is not to say that a different set of minimum restrictions could be imposed, say 'evil characters only' or a different set of races, but in general I don't think that you are off base for offering any set of restrictions you desire. In fact, I would say you are well within your bounds to overrule ANY particular attribute of a character or his background as an absolute dictator with a line item veto.

A DM can have a varaity of good reasons for imposing explicit and implicit restrictions on character creation. In the case of alignment and personality, the DM is justified in saying that each member of the party must either have an alignment that won't lead to immediate conflict with other members of the party or at the least is subtle enough to disguise his or her motivations and intentions from anyone in the party who would be offended by them. If you don't do this, then you are forced as a DM to start not one campaign but two, or else expect a premature end to the campaign as the players start killing each other.

For flavor reasons, the DM is IMO perfectly justified in providing short lists of races, classes, and even professions and backgrounds which are possible for the character. I've had campaigns where I said, 'Everyone must be an elf.', 'Everyone must be non-human', 'Everyone must be human', 'You can be whatever race/class you like but you begin as a pennyless, homeless, vagrant.', etc. Horror games typically depend on the principal that if everyone isn't an investigator of the uncanny, that they will be by the end of the first adventure. Star Wars games typically depend on the assumption that everyone is at least nominally a part of the Rebellion and engaged in pursuits to further the cause of same. There is no reason why a particular D&D campaign can't or shouldn't depend on similar assumptions.

At the very least, ANY campaign has a start point, a gathering point, and a hook, and the implicit assumption of ANY campaign is that there is a reasonable oppurtunity for all the characters to assemble at a particular time and place, become acquainted with each other, and if not become friends then at least become comrades, and together and for whatever reasons of thier own decide to engage in whatever adventures the situation provides to them.

In general, I would overrule any character concept with the following basic problems:

-- The character belongs to a culture or institution that simply doesn't exist in the campaign world.
-- The character belongs to a race or culture which has no means of interacting socially with the rest of the party or the society in which he is found: ei, a character which shares no common language with anyone else in the party or the society, a character which belongs to a culture/race which is generally killed on sight in the starting environment, or a character of a utterly foreign race/culture in a xenophopic starting environment (generally speaking all human cultures, and medieval/tribal/ancient ones in particular).
-- The character concept implies that the character has no reason or desire to go adventuring and is comfortable in thier current situation as if I am expected to railroad the character into every adventure they take.
-- The character concept implies that the character has such significant duties to some person or group that suspension of disbelief must be invoked for every tired excuse I have to come up with to free them from these duties so that they won't miss the adventure.
-- The character simply won't fit in with the rest of the party and would realistically not be allowed to associate with them, or at the very least will be rejected as soon as the quite obvious character flaw becomes apparant (or conversely will reject the rest of the party as soon as thier character flaws become apparant). This prohibits Paladins in groups that want to play mostly rougish and immoral types, as well as a frothing raging blood thirsty killers in groups of otherwise heroic types.
-- The character is so handicapped that they simply won't be able to contribute in any helpful way to either role play or game play, and/or isn't survivalable at all for a game of the length or difficulty I plan. This overrules unlucky rolls and inexperienced players with blind enfeebled characters, etc.

And that is just for starters.

 

[Moonsword]

I agree. Those restictions are perfectly reasonable. Good luck with your players.

 

[maddman75]

I've found that the mysterious corruption rules work really well. I've ran a lot of Ravenloft, and have seen that if the players know that evil is a real and tangible force that could corrupt their character, they will act a lot more like heros.

An example

The heros had captured a mad cultist, and were getting no where fast interrogating him. One of the characters loses patience and punches the frustrating, bound prisoner.

I didn't roll a powers check. I didn't touch any dice. I just smiled and looked at him and said "A satisfying smile comes over your face. It felt good to hit him."

The other characters practically push him out of the room and tell him that if he can't control himself he isn't going to be interrogating prisoners.

 

[Ace]

I've found that the mysterious corruption rules work really well. I've ran a lot of Ravenloft, and have seen that if the players know that evil is a real and tangible force that could corrupt their character, they will act a lot more like heros.

An example

The heros had captured a mad cultist, and were getting no where fast interrogating him. One of the characters loses patience and punches the frustrating, bound prisoner.

I didn't roll a powers check. I didn't touch any dice. I just smiled and looked at him and said "A satisfying smile comes over your face. It felt good to hit him."

The other characters practically push him out of the room and tell him that if he can't control himself he isn't going to be interrogating prisoners.

OOO Thanks for the EVIL idea