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

[The Red Priest]

In 1e, I usually stick to the PHB choices. Occassionally, I'll let a UA character slide in for variety. I've never had a player significantly bristle over there choices.

 

[Mallus]

I find that a person with the inability to imagine that in a world with potentially billions or more beings on the material plane alone let alone on the outer, transient and elemental planes that almost any class or skill set could potentially exist is too closed minded for me.

It has nothing to do with being closeminded. Restricting campaign elements has more to do with different tastes, different DM 'comfort zones' and the desire to create a specific kind of play experience.

You can't do everything at the same time. Even in a fantasy game.

Issue: If I don't own the book you can't use it cause I won't be able to have access.
Solution: Um, duh its called a copier

Problem: I'm a busy man. I don't have the time to pour through and evaluate the ever-expanding corpus of 3.x rules. If I'm not familiar with it, chances are I won't use the material. Perhaps you can make make me a few more hours in the week in which to read rules?

Issue: It just doesn't fit in with my campaign world.
Solution: It's pretend, make up the place, or background required for it to exist.

As DM, I pride myself on offering players a specific setting in which to adventure. With a set of specific, and ultimately knowable, characteristics. A setting is defined by what isn't in it as much as by what is in it. Plus, some people enjoy structure in their campaign worlds. That's not the same as being unimaginative.

Let me employ a food metaphor. Some dishes have a small number of ingredients. Others, a large number. Some are like a loose framework, and are able to accomdate of variety of haphazard additions. But to suggest any dish can accomodate any and all ingredients, without ruining it, is silly.

I could go on with issues like these for a long time but I think I make my point...

Yes. You enjoy a specific kind of game. Others don't. And there shouldn't be any value judgements or perjoratives thrown.

It has been my experience that people use issues like the above to justify their own lack of flexibility, laziness, and their own personal prejudice against certain classes or concepts etc.

See above re: pejoratives and value judgements.

If a player has his heart set on something particular though I'll work with the player to make some changes in a class to make it more balanced with the group but remain in the sprit of the character the player wants.

See, I (mostly) agree with that. But that doesn't mean 'anything goes'.

My philosophy is that my players will be more involved with and immersed in the game if I allow them to play exactly the race, class, stats, and feats they want to try out.

My experience is the opposite. My players enjoy exploring --well, and often looting a killing-- the specific game environments I create. I'm actually quite flexible, but there is always that indelible stamp of my 'vision', such as it is, on my worlds. And that's exactly what my players enjoy.

If I allowed everything into my game, than I would cease to be able to offer the experience of 'my game'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My final thoughts on this topic:

http://www.enworld.org/article.php?a=157