Are your players usually ok with restrictions?

[Oryan77]

Are players in your group ok with the DM putting restrictions on things like races, classes, or source books? Or can it strike a nerve with someone and cause someone to complain about it?

Feel free to explain why or why not.

 

[Mouseferatu]

As long as it's discussed in advance, sure. They're usually pretty good about seeing how given restrictions aid in the theme of a proposed campaign, or the feel of a game world. And they're usually pretty good about going with it for no better reason than "DM's preference," so long as that card isn't played too often.

 

[Daztur]

And I quote: "this was playtested by professionals! How could there be anything unbalanced in it?"

 

[Ramen]

Rifts was playtested by professionals and it requires alot of GM scrutiny to maintain party and encounter balance.

Sent from tapatalk

 

[Connorsrpg]

Sure. But I often have the campaign area (inc surrounding realms) sorted and these include the major and minor races found there. I don't have a region where 'every' race is available. Usually there is enough choice though and several races gain unique twists.

Also, often, several classes are aligned with a certain culture or race and are 'restricted' in that way.

So, yes, players are very accepting of 'restrictions' wired into the setting, but I generally don't set out to 'restrict' things - just create a living, breathing setting.

 

[Daztur]

Rifts was playtested by professionals and it requires alot of GM scrutiny to maintain party and encounter balance.

Sent from tapatalk

As do many other games, that was my player's complaint after my house rules specifically disallowed the munchkin build they were planning (I wrote my house rules before being shown the build since the loophole was pretty obvious...).

 

[fba827]

It depends

1) What is the extent of the restrictions (is it just restricting races, or is it restricting races and classes and other stuff to the point where i feel like i can't make something that i'd want to play)
2) What is the reason for the restrictions (is it for flavor/setting reasons that a race/class isn't available, is it simply because the DM doesn't like the given race/class, or is it for balance reasons, etc)
3) if it is something restricted but someone really wants to play it (for whatever reason) is it something that could be allowed with some tweaking (okay so there are no genasi on this world, but could it be a planar being trapped on this world from another plane)?

in my current group, we have a few different DMs and in each campaign that we've rotated through, we have restricted various races, classes, and supplements in different amounts for different reasons. but these all get announced from the get-go of the campaign (and therefore no surprises down the road after people started making up PCs). Usually it isn't really a problem for our group - though it did bother one player every time just at the idea that something was restricted even though he never seemed to want to play those restricted things and occasionally there was someone else who did want to play something only to realize it was going to be restricted in the next campaign lined up. But over all, really not a big deal in the grand scheme for our group. At least from my perspective.

 

[Li Shenron]

Are players in your group ok with the DM putting restrictions on things like races, classes, or source books? Or can it strike a nerve with someone and cause someone to complain about it?

Feel free to explain why or why not.

I am absolutely and completely fine with any such restriction. The DM can and should define the campaign settign, "kitchen sink" is a valid choice but so is anything else.

I don't even need any explanation. And by "in advance" it's enough for me if it means before I actually pick what character to play, although in general I expect the DM's choices of material to match with the type of campaign was decided to play.

 

[S'mon]

It seemed to cause a lot more complaints in 3e than 4e, actually. But after some poor experiences in 3e GMing I tend to see acceptance of restrictions as a good marker for the type of player I want to play with. It's good to ID the kind of players who won't accept restrictions so that I can avoid playing with them. To a lesser extent, a GM who doesn't impose restrictions is also a warning sign that I might not enjoy their game.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

My players are really fine with restrictions.
Surprisingly I've found it best not explain things unless asked to. If your players don't complain about a restriction, don't start to explain your reasons. Your players will accept the restriction because they assume it's for a good reason, based on their own presumptions. If they actually hear the reason and "it sucks", it will just make things worse. Quit while you're still ahead!