Limits on character creation: Opinions?

[AFGNCAAP]

Thanks for the replies! Keep `em coming!

It's nice to see (so far) that there generally isn't a 'restrictions = bad" mentality (for the most part). And it's nice to see that there's a mix of restrictions due to campaign style, playing style, and even player style (like no evil or CN due to typical player behavior with PCs of said alignments, etc.).

Typically, I have the following rules about character creation:

* Either get stats from 1 of 2 sets of 4d6k3-rolled stats, or use point buy (currently at 32 pts., but I may reduce this when I begn my homebrew game). Characters that are made up without me present must be point-buy--this rule is a result of previous bad experiences with dice-rolled, pre-made PCs from some of my players (who just never really roll under 14-15 for stats, always get one or two 18's, and frequently does well on any dice rolls at the table, if you don't happen to be watching the dice rolls).

* No Evil alignments--there's enough evil and cruelty present in the world, & the players don't have to contribute. Also, I'd had the experience that players use their Evil-aligned characters to disrupt the game, and have had some players who pretty much focus on their enjoyment of the game, even if that means ruining someone else's fun. I like the idea of having fewer PCs with cardinal alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE), and I may consider restricting the number CN members of a party, as well (seems to be a strong pro-Chaos bent to my current group).

* Players can't have the same class or race as another player (with the exception of humans, since they're the dominant population in most instances). There really hasn't been any threat/hope of having 8 or more players in a game, so this helps to broaden the talent pool of the PCs. I've had enough of the all-elf thief/mage parties back in the pre-3E days. The lack of racial class & level restrictions in 3.X D&D helps this, though.

* Beginning PCs (1st level characters) can't use a race that has a Level Adjustment (ala drow, lizardfolk, centaurs, etc.). 1st level characters are supposed to be exactly that--1st level (& not a 2nd-4th level character whose 1st level in his/her class).

* One one player may have a PC who isn't one of the core races (or a subrace of a core race)--nonstandard races/creatures & adventurers are supposed to be very rare.

Ideally, I prefer players to make up their PCs all at the same time, as a team (since the PCs should work togehter as a team). Besides, it gives me the opportunity to see what they're making & formulate connections between the group.

I am considering implementing a pre-gen only rule for players who arrive late to a game (since their character creation inevitably delays/slows down the game in progress)--said pre-gens will have races & classes not used by anyone in the current group of PCs (except for human, of course). IMHO, I think this may help the pre-gen be unique & stand out from everyone else's PCs, rather than just having a duplicate of what the party has (e.g., "we already have an elf rogue," or "we don't need another dwarf or another paladin").

Once Unearthed Arcana & the revised PsiHB hits the shelves, I may allow/use some of the material from those books for my homebrew campaign (like changing some core classes into Prestige Classes, using spell points, allowing psions & psychic warriors, etc.). I may also allow some 3.5-complaint stuff from OA. However, I won't allow any of the subraces IMC (aka elves are elves are elves--an elf PC may have the physical appearance of a drow, but stat-wise, he/she is an elf from the PHB), & I'll add some RP restrictions to some selections, like: monks have to be agnostic (can't have a patron deity---they follow a spiritual philosophy of natural cosmic order rather than the dictates of some potent outsider); druids & rangers worship the force of nature & not a deity of nature; all paladins either originate from or have spent time from a certain location in the campaign (the only place where one may be trained as a paladin); blackguards must be LE (or CE--still deciding this one); only half of the entire party (rounded down) can have an OA-style PC (since the campaign is primarily set in a pseudo-European style realm); etc.

But, that's just me. How about the rest of y'all?

 

[Nighthawk]

Over the years, my preferences on limitations has changed greatly. When I am the gm, I now prefer a group approach dictating the flow of the campaign. I am interested in what they want and what they might like to see, and what they do not like about the campaign. This is much more difficult than I initially realized, simply because many players do not have such things on their priority list until they think of something as it pertains to them. This is only true of the groups I have been a part of and/or interacted with personally. I do not claim it is a broad generalization.

One of the reasons I like this approach is that it gets me to thinking about things I typically won't consider because it's outside my "box." I consider this a benefit I would not have realized in the past.

My one "limitation" is that I have the playing group meet for character creation at the same time, before the campaign has its first playing session. I want the players to know as much as they possibly can about the game beforehand, both from a campaign perspective and a real person outlook (so to speak).

We speak about our likes and dislikes, and our personal RPG expectations. Some bumpy roads have been traveled over, but it seems to be working better than expected, which is very cool, IMO.

