Limiting Player choice useless?

[Rel]

I ran a low-magic campaign once where I stipulated that the source of arcane magic was controlled by a Cabal of powerful wizards and was only available to those who had a "tap". Divine magic was "frowned upon" and those who practiced it were subject to harrassment by the arcane elite. Mentalism (Psionics) was flat out illegal.

A few rogue mages had "black taps" (essentially illegal and unauthorized taps) that they could use to cast arcane magic. But there was a whole sect of magehunters among the Cabal. They were very good at detecting and apprehending those who practiced illegal magic.

So, of course, the PC's were a rogue arcanist/assassin and a psion/thief. They were on the wrong side of the law anyway so the illegal magic didn't make that much difference. It was lots of fun. They had powers that separated them from the average Joe and they had to hide them and use them judiciously. It was a great way to run a low magic campaign but let the players run spell casters. I recommend it.

 

[Dragonblade]

I think what you really want to do is flat out not let the players use certain classes but you don't want to come right out and say it. So you are trying to come up with some contrived way of preventing them from playing those classes while still making it look like you are not. Making them roll, or making the class less attractive through stringent entry requirements etc.

Answer me this, if you make entering the class require a certain roll on a percentile die, and all the players roll that number and thus play that class you really wanted to be rare, would you let them with no reservations? Or would you still want to restrict the class to some or all of them?

Well, I think the best solution is to simply not allow those specific classes to your players at all. You will be happy and your players will know what they can and cannot play. Also I would write up a setting bible for your world that contains detailed descriptions of what wizards are like and why they are rare. Then the players will have a better understanding of the feel you are trying to create.

 

[maggot]

I've had this problem before: a campaign where elves were supposed to be very rare, the stuff of legends. And the players presented as their characters two elves and two half-elves. I had two choices: run the game from the perspective of these being the four remaining people of elf blood in the world, or ask the players to change their concepts. I went for the later. (I can see the merit in the former, but didn't really think that way at the time.)

So my advice is "step 1: determine what kind of game you want to run." You want to run low-magic for a reason: is it you don't want PC wizards, or you don't want magic everywhere. Then "step 2: talk to your players." Hopefully they are reasonable people.

(As an aside I had another campaign were every one started as either a rogue or a monk. I told everyone this was an unusual mixture, it might work with my campaign goals, and it might not. And also those that were playing monks to be unique might end up disappointed. After that every player changed characters, and we had everyone in heavy armor. Oh well.)

 

[Dragonblade]

Just on a side note, I personally don't like restricting options from players (unless they unbalance the game or break the rules). I think good gaming is about expanding options, not denying them. But to each their own.

 

[Vigilance]

In my experience when I try to limit player options as a game master it's like catnip to players.

"No one has seen an elf in the wester lands in over a generation". Suddenly that's a way cool character concept.

Its as if you said to your players running a sci-fi campaign: "No Vulcan has ever served in star fleet". Sound familiar?

Running a game is not writing a novel, its cooperative story telling. Shared world anthologies is the closest form of fiction to a good RPG.

My advice, culled from a long (and sometimes hard) experience of GMing is to decide what's allowed, what's not, and what's rare, but to always realize that anything you label as rare will become more attractive and will be represented in the party.

Chuck

 

[milotha]

Maybe the correct question to ask yourself is "What do the players want to play". I realize that a lot of GMs have great concepts that involve limiting certain races and classes, but when it comes down to it. Wouldn't you rather have the players playing chracters that interest them. If they want to play races and classes X, why not let them, especially since these are core races and classes. If this keeps your players interested and they have more fun, wouldn't that be better. I thought this game was primarily about having fun, and not about how creative and restrictive the GM can be.

 

[Vigilance]

Maybe the correct question to ask yourself is "What do the players want to play". I realize that a lot of GMs have great concepts that involve limiting certain races and classes, but when it comes down to it. Wouldn't you rather have the players playing chracters that interest them. If they want to play races and classes X, why not let them, especially since these are core races and classes. If this keeps your players interested and they have more fun, wouldn't that be better. I thought this game was primarily about having fun, and not about how creative and restrictive the GM can be.

Spoken like a true player (not that there's anything WRONG with that as Jerry Seinfeld would say).

It is about having fun. But the GM gets to have fun too ideally. It's important to remember that the game belongs to the players AND the GM, not one or the other.

Its perfectly ok (imo) for the GM to limit choices, but he should listen to the player's desires when deciding what choices to limit.

That said I think it's always the GM's call, because he is the one doing the work between games, while the players just show up and have the fun.

No one has fun if several regular players stop showing up, but neither do they have fun if the GM is burnt and bored.

So cooperation is the key.

So I dont have a problem with the GM being restrictive, and I certainly dont have a problem with him being creative. You just need to realize that anything labeled "rare" will have a certain cache and plan accordingly.

Chuck

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Here's a general question (regarding restrictions on classes/races in game):

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.

I also thini it's important to provide several reasons & events in-game that emphasize why certain elements are rare. If there's no reminder in-game, it can easily be forgotten.

However, I think 1 thing that should be utilized often is use of the NPC classes. Have adepts instead of mages & priests. Have warriors instead of fighters & barbarians. Have aristocrats be in charge, commoners populate the towns, and experts serve as local advisors & guides. The less often PC classes are used for NPCs, the better chance you'll have in emphasizing that certain things are rare (IMHO).

And I don't think it's totally outlandish to have a powerful opponent only have levels in an NPC class, either--it'll depend more on how they're played rather than how they're made in order to make them great.

I'm all for limiting choices. However, as the game progresses, I'd recommend that you expand choices for the players if the opportunity arises. Say, for example, a PC with quite a few levels dies during an adventure. Allow the player to replace the PC with another one, offering a few additonal options to them now than you did before during character creation--mainly as a result/reward for the players' in-game progress in the campaign setting.

 

[Rel]

Here's a general question (regarding restrictions on classes/races in game):

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 think this is a great point. I know that play styles differ and I'm well aware that certain players like to revisit the same archetypes time and again (I've got a player like this in my group). But I still think it will make for a much better game when the player works to develop a character within the confines of the campaign style.

Whenever we switch campaigns in our group (about every 6-9 months), we don't start with "Here's what kinds of characters we want to play." We start with, "So, DM, tell us about the campaign setting." If the campaign setting is at all interesting, we'll each have 3-4 good character concepts percolating in our minds before the DM stops talking.

I guess what I'm saying is that most of my inspiration for PC concepts don't come from the PHB, they come from the description of the world where the game will take place.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I guess what I'm saying is that most of my inspiration for PC concepts don't come from the PHB, they come from the description of the world where the game will take place.

Now this... This just brings a tear to my eye.

Thank you.