D&D General PC creation freedom and campaign setting fit

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The DM creates the game world, the players agree to play in that world. If the game world has restrictions on the type of PC's (for WHATEVER reasons) then accepting those restrictions is included in agreeing to play. If the player wants unrestricted freedom in creating their PC then perhaps they should be so ridiculously polite as to simply ASK, and if the answer is no, not throw a major wobbler. If the DM has so many restrictions on creating PC's that the players feel needlessly stifled, they should make their perspective known to the DM and realize that they have the freedom to choose NOT to join the game.

This isn't complicated.

 

[Alzrius]

what is that even from?

Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem on the GameCube. It was a truly excellent game, artistic in what it depicted and epic in scope, and one that I heartily recommend playing if you ever have the chance.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I have to go with "other," because I exclusively run Original/Basic D&D, and I don't want players bringing a concept to the table before they roll their stats (3d6 in order). If I'm running a fantasy campaign, the playable choices are likely to be fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief, and (depending on the setting!) possibly elf (fighter/magic-user), dwarf (fighter), and halfling (fighter) as well. If you come to the table dead set on playing, say, a magic-user with a particular tragic backstory, you'd better hope the dice are kind and give you a decent Intelligence score.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I went for option 3, but I'm really unsure of the distinction between that and option 2. Are the limitations of "Must be able to be translatable into the setting" (generally Eberron) and "Must be able to work with the rest of the party on the adventure" enough to push option 2 to option 3?

 

[Scribe]

Union. You may be the hero, but your still part of the world. It should make sense.

 

[prabe]

I very much mostly DM these days, and I run a pretty kitchen-sinky campaign, precisely because as a player, I'd want room to come up with off-beat stuff; but I have my preferences, and I want some consistency in the setting, so there are some restrictions. As a player, I'm not likely to push in the sorts of ways @delericho mentioned upthread, but I'm not a big can of cliches, either, and I do enjoy writing short backstories (and ask for them from players--and use at least some of them--when I'm DMing).

So, I chose Option 2, in the poll.

 

[prabe]

I went for option 3, but I'm really unsure of the distinction between that and option 2. Are the limitations of "Must be able to be translatable into the setting" (generally Eberron) and "Must be able to work with the rest of the party on the adventure" enough to push option 2 to option 3?

I personally would say that's "causes no serious disruption to the setting or campaign." I suppose YMMV.

 

[Blue]

Gods, this argument again?! This is a provable false choice.

We factually know that both Forgotten Realms, a kitchen sink setting that contains all of the options, and Dark Sun, a setting that eliminates a number of racial and class options, sell well enough to be redone for multiple editions.

So we know, factually, that both all-inclusive and thematically limiting settings are popular. Any attempt to pick a "right balance" isn't correct. Just like there are more then one type of spaghetti sauce per brand, the idea of a "right balance" DOES NOT EXIST, rather there are multiple valid "local maxima" - lots of points where different tables fit at different times. Averaging them together does not find you a "right balance", and can easily not even be one of the peaks and can instead be a compromise no one likes.

It's such a re-tread, tired argument that is fundamentally flawed.

EDIT: Here's a link to the spaghetti sauce comment:

 

[Shiroiken]

On a sliding scale, I want a bit more restrictions for campaign/setting necessity than freedom, so I voted for 3. Conceptually everyone should play as if 4, but having the occasional outlier is fine.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I voted for few limitations, and most limitations are more about party cohesion than world building. Characters have to want to work as group, and buy into the premise of the campaign. No stealing from other PCs or wandering off during the middle of a quest because "it's what my character would do." I can work with just about everything else.

I have considered doing more limited campaigns before, but it would be pretty unusual circumstances.