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

[an_idol_mind]

Core only, but I'll let someone try to convince me to use something new. I don't like expanding the class number beyond 10, though. I usually add prestige classes based on the PCs' long-term goals, writing up something of my own if I can't find anything I like.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

I restrict player options for a number of reasons. One, I've found that I can DM better if the range of what I can expect from PCs is simpler, and I own the books. Two, I'm trying to make my homebrew a living, cohesive place, and for me, that means fewer options. And three, I've got insane players. Not insane in a bad way, but if not reigned in, there will be uber PCs of every broken race, class, feat and whatsit published, and I will be at a complete loss at how to challenge them properly. Especially since I also have players who DON'T minmax/powergame/want to try every broken thing in the book. Thus:

Races: 15 races from various sources. PHB, MM, Savage Species, a friends's race list, etc. I also have breif cultural writeups on each race to give players some idea of what kind of background or personality a character of a particular race might have. Not that they can't make their character to suit their concept, but they're encouraged to follow the basic guidelines and realize that if their character is very different than the rest of his culture, he can expect to be treated differently by his people.

Base Classes: 21 classes approved. All the PHB, and the rest from the Completes.

PRCs: 76 prestige classes approved, all from the DMG and Completes. Some of them have changes made to them. I don't want PCs changing to outsiders or whatnot because of their Prc, but since some of them are cool, I just eliminated the type change. I also did away with most of the organizations attached to the PRCs, as I don't want to have to come up with a secret club with NPCs and plot points EVERY time someone wants to take a level of something.

Feats: All PHB, plus Completes on a case-by-case basis.

Spells: PHB and Spell Compendium.

Alignment: No evil. For the way I've defined alignment for my world, evil just does not get along with anyone else. I've also decreed that all players must create PCs that can function as part of a team. Cuts down on squabbling.

For everything except races and alignment, I would always consider a proposal someone made for a character, but they'd have hard time getting it through. My lists may be restrictive compared to the vast amount of material that's out there, but I think there are enough options to satisfy people.

I also haven't updated my lists for the PHB II (in the mail!) and DMG II, and there are probably things in each I would add. I've got a lot to do on my game world, but my next campaign won't be starting for at least a couple of months, so I've got time.

 

[pogre]

Core, but no monks.

 

[Mercule]

In the latest idea of mine, all the characters begin in the same small farming village. They've grown up here their entire lives, having never left, so the rest of the world is... strange and unknown. I designed the town, and based on that, limit what races they can choose from. No half-orcs, cuz no orcs live within a hundred miles of where they begin. Things like that. They are in their late teens and are just beginning to become adults in the community, so their starting equipment will basically be handed down to them from the town and their families. Then all hell will break loose.

If I start up a new homebrew campaign (vs. adventure path) again, this is pretty much how I'll be doing it. It may be a town, city, district, or scions of knights of an order; but there will be a predefined base.

 

[Janx]

For my last campaign, I restricted PCs to human only, core classes to start, with the exception of no druids, sorcererors or rangers. Each PC was to be involved with the military, Navy in particular. It was a 17th century-ish campaign (pirates, british navy-like) emulation of Babylon5. So I felt justified in being so restrictive as those limits were in place to shape the campaign for party unity and storyline. Basically, I wasn't gonna have elves in the party, when I planned on having a backdrop of elves versus humans war to start the campaign off with, just so I could build up some bias in the PCs versus elves for later in the campaign.

Generally, my players and I tend to use start PCs from the PH only, and then incorporate bits from the other books if they work for us during advancement. It's just the way we are. I got friends up north who milk every book for every advantage they can get. Different play styles.

 

[Lanefan]

Reading this has brought up another thought: I let 'em play whatever alignment they want, as long as the class supports it (e.g. no evil Paladins, etc.). And if they want to fight each other instead of fight the enemy, fine with me... Usually, the characters that survive the first few adventures end up setting the tone of the party somewhat by default...if all the chaotics survive, for example, the party tone will be chaotic. That said, if a player's idea for a PC is likely to not fit in, I'll warn said player of such; if the player still wants to go ahead, they've been duly warned and the chips will fall where they may. (in my game, one player tried bringing an Assassin into a reasonably goodly party; it lasted 5 minutes, slain by party. 10 minutes later, one of the other PC's had raised it, over *violent* objections...the argument/firefight went on all night, but the Assassin stayed in...and ended up later marrying the Cleric who raised him!)

I trust my players to be mature enough to keep in-game disputes within the game, and most of the time, they do.

Lanefan

 

[Kishin]

I don't tend to lay any restrictions outright, apart from offering up a unifying theme or connection between characters if the campaign demands it/the PCs don't want to work it out themselves (ie. You all have ties to X person, or Y organization, etc. But really, that's standard fare, so I wouldn't count that).

I will, however, shoot down ideas I don't feel are setting appropriate. I generally allow the Player to come to me with their pitch first, though. This is never really a problem in my home games, as most of us have gamed together for years now and are aware of our playstyles trusting of each other's judgment. In online games, its occasionally more a problem.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Relatedly, what do you do when a player really bristles at whatever limits you set, for whatever reason?

Say no, politely but firmly.

If the player really wants to play a half-ogre vow of poverty monk sorcerer, he can volunteer to DM and set up the parameters for the game.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I sometimes restrict or eliminate spellcasting classes if overt magic use is inappropriate for the world (which, to be fair, it usually is). Psionics, variant magic systems (M&M powers, say) and other systems I actually like tend to be more thematically appropriate, by some strange chance...

I don't think I've ever banned or restricted a fighting class, though.

I've banned races due to world appropriateness. Usually, I run either Spelljammer (no restrictions of any kind, if not incentives to play something oddball) or human-only with perhaps a few more 'monstrous' races available at higher levels.

I've never banned a published feat.

I've never banned a published prestige class. Even spellcasting ones; they're usually appropriate by the time PCs have access to them.

I actively pass around non-WotC books (Arcana Evolved, DragonMech, Iron Kingdoms, OGL Steampunk, etc.) and d20 Modern books, encouraging players to use options from them.

I've never banned a book from play although a no-dwarves, no-gnomes, no-goliaths campaign has little use for, say, Races of Stone. Couldn't care less if I own the books the players use or not.

I would ban some combinations for balance reasons (Punpun, Cheater of Mystra, etc.), but none have ever come up that I didn't allow.

 

[Goblyn]

As all my players are all pretty new, this hasn't come up yet. I have warned about confliting character types(paladin and assassin in party), but as a group they haven't even finished exploring all that's available in the PH so overoption deluge is not really a problem ... yet.

Now that I think of it: it's a pretty happy place to be.