Are your players usually ok with restrictions?

[kitsune9]

My players are fine with restrictions so long as I have a good reason. For example, I did ban half-orcs, monks and barbarians in my Carrion Crown campaign, because I'm going more for a real gothic-horror campaign than just "D&D fantasy meets Dracula" kind of campaign. 95% of the NPCs the PCs will meet will be Varisian humans with the other races so minor that many rural peasants can mistake an elf for a fairy.

So my players are cool with it.

 

[kitsune9]

The important part is communicating them so that they don't feel like an arbitrary surprise.

Totally agree. Hate DMs who are like this.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

The only time restrictions caused a problem was when I ran a core-only 3.5 game for a group of new players. They wanted to home brew and use splat material, and they continually moaned about it. In retrospect, core-only was a bad idea and I haven't done it since. Smart creative players don't need to be coddled.

Otherwise, players are okay with a restriction here or there IME. Just don't play the DM card too often, as Mouseferatu says.

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.

Yeah different editions tend to create different tolerances for restrictions. I think DMs can get away with "because I said so" restrictions more easily in 3.x and earlier because balance is all over the place, and there's such a wide variety of mechanics. (Seriously, how many methods are there to "I do magic stuff" in 3.x?)

Whereas in 4e, DMs and players tend to have more confidence in game balance so thematic restrictions happen much more often than "because I said so."

 

[OnlineDM]

Yes, my players are fine with restrictions because I explain them. I tell them up front about the world that we're in, and I do what I can to make oddball character concepts fit. If I can't see how to make it work, I'll turn it back to the player, "Hmm, I'm having a hard time seeing where a minotaur would be from in this world. What are your thoughts?" If we can't come up with something plausible to make it fit, the player is okay with choosing something else.

 

[xigbar]

I rarely make restrictions, since I know plenty enough about optimization for dealing with more rules savvy players. If I do make restrictions, it's more about the setting we play in, so, not only are the players okay with it, they appreciate it for adding to internal consistency.

 

[Oryan77]

Several people have mentioned that they are ok with restrictions as long as it is not arbitrary. So I'm wondering, as a player, why would this bother you?

If a DM had no other reason to ban half-orcs other than because he doesn't like them, why does it matter? It doesn't seem to be any difference to me than if he said that his world doesn't have half-orcs. Either way, they wouldn't be available to players. Is it just the fact that you have no control and a "valid" explanation will calm your nerves?

I don't really restrict anything like that other than to ask players to choose from the 30+ list of races I do try to stick to (mostly because I'm familiar with them). Classes and everything else is pretty open-ended. I've been in games where we were restricted and I never felt I even needed an explanation. Even to the point where I had to play my least favorite type of character. I guess for me, I'm more curious where the DM is going with this. So I play the game to see what his world and adventures will be like with these restrictions (arbitrary or not). I may have preferred to play something else, but I can still have fun.

 

[the Jester]

Are players in your group ok with the DM putting restrictions on things like races, classes, or source books?

Yes. They understand that not anything flies in my campaign, and are fine with it.

Feel free to explain why or why not.

Because I play with people who are not filled with a sense of entitlement and give those that are a talking to about playstyle preference, and if that doesn't work, the boot.

 

[Storminator]

I pretty much never restrict my players. In fact, my last ruling on character creation rules was "if it's cool with your fellow players, it's cool with me," which resulted in more liberal definitions of warlock at-will attack powers.

I do make players reskin things. Just call it a hobgoblin when you're done. We had an Earth Genasi and a human reskinned as bugbears, and a Kalashtar and a Githzerai reskinned as hobgoblins. Thematic integrity intact!

PS

 

[AeroDm]

My players were always fine with restrictions so long as they fell into one of two groups. The first was thematic restrictions. If they were all starting as kids that grew up in the same rural village, it was reasonable to limit races. If new characters were introduced later in the campaign, those restrictions might be eased or lifted. They are actually usually *supportive* of thematic restrictions because they immediately translate into a fuller narrative experience.

The second group are playability restrictions. We had a handful of people who really didn't want to mine every source book for the newest powers to build the strongest character possible. Limiting the rule books to time tested and familiar books helped level the playing field for everyone and ensure that folks with different interests away from the table could still come to the table and work as a team. Of course, sometimes you still need to let new stuff in because it really is great content. So we tried to make admitting new content a group decision and not a DM decision. If someone excitedly pitches some power, the group always voted to let it in. But if every week they had some new gimmick people got tired of it. If it was a DM-only decision, when I got tired of it I looked like a bad guy because the rest of the group didn't see how burdensome constantly reviewing new stuff can be.

 

[xigbar]

Several people have mentioned that they are ok with restrictions as long as it is not arbitrary. So I'm wondering, as a player, why would this bother you?

If a DM had no other reason to ban half-orcs other than because he doesn't like them, why does it matter? It doesn't seem to be any difference to me than if he said that his world doesn't have half-orcs. Either way, they wouldn't be available to players. Is it just the fact that you have no control and a "valid" explanation will calm your nerves?

I don't really restrict anything like that other than to ask players to choose from the 30+ list of races I do try to stick to (mostly because I'm familiar with them). Classes and everything else is pretty open-ended. I've been in games where we were restricted and I never felt I even needed an explanation. Even to the point where I had to play my least favorite type of character. I guess for me, I'm more curious where the DM is going with this. So I play the game to see what his world and adventures will be like with these restrictions (arbitrary or not). I may have preferred to play something else, but I can still have fun.

Generally, I outright avoid games that restrict too much. The players may have an idea of what they want before sitting down, and not giving them the resources to make that is silly. So, I may make some specific bannings that are logical to the setting, but it's rarely a problem for me as a DM, or on the receiving end, since I'm always running games where I allow basically every sources, minus setting restrictions, or playing in similar games, since I hate being confined.