Limitations

[Bendris Noulg]

...only PHB classes/races, only LG, NG, CG or LN for alignments, and that the players will have to come up with some reason they are all together as a group.

Sounds like "standard fair" to me... But don't call them limitations; it's a weighted term. Our group refers to this kind of list as "party parameters" in that it is used to ensure that a certain amount of options are available while directing the game flow.

For instance, my "flagship" campaign was begun with the parameters of "Any Lawful, any Race native to [Region X], and must have desire to serve in a military organization." Another group I run was established as "Any Race native to [Region Y], Good only."

 

[kamosa]

Hi all. I am just starting a new game and it occured to me that I have limited the players quite a bit in some ways. For instance, only PHB classes/races, only LG, NG, CG or LN for alignments, and that the players will have to come up with some reason they are all together as a group.

Now I know I'm the DM (as scary as the thought is heh) but I was wondering what everyones thoughts were about these kinds of limitations. The main reason I put them in place was to form a more cohesive group. This is also my first (well second but hopefully this one last for more than two sessions) time DMing so I wanted to keep things a bit simpler.

So what do you think? Is this to restrictive or a good level or should I not care what anyone else thinks ?

Thanks for the opinions

To be honest your asking the wrong people. It's likely that none of us will play in your game and none of us will ever have to suffer through the consequences of the decisions you make. So, I would feel wrong cheering on your quest for restrictions, or for that matter condeming it.

What I would say is that you should discuss this with your players and find out what they are looking for in the game. Most times I've had good luck by just saying that I would like certain things in the game. I tell them that I won't be running stories where evil characters will have much fun, and I give them a short list of the races that are common to the region and a short list of the races that are not welcome in towns.

I push back when it has good reason, but I also allow a concept when the player really gets enthused. If a player comes up with a really cool concept and it doesn't sound like it will harm the party, I have a hard time crushing that just because it is outside my preconcieved restrictions.

When a player comes to me with a wierd idea, I try to work with that character to craft that concept into something that works in my world. I never come to the first game with such a strong concept that I can't tweak it to take into account some of the players wishes and their creativity. I'm not at the mercy of anything they come up with, but at the same time, they know they are helping to shape the world and group.

Character creation is the first real intro to your style as GM. Lots of restrictions let the players know that you will harshly deal with anything they come up with that doesn't meet your preconcieved definitions of how the game will be played. Being too lax has exactly the opposite meaning. They believe they can get away with anything. My advice would be to find the middle way and above all have fun.

I don't see anything in your restrictions that I as a player would object to. I might also just say "I really want a cohesive group, so try to come up with concepts that work together." That works most of the time.

 

[RJKrik]

Thanks for all the replies. I didn't think they were to unreasonable, and as far as I can tell my players will be all right with them So that's all good. I also see what kamosa is saying, it really is a bit silly asking people who will probably never be in my game what they think of it. Of course, that doesn't stop your opinions from sheding light on my own game.

So Thanks all. Mabey I'll post something about how the game goes when we start.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I also see what kamosa is saying, it really is a bit silly asking people who will probably never be in my game what they think of it. Of course, that doesn't stop your opinions from sheding light on my own game.

Well, I wouldn't say it's "silly", since it allows you to see how "your view" stands amongst the larger gaming community; However, more weight should be given to what your players think and how you feel about it than what any of us think or do, since they're the ones you actually game with and you have to be happy with the game you're running.

 

[Felix]

What are your motivations for imposing these restrictions?

Race restrictions I can understand easily: the setting doesn't have half-elemental dragonkin tauric goblins running around so they're not a choice.

Alignment restrictions I become a bit wary of, however. One of my DMs has the exact same alignment options available for my group: LN, LG, NG, CG. I think he does this because he wants it to be easy for him to get the group to be cohesive; Good characters will do things for the Good of others, and Lawful people can be ordered by superiors. Likely he has not had good experiences with N and CN characters before. The 2e "insane and madmen" description of CN characters might have something to do with it.

But without going into the details, I think N and CN characters can be motivated to do what are seen as heroic acts so long as their motivations are something other than the general welfare... like they need to sacrifice something to save a friend. That isn't Altruism, and a neutral character surely would save a friend.

RJKirk, I guess the question is what do you find so disruptive about N and CN characters that you would stop your players from taking them?