Limitations

[RJKrik]

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

 

[Nightfall]

It's your game my friend. If you feel it's working for you and them that's good. If you think it needs to change, then do so.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

If it works for you, & the player sdon't give you too much grief about it, then great! Hafta agree with Nightfall on this one. It's not that much different from having other restrictions, like using point-buy instead of dice-rolled stats, only allowing players to select non-Evil alignments, restricting the number of PC with a certain class or race in the group, etc.

It's like I mentioned in this thread:

Does a player really need a certain in-game mechanism to have a unique & interesting character, or is it merely a matter of making the character unique through roleplaying?

I'd argue that race & class restrictions shouldn't matter at all--a great character isn't defined by class, race, feats, stats, skills, & what not--a great character is defined by his/her actions, personality, & other things that don't really need a mechanic of some sort behind it to make a unique character.

I think that such things are often forgotten in RPGs. Characters are often viewed as "good human cleric" or "lawful dwarf warrior" instead of as Brother Belerus the kind humanitarian or Guthred Keenblade the loyal mercenary.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that players who think that "interesting/unique character = bonus via in-game mechanics" = bad players. However, from my experience, it's usually a warning flag for me. Besides, those interesting character concepts can be easily set aside & used in a later game, different campaign, or in any number of other ways not related to the current campaign at hand run by the current DM.

I personally think that group/PC cohesiveness is a good thing, esp. when each party member can contribute something that no one else in the group can. I think it adds a bit to everyone's sense of purpose/usefulness in the group, as well.

 

[Dirigible]

As a palyer and a GM, I would ahve no problems playing under, or instituting restrictions like the ones you suggest.

I also think Nightfall's responce is a little incomplete. It is your game, of course, but it is also your players game, and you have a duty to take their wants and desires into account. I'm not saying you should bend over backwards to accomodate them, but be nice to your friends.

 

[Dirigible]

I'd argue that race & class restrictions shouldn't matter at all--a great character isn't defined by class, race, feats, stats, skills, & what not--a great character is defined by his/her actions, personality, & other things that don't really need a mechanic of some sort behind it to make a unique character.

While I agree with you about most of this, I disagree specifically with the first two points - class and race. These are a massive part of a characters definition - the core of what they are and what they do. Race, in particular, should be a large part of the characters beliefs, culture and upbringing.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

While I agree with you about most of this, I disagree specifically with the first two points - class and race. These are a massive part of a characters definition - the core of what they are and what they do. Race, in particular, should be a large part of the characters beliefs, culture and upbringing.

Very true. However, I don't mind it if either of these are chosen merely for concept (and thus, selected from what's available by DM-approval), but not if they are chosen merely for mechanical advantage; this is definitely a problem for me (IMHO) when a player is adamant about playing a race &/or class (or any othe in-game mechanically-based option/selection) that the DM has already stated isn't permissible.

To use an example, it's like a playwright/director (DM) setting a play (campaign) in the real world, allowing each actor (player) to select any role viable for a real world person, yet at least one actor is adamant that he/she wants to play a Vulcan (not a Star Trek fan who dresses like a Vulcan, but an actual Vulcan, from the planet Vulcan, with pointed ears, coppery blood, and extended lifespan), even though the playwright/director has already stated the parameters & limits of the play to the actors. However, the actor(s)-in-question can easily create an interesting role for himself/herself within the parameters, but refuses to do so.

Thus, using only the PHB races & classes, a player may only be able to create a certain number of race/class pairings, but the player isn't limited is creating the very heart & being of the character. Some things can be represented mechanically (like feat & skill selection, stat placement, equipment selected, etc.), but some things are created sheerly through roleplaying. Two elven fighters may be the exact same mechanically (down to attributes, gear, feats, skills, alignment, etc.), but they can be totally different characters based on how they're roleplayed--one could be a grim, no-nonsense mercenary, while the other may be a light-hearted soldier.

And some things listed on a character sheet (typically) have no mechanical bearing in-game--name, height, weight, hair color, eye color, skin color, handedness, demeanor, etc. Yet these things help define the character's, well, character.

 

[Dirigible]

Very true. However ... the DM has already stated isn't permissible.

Oh, absolutly.

 

[Particle_Man]

I'd say go with your instincts. If you DM best with those restrictions in place, keep 'em. You can, as noted above, get some "Cool roleplaying stuff" within the phb restrictions and alignment restrictions you have noted. As long as you are very clear on what those restrictions are with everyone, and don't play favorites in letting some player characters, but not others, violate those restrictions, I don't see a problem. You may have to decide what to do if a player takes a character in your allowed alignments but then strays enough to convert to another (the stock answer is that the character becomes an npc and the player rolls up a new character). As for the "rules mechanics" types, I'd say that most likely they will try to min/max within whatever parameters you list, and be happy to do so, for the most part. So if, for example, you only allowed LG gnome rogues (the good gnome gninja group?) then the character would, if a min/maxer, try to max out the abilities of a gnome rogue. The roleplayer would find a way to make her LG gnome rogue different from other LG gnome rogues in the party, etc.

 

[Nifft]

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.

Those are barely limitations -- they're practically common sense for a non-evil, non-monster, standard D&D campaign. It's IMHO very good to clearly define the nature of the campaign before starting, so the players know what to expect.

-- N

 

[Lord Pendragon]

it's like a playwright/director (DM) setting a play (campaign) in the real world, allowing each actor (player) to select any role viable for a real world person...

[quibble] I tend to think of the DM more as Drew Carrey on Whose Line Is It Anyway?, rather than a playwright or director. Those rolls divest the players of a lot of the creative control that I feel they can and must have for a campaign to be successful. [/quibble]

I don't think there's any problem with setting character creation restrictions, so long as they are as broad as possible while accomplishing the DM's goal. For instance, IMC I asked the players to create characters who had some reason for wanting to join the Queen's Guard. The reason for this was simple: it was the framework through which I planned on setting up plot hooks, NPC relationships, adventures, etc. I also required good characters, in order to run a heroic game. Other than that, I left it open to the players.

Basically, the DM needs to give the players as much freedom as he can, while still providing guidelines for the players to create characters to fit his game. If a concept is possible, then the DM should allow it. If it would ruin the game entirely (as the example with the Vulcan in a Modern game,) then it needs to be nixed.