D&D General PC creation freedom and campaign setting fit

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm interested in seeing responses sorted by whether you self-identify as primarily a player, even if you have or do DM a little (or a lot), or if you self-identify as at least as much of a DM as a player, even if you haven't or don't DM as often or recently as you have or do play. If you identify equally as player and DM, that's "at least as much".

In addition, the questions are framed to be answered from a fairly traditional DM-Overseen campaign where the DM primarily does the world-building, campaign design, and presentation, and the players primarily influence the world through the in-character choices of their PCs, as compared to a Collaborative World-Building campaign where each participant has similar out-of-character creative control over the world and/or campaign, regardless of whether they will play a PC or DM the session.

A campaign can still be DM-Overseen even if the players have some creative input to the world or campaign. For example, if a player asks if their character can be a member of an order of assassins for the greater good, and no such order exists, the DM might decide it doesn't conflict with anything and invite the player to create the order and submit the info to the DM to approve or revise for inclusion. That would still be DM-Overseen, because the player is asking to include a background element that doesn't interfere with the DM's world or campaign. As a DM-Overseen campaign, the DM could have also said that it won't work for this particular world or campaign, and the player would need to come up with a different concept for this campaign or world, or the DM could have preferred to approve the basic idea but design the order themselves or in collaboration with the player. By contrast, if a player comes to the group with a custom race and wants them to come from a floating continent in the sky that can be seen from any part of the world (and this continent and race weren't already established parts of the world), and has a reasonable expectation that they can actually have that become true in the world, you're solidly in the Collaborative World-Building campaign.

The question is regarding the interaction between a player's free creativity in designing a PC and the fit of a PC for a given pre-established setting and campaign, with the assumption of a DM-Overseen campaign and setting style. The actual answer options are underlined. The italic titles are over-simplifications because the full statement wouldn't fit in the box--don't get hung up on the italic wordings.

What is the right balance between freedom of PC creation and PC fit for a setting and campaign?

(Option #1: "Total Freedom") A player should be free to create and play any PC they can imagine, in any setting or campaign. Select this if you feel that a player's character, as their primary means of interaction with the game, should be completely unfettered, regardless of whether they are being played in an established setting, campaign theme, or party, or being created for a brand new world in progress.

(Option #2 "Few Limitations") As long as their PC creation choices cause no serious disruption to the setting or campaign, a player should not be restricted in those choices. Select this if you feel that character creation restrictions should be few, flexible, clearly justified, and intended to avoid problems rather than to prescribe a setting or campaign theme.

(Option #3 "Union of Concepts") A player should create a PC with a goal of blending their unique concept with the established setting and campaign. Select this option if you feel that some character option restrictions are a good idea in order to maintain the theme of the world or campaign, but you would prefer if the restrictions were light enough to be able to bring the majority of character concepts you may have to most campaigns or settings.

(Option #4 "Custom Characters") A player should custom design a PC for a specific campaign, focusing on a character they want to play that fits well in that particular setting. Select this if you feel that your character should be as much a part of the world you play them in as any other imaginary being in that world, and are happy finding a concept that feels at home there for you and the whole group.

(Option #5 "CWB Only") I dislike DM-Overseen campaign styles. All D&D should be Collaborative World-Building campaigns. Select this if you disagree with the unstated premise that DM-Overseen campaigns can be positive things.

(Option #6 "Other") Select this if my best efforts still failed miserably to provide an acceptable "best fit" answer for your refined philosophical palate.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the title and wording of option 4 are strange. My impression was that you were going for an option where the players choose from a DM-curated set of options and individual exceptions are not made for the PCs. But the way you worded it sounds like the opposite of that.

At any rate, I primarily DM (though I enjoy playing as well) and I prefer option 3. I like to curate player options to those that are thematically appropriate for the setting and campaign, but I try to provide enough options that players can have some variety between their characters, and I’m willing to work with players to create custom options.

For example, I just had session 0 for my next campaign last week; race options were PHB and Volo’s Guide, with some modifications (for example, Yuan-ti Pureblood getting poison resistance instead of immunity and no magic resistance). One of my players really wanted to play a Kalashtar, so I pointed out that they’re kind of an Eberron-specific thing, but asked what it was about them that appealed so much. She explained that she liked the idea of having a symbiotic relationship with a mysterious entity from another plane, so I suggested she use the Kalashtar racial features, but be a regular human who had formed a similar sort of bond with a ghost. That satisfied what she wanted out of Kalashtar, without me having to alter the setting to make it fit.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think the title and wording of option 4 are strange. My impression was that you were going for an option where the players choose from a DM-curated set of options and individual exceptions are not made for the PCs. But the way you worded it sounds like the opposite of that.

