Are your players usually ok with restrictions?

[Tequila Sunrise]

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?

It's funny you mention half-orcs, because I don't like them. Or rather, I don't like that half-orcs are playable but orcs aren't. So in my games I call them 'orcs' and move on.

Anyway, speaking for myself, arbitrary restrictions are...potential pitfalls. For example, I have a thing for dual-wielding characters. And in D&D, that means Str and Dex. In 4e, half-orcs are one of the few (only?) Str/Dex races so I might be bummed if my DM took half-orc off the table. (This is why I advocate floating racial boosts.) Of course, another player might like half-orcs because of the racial theme, and be bummed for a similar reason.

That said, occasional arbitrary restrictions aren't a big deal. I can just play a different character. It's when a DM has so many arbitrary restrictions that a first-session conversation goes like "I'd like to play A...no? Okay, I've had this other character idea for a while...no? Alright, how about...no?!" That I'd start looking for the door. Which I've never had to do.

The most restrictive DM I experienced wouldn't okay the 3.5 scout class -- because the skirmish feature isn't "realistic," which I think is pretty arbitrary in a game where rogues can dodge 1/day and roll extra will saves because any ability with "slippery" in the title apparently fits the rogue theme. Nevertheless, I found an acceptable character to play.

I'd never play a character I just wasn't interested in though, no matter how interesting the DM's campaign is. There's compromise, and then there's "I might as well be picking a Diablo toon."

 

[Ramen]

I've always worried about restricting content myself. On one hand I want them to think creatively and come up with new ideas but on the other hand I don't want to have things that don't jive with the setting and game balance. I am reluctant to include things that are in sourcebooks I don't have but I don't restrict it. I just trust that the players won't destroy the game with the content.

I always figured GMing is a matter of juggling in this regard. You want to maintain the setting, game balance, player and GM happiness. I try to keep in mind that RPG's are based on communication so if you want to change something be let everyone know whyand be prepared to negotiate.

Sent from tapatalk

 

[Crothian]

My players are fine with and it has never been an issue.

 

[Greg K]

The last time (and only time) that I have had a complaint was back around 2001 or 2002. It was a Rolemaster game and the first time that I implemented restrictions (other than no evil characters or monster characters). I didn't allow the Noble Warrior profession ( a warrior that uses magic to enhance his abilities) and a few other professions. Plus, I replaced a few spell lists with those from the Standard System edition.
The Noble Warrior was the favorite profession for one of the players and he was, initially, upset about the exclusion and a few others were not too keen on the idea of restrictions

The player that favored the Noble Warrior played a Cavalier instead. By the end of the first session, he was having a blast playing his Cavalier. It became one of his two most favorite RPG characters and, every time, I would take a small break and have someone else run an rpg for a few sessions, the player kept wanting me to restart my campaign so that he could return to playing his cavalier.

After that campaign, none of the players ever questioned having restrictions and felt having restrictions enhanced the campaign and feel of the world.

 

[S'mon]

Sometimes they are not ok.

One of our GMs, Chris, was setting up a 3e game with a pseudo-Roman period Germanic tribes setting. Only a few classes, all from the PHB, and very few races (only humans and half-elves) were allowed. We're used to no restrictions and one player, Ryan, wasn't happy with this. He's not a powergamer, but he likes to play monsters, and he also likes to change his PC every few sessions and try out the weirder classes from splatbooks, like the spellthief.

As a result the game never got off the ground.

Ryan has veto power?

As GM I don't mind if a friend doesn't want to play a particular campaign, I'm not going to resent it, and maybe s/he'll play in the next one - maybe even a different concurrent campaign. But I'd never cancel a campaign just because one person didn't want to play - having to do that *would* cause resentment.

 

[S'mon]

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?

I'm fine with completely arbitrary restrictions. I value choice & freedom in-play, not in character building. I'd be absolutely fine with "Everyone is a human Guardian Fighter", say - maybe for a Knights Templar or Roman Legion campaign. Or just because the GM likes Guardian Fighters.

I want my PC to be a special snowflake because of what he does in-game, not because of his 'build'.

 

[gamerprinter]

I've always considered restrictions based on the setting alone, never for optimization prevention reasons. If I restrict a class it's for flavor reasons, as in this is a modernesque setting so no barbarians, or we're playing in Kaidan so the expectation is to take one of the many oriental archetypes provided by the Kaidan supplements, as in variations of the core, base and alternate classes.

I never restrict a class as a means of preventing a particular combat style, or really anything mechanical - it's always only for reasons that best fit the flavor of the theme of the campaign, and no other reason.

 

[khantroll]

My crew is okay with "guidelines", which is to say that I can say "things will be rough of on you if you do that" or "for this to work, it'll help if everyone is good". If I actually say, "There will be no half-orcs, and all elves must be archers to elves" I get flack.

We have a standing rule: "No dragons". I've been burned by half dragons, so nothing with a dragon subtype is allowed as a PC. Been a standing rule for years, and yet I get one player per campaign that tries to rules lawyer or just flat out tries to whine their way into breaking it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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've seen players trying to "game the system" or "forgetting" restrictions. One reason I hate the Character Builder.

 

[Grogg of the North]

When I start a campaign one of the first things I mention is available source material. I usually add a caveat that stats any other material will be considered on a case by case basis. I also reserve the right to veto something for any and all reasons.

For the most part, the books I list are the books we all have. I've only had one player get upset about that and it's a long unfortunate story.

Edit:
As a player, restrictions don't bother me so long as their known ahead of time. Though I was in one game where the restrictions made it pretty interesting. We were all familiars.