Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 581123" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification