Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silveras" data-source="post: 1152716" data-attributes="member: 6271">I guess mine are extremeI guess my limits fit the extreme category. I forbid evil alignments -- because in my world, choosing an Evil alignment means you are expected to actively be Evil. Moral indifference is for the Neutrals. I do this also because I am running a game for heroes, not psychoanalysis for the players or a "family feud" for their characters. I tried running with that as the only restriction for awhile. It failed. I gradually had to add others. I found (in 1st & 2nd Edition) that the adventurers in my game were all Dwarves and Elves. So I created a requirement that 2/3 of the active adventurers in the human lands had to be human. (Much complaining ensued)I banned Monks around the time 2nd Edition came out, mostly for the same reasons -- they came from an Oriental region in my world. I refused to add them back in when 3rd Edition came out. (More complaining ensued)I allowed some odd races (Lizard Man, Goblin) in the 2nd Edition version of my world, having first warned the players that they would have social problems because of their race choice. They agreed. They had problems; some dealt better than others. (More complaining)However, even the best restrictions can't prevent players that are determined to sabotage themselves. In my most recent 3rd Edition campaign, I polled the players before we started as to what sort of campaign they would like. They said "mostly dungeon crawls"; my usual style had been political, with lots of town-based activity and mystery elements. Ok, I decided to focus on dungeon crawls. So the most straightforward warrior in the party winds up being a Paladin, with Mounted Combat and Weapon Focus (lance). The rest of the party is designed for melee in tight spaces. Great. He's optimized for something the others don't want to do, and he's sub-optimal for what they all said they do want. I pulled the plug on that campaign after just a couple of months. I am surprised that I still get grief from the players about the Lizard Man and Goblin characters from six years ago, and for not allowing Monks. I get the line "it is in the book so it is supposed to be allowed" a lot. The most vocal player, one who makes a point to know the mechanics well (though not in a rules-lawyer kind of way), was stunned to see that the 3E PH and DMG quietly encourage the DM not to allow everything. I refer to "Step 0" of character creation in the 3.0 PH and to the "Creating Custom Worlds" section of the DMG.</blockquote>

Verification