 

[Luddite]

My basic "Boundry" for my PCs is : You must have some reason to work with a group/party.

For the most part, I am fairly open. But that is also because I have been lucky with my players. I don't mind evil PCs. My biggest gripe is players using any alignement as an excuse for their actions. I am fairly loose in Alignment, and more often then not, I just ignore it.

My other standard boundry is : Only Core Material. But then that is more to say, I will not veto anything designated as "Core" material. Use of supplements is always subject to DM veto.

-gustavef

 

[Trepelano]

I think its very appropriate and beneficial for the GM to place limits on classes or races based on the campaign. Consider the opposite: what if you GM lets you create a paladin and then puts you in a campaign that is all about intrigue and stealth. Has he really done you a service by giving you a choice in the matter?

Having said that, being a GM is often a matter of charisma and communication. In the above example it would be a much more diplomatic solution for the GM to say "The campaign will revolve a lot around intrigue and stealth, so build your characters accordingly" than to simply state "NO PALADINS!"

 

[haiiro]

What do you think about any limits placed on character creation? Approve/disapprove in general?

In general, I like having some limits on character generation -- and as a DM, I always do. If nothing else, it helps to create a more cohesive party, and you're less likely to have to fall back on throwing together a random bunch of completely disparate characters.

For the curious, here are my current character creation guidelines: http://3d6.org/character_creation.php.

 

[Henry]

Very few DM's in my experience throw all the books wide open, let anything in that has ever been written, and sort out the pieces when the game begins. Most DM's have at least ONE or two limits to what is acceptable. And no DM should be expected to, because not all material written is best for a particular DM's style or his game.

But how limited is too limited? At what point can a player feel too stifled to even create something he would find fun to play?

I think the best answer is: The point at which the player can create a character and still find it fun for the long term, is the point at which limits are good.

I'm not talking about players acting "spoiled" because they can't use the classes out of Munchkin d20. I'm talking about the player who cannot enjoy a DM's game because his concern for the game mechanics outweighs the fun of the game.

ANY limits are workable, as long as the players can work with them. Conversely, anyone who throws open every book and source is asking for, and getting, a jumbled mess that is very difficult to adjudicate.

 

[qstor]

Its your campaign so feel free to set limitations on what you allow.

Abilities: 32 point buy method

Races: Any race with an ECL of O.

Classes: PHB or Green Ronin witch is ok.

Equipment: Gunpowder/firearms are ok, in a Renaissance game I haven't run But not in Greyhawk or Kalamar the Realms yes.

Magic: For higher level games I give the PC's a lower level of gold than recommended in the DMG. IMHO it can get out of hand ie Monty Haul
otherwise.

Alignment: Non-evil neutral or good. I'm in the Tracy Hickman school, D&D is a heroic game. I don't want assassins and anti-paladins or undead army creating necomancers running around in IMC.

Mike

 

[Buttercup]

Evil is fun. Its liberating, and allows your character to do things you could never bring yourself to do. It allows the player to player something diametrically opposed to his own moral compass and that is true roleplaying.

I have played an evil PC once. It was at a demo game at GenCon, and the character was handed to me. I did have fun, but I probably wouldn't play an evil character again, were I given a choice. (Games at cons are a different situation. If one wants to participate, one plays the character given them.)

I don't allow evil PCs in my game, and I'm toying with the idea of disallowing chaotic neutral in the future. I'm just not interested in running that kind of campaign, and since I'm doing all the work, it's my choice.

 

[Numion]

We're starting a campaign with few restrictions next sunday. We ended up with the following group:

Drow Female Cleric, Evil
Half-Ogre Barbarian, Evil or Neutral
Human male Wizard, Evil (from Thay, aiming for Red Wizard and Archmage)
Gray Orc male Cleric, Evil (Thats mine)
(one undecided, maybe another Drow)

1 or 2 ECL races were allowed for 'free'. It's going to be blast. Our last campaign was the 3 core books only, so this'll be much more free, much more options. I don't see us being Evil as a problem - we'll have a reason to work together. But any commoners beware!

 

[Kodam]

Hi!

1. I don't allow evil alignments (bad experiences). CN is fine with me, as my players thankfully don't abuse this.
2. We're using point-buy (30)
3. +1 races are ok from the beginning but will rise to second class level only at 3.000 XP. Higher ECL only as a replacement when the party has risen at least to ECL+1.
4. I'm playing an updated Planescape-Campain so all classes are allowed. (Half-Orc Monks are STILL extremly rare! )

I don't think that evil charakters could possibly work together with good guys forever. Eventually, this group would split up; most likely with a fight.

Kodam