Your impression is correct. How would you change the wording to remove the confusion?

 

[delericho]

I'm almost exclusively a DM, and I prefer a collaborative approach - to a point.

Typically, I'll work up one or a few campaign concepts, and put those to the players. Those concepts will generally have some guidance as to character concepts - which might range from "anything goes" to something very limited "all dwarves", with my default being "anything from the PHB" (and the main setting sourcebook if we're playing in a published setting). Once the players buy in to the concept, I expect them to live within that guidance. (The flip side of that being that if they prefer to play something else, that's absolutely fine. Not all my ideas are good ones, so if the players don't like an idea, I'm happy to let it go.)

I don't mind a player asking for an exception to those guidelines, especially if he or she has a really good story in mind. But the key word there is ask - if there are agreed limits there may well be a good reason for those, so you can't necessarily assume they can be bent or broken.

Unfortunately, I have found that there is a certain breed of player who will view any restriction as a challenge, no matter what it is. So once the party agrees "PHB only", they will immediately decide they have to play a Goblin. Or if you're playing Vampire, it'll be a werewolf. Or if you say "you can be anything other than a gnome", you can expect half a dozen character suggestions, all of which are gnomes. (Oddly, that player personality seems more likely to buy in to a campaign with limits than to "anything goes" - the attraction seems to be specifically about being somehow unique.) I'm afraid I've reached a point where I'm no longer as tolerant as I was, so I no longer play with such players.

 

[kenada]

I voted for “Other”.

As a player, I don’t have a strong preference for any particular approach. I’ll go along with whatever the GM is doing for the game. If we’re doing something custom or CWB, I’ll do that. If we’re picking from options, I’ll do that. If pushed, I’d say I prefer not spending a lot of time on background detail, but that’s due to experiences with GMs who ask for it and then do nothing with it.

As a GM, I tend to run exploration-based games. I usually tend towards curated lists, but I’ll listen to what my players want and try to accommodate it when reasonable. I’ve done CWB in the past, but I wouldn’t do it again. My players have limited enthusiasm for it, and what does get done ends up too gonzo for my taste.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm almost exclusively a DM, and I prefer a collaborative approach - to a point.

Typically, I'll work up one or a few campaign concepts, and put those to the players. Those concepts will generally have some guidance as to character concepts - which might range from "anything goes" to something very limited "all dwarves", with my default being "anything from the PHB" (and the main setting sourcebook if we're playing in a published setting). Once the players buy in to the concept, I expect them to live within that guidance. (The flip side of that being that if they prefer to play something else, that's absolutely fine. Not all my ideas are good ones, so if the players don't like an idea, I'm happy to let it go.)

I don't mind a player asking for an exception to those guidelines, especially if he or she has a really good story in mind. But the key word there is ask - if there are agreed limits there may well be a good reason for those, so you can't necessarily assume they can be bent or broken.

Yep, this. As a player, I have a responsibility once I agree to a game concept to try and build up that game concept, not try to violate it. Of course, the DM has the responsibility to communicate those limitations directly. And as a DM, I should be flexible in my concept unless the concept is dependent on hard restrictions. ("All dwarves", "no spellcasters", etc.)

 

[Oofta]

As a DM I set out some simple rules. I have a curated list of races that exist in my world because a limited number of races makes more sense from a world building perspective to me. I don't allow evil characters because I don't want to deal with truly evil characters and I don't want other players to feel like they have to compromise morals for the sake of the group. We discuss a few options for campaign themes before we start so I ask that people have someone that would go along with the general theme we all agreed to. No anti-social loners; they may work in a TV show but this is a collaborative team game.

The primary goal is to have a group that will work together. It's a cooperative game where everybody's PC is important and unique but it is a team effort.

 

[Alzrius]

What is the right balance between freedom of PC creation and PC fit for a setting and campaign?

 

[not-so-newguy]

Even though I don't play/DM at all these days, I consider myself a player and chose "Union of Concepts." I like to play in campaigns with some direction from the start. To be honest, though, I would be fine with any of those options.

 

[Mind of tempest]

what is that even from?