[Not-a-Poll]How much do you restrict player chargen choice?

[Aus_Snow]

I have a book of house rules (not a big book, mind you). It contains all the feats, classes, races and other options that are available for PCs, as well as some setting details and other stuff. These are from a variety of sources, including some of my own documents.

If someone wants to use something from another source, they're free to ask. My house rules and setting information are pretty comprehensive, mind you. If it happens some day, I'll see if the suggestion fits in and is balanced before OKing it.

 

[FireLance]

I use something similar to RPGA. I will designate some stuff as "core" - in my current campaign, it's the PH, the DMG, the Eberron Campaign Setting, and Races of Eberron. Players can have one non-core option per level, whether it is a race, class, feat, spell, prestige class, substitution level, magic item, etc. (subject to a small number of flat-out bans for game elements that I simply do not like).

A 1st-level character can take an advance of 3 options (usually, to select a non-core race, class and feat).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For the campaign, I wanted to have a fairly cohesive group of characters that worked well together and fit into the feel of the setting. So, for initial characters, I restricted races to human, dwarf and gnome and allowed all PHB classes but the monk. I told everyone that later characters, should they be needed, could be more cosmopolitan and come from outside the area, but the initial characters would all be natives. Not a peep out of anyone.

Since then, I had a request for a feytouched PC (never actually made) and a kobold PC (made). Both actually fit into the setting extremely well, so my experiment with focusing things seemed to ahve worked with my group just fine.

 

[airwalkrr]

I have often oscillated in how open I am to player character ideas. However, I am usually fairly open. By fairly open, I mean as long as the player is looking to roleplay an interesting concept or just toy with a new system, I am fine with it. If I know the player is simply looking to break the system ("Hey man, can I play a warblade? They are so broken!"), they get a flat "no."

My general rule is that anything from the three core rulebooks is fair game. I tend to frown upon choices made solely for power. For example, grey elf wizards have long been out of fashion in my campaigns, simply due to player tendency towards abuse. Tieflings on the other hand have seen a fair bit of play since their +1 LA almost isn't worth it. I currently run an Age of Worms campaign featuring a dwarf Ftr10/Exotic Weapon Master1 and his Bardic Sage7 cohort, a human Healer11 of Myrhiss, a human Drd11 of Phyton, and a human Mnk10 (descended from the Kara Tur invaders mentioned in Fate of Istus). The group is not exactly bizarre, but I allow them to take any feat they want from any WotC book (as long as it isn't Eberron or FR) while limiting them to only one prestige class and only one extra spell beyond the core rules per spell level their character is capable of casting. That seems to provide a good mix of options without letting things get grossly out of hand.

For my next campaign (see this thread for details), I plan to be very open in the options, while limiting the total amount of options available to a single character by a universal "character point" system. It should be interesting to see how it works.

 

[Gold Roger]

As long as I have a book, I don't restrict anything.

I tend to orient the gameworld on the initial PC's, so restrictions based on the world are right out.

The only restriction I make on my own behalf is that I disallow PC's that leave my moralic comfort zone. That doesn't mean evil is right out, but PC's that kill prisoners/helpless foes without second thought, kill purely out of convenience, use torture etc just don't flow well with me, I just can't help it.

Other than that PC's might be restricted because of the group.

While conflicts a la buddy system are cool (he's a conservative gruff swordfighter, she's a flighty chaotic thief- hillarity ensures) disruptive conflict isn't so much (he's a conservative gruff swordfighter, she's a flighty chaotic thief- player conflict and drama ensures). Yeah, that depends a lot on the players involved.

Another example is that our current game is a group completely composed of noble elves from a elfish city state set between a loose confederation of very small human kingdoms, a isle group populated by a slavery and piracy practising people that is a mix of pseudo vikings and egypts and a large stretch of untamed wilderness/borderlands. While in a small number, there are character concepts that just wouldn't work with this group.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Last campaign: core rules only, and all additions beyond core (classes, PrCs, feats, spells) must be approved by the DM. That allowed players to pick what they wanted, but allowed me to control balance and what fit with the setting. I wouldn't approve entire books, but only individual items, so if a player really wanted a feat from Complete XX, that could be added to the game, but not the entire Complete book. I kept a running set of documents on our web site with the things that had been added so all characters could have access to them once approved.

If I were to start a new campaign tomorrow, I'd use the same approach.

 

[Ghendar]

Whatever makes sense for the world I'm using.

Yeah, pretty much the same for me. I like to design different type campaigns and sometimes those have certain restrictions attached. For instance, if my world doesn't have elves or elves in the staring area, then no elf pcs. If I'm running a zenophobic human kingdom, then pretty much the only race choice you get is human.

The only blanket denial/restriction I have is psionics. I've never liked psionics in an fantasy D&D type RPG. Just feels out of place to me. So I disallow psionic characters.

 

[Ibram]

I restrict classes to what makes sense within a given setting.

For my usual setting (a high middle ages setting modeled after europe during the crusades) I restrict options to keep the historical feel... no warforged, no monster PCs, number of elves and dwarves restricted.

My Orental campaing was restricted to classes from the old OA book (with a few options from other books).

Setting specific PrCs are not usualy allowed (as they rarely fit in my own settings). And I'd be hard pressed allow something from a book I did not own.

 

[amethal]

Basically, players are free to play whatever takes their fancy.

I would only impose a restriction if two players came up with mutually incompatible ideas, for example if one wants to play a paladin and another wants to play an assassin.

 

[DragonLancer]

In my Realms of D&D homebrew setting, options of races, classes, PrC's, feats, spells and templates are written down as part of the setting document. I only allow what makes sense for the world, and that means a lot of PrC's are banned for one.

I'm usually a lot more restrictive but this campaign (currently Shackled City, soon Age of Worms) has been a test to broaden the range a little.