D&D 5E PC Limitations vs. Do Whatever You Want

[Smackpixi]

So, it seems that WoTC design philosophy is very much going in the direction of letting players do whatever they want in creation of their characters. Imagine a character, we’re writing the rules so you can implement that dream w/o obstacles. And while I’m not opposed to this I wonder if allowing maximum freedom in character creation ultimately kneecaps creativity in play.

Like, at some extreme ends, if on the one hand you are a spellcaster with your pick of any spell you want at any time vs you are a arcane conjurer with only access to arcane spells in the conjuration school? I feel like in play, the all spells guy will have whatever is optimal at any time and has the opportunity to maybe be creative in choice, but will mostly just keep dropping whatever is the most fitting Big Hammer. On the other hand, the strict conjurer being so limited, will get creative in the use and implementation of their spells, test the boundaries of them.

As DM I like limitations and boundaries, partly for control, but also for the I believe shared fun of creative problems and creative solutions. From a player perspective, I can see these limitations as irritating obstacles to acting as I want in the fiction.

how do you handle this dynamic in your worlds? Do you just go with whatever published rules say or do you widen or narrow PC options?

 

[iserith]

I carefully choose PC options and other rules based on the setting and theme of the campaign. If it support the vision, it stays. If it doesn't, it goes. I don't think there's any reason to believe that everything should be on the table for every game. It can be, but doesn't need to be.

 

[CreamCloud0]

While it’s nice to sometimes just be able to just go ‘I’m going to build this character exactly as i see them in my head’ sometimes I think that you can’t fully appreciate that if you haven’t had to build a character within limitations, and there’s a satisfaction in creating something within the restrictions you’re presented with, but having more options to build a character doesn’t actually mean what you make with them is more creative,

The +3 in your main stat at 1st is overrated anyway.

 

[payn]

I like expansive options, but I also like working within a box. That is what a class system is. I also will ban a few things from time to time for a particular campaign as GM. I am very open to discussing this with players. I know the folks that try to get the banned options simply because they are banned. I don't usually invite them back.

 

[overgeeked]

So, it seems that WoTC design philosophy is very much going in the direction of letting players do whatever they want in creation of their characters. Imagine a character, we’re writing the rules so you can implement that dream w/o obstacles. And while I’m not opposed to this I wonder if allowing maximum freedom in character creation ultimately kneecaps creativity in play.

Like, at some extreme ends, if on the one hand you are a spellcaster with your pick of any spell you want at any time vs you are a arcane conjurer with only access to arcane spells in the conjuration school? I feel like in play, the all spells guy will have whatever is optimal at any time and has the opportunity to maybe be creative in choice, but will mostly just keep dropping whatever is the most fitting Big Hammer. On the other hand, the strict conjurer being so limited, will get creative in the use and implementation of their spells, test the boundaries of them.

As DM I like limitations and boundaries, partly for control, but also for the I believe shared fun of creative problems and creative solutions. From a player perspective, I can see these limitations as irritating obstacles to acting as I want in the fiction.

how do you handle this dynamic in your worlds? Do you just go with whatever published rules say or do you widen or narrow PC options?

If I knew for a fact players would pick things for story and RP reasons instead of power gaming reasons, I'd let them pick whatever they want. I'd go a step further and let them homebrew any spells, feats, classes, subclasses, etc that they wanted. Hell, that's my preference. I prefer rules light games that provide basically free-form...everything...with only the thinnest possible bit of rules between the players and the fiction. To me, that's where the creativity is. While I agree that having limited options in the moment can force creativity, McGuyvering your available resources if you will, it more often leads to stumped players with no clue how to use what's available, so they resort to the sword. You haven't seen creativity until you have run a game with free-form magic. Whatever limits there are would be based on the roll to cast. Roll high enough, and you can create just about any effect. Get the players onboard with the constraint of nothing obviously game breaking and you'd be amazed what creative solutions they come up with.

 

[bloodtide]

It sounds good. One very annoying thing in D&D is you CAN"T make the character you imagine. An imagined character would not only be epic level, but would have hundreds of more abilities then any D&D character. And such abilities would go way beyond the rules.

So, I all ready know Wizards can't do that. After all they never have. They might think up of some good starts, but will always have the space problem. They might think of a good ability once in a while, but will mostly be stuck with the "oh, once per short rest you can add a +2 to something for something". Wow...one plus once in a while will sure make you "feel" like that character type.

And most players only make combat characters, so even if there are a few interesting abilities, most players will only pick the combat ones. Worse the players will only pick from a very short approved green list.

 

[D1Tremere]

I think there is a very paternalistic mindset that has been internalized so much that it is often hard to see past. The new rules, for example, do not remove boundaries and limitations so mush as encourage changing their source. Instead of a rules set imposing massive restrictions on player creativity, and a DM choosing to enforce this or not, now the rules encourage letting the player decide what limitations to give themselves. This moves things from the "I think limitations enhance fun so I impose them on others" mindset, to the "What limitations will my players find the most fun to impose on themselves" mindset.

 

[D1Tremere]

It sounds good. One very annoying thing in D&D is you CAN"T make the character you imagine. An imagined character would not only be epic level, but would have hundreds of more abilities then any D&D character. And such abilities would go way beyond the rules.

So, I all ready know Wizards can't do that. After all they never have. They might think up of some good starts, but will always have the space problem. They might think of a good ability once in a while, but will mostly be stuck with the "oh, once per short rest you can add a +2 to something for something". Wow...one plus once in a while will sure make you "feel" like that character type.

And most players only make combat characters, so even if there are a few interesting abilities, most players will only pick the combat ones. Worse the players will only pick from a very short approved green list.

I don't think this is the case, and the data that has been collected so far (such as it is) doesn't support this view.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't think this is the case, and the data that has been collected so far (such as it is) doesn't support this view.

Really? What data are you talking about?

It's clear few Wizard character options fit the idea. I want to be a lore bard, one that knows a little bit of everything and collects bits of knowledge and information. And I flip through the book and find the bard Collage of Lore! That is just what I was thinking....until I read the text. A "lore" bard can...um...sap the confidence of others? That has NOTHING to do with lore! Couple more levels and..um...bonus spells? Ok. And then a bonus to ability checks....um..ok. So where is the LORE part? Nothing about this collage has anything to do with lore.

Arcane Trickster? Well they forgot to add tricks to this one. And the list goes on. And it's true for all Wizard editions.

So do not most players pick pure combat abilities? It sure is true for a lot of players. Many would never waste a pick for anything except something combat related.

So, what about what data?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's the promise of the premise. The game says you can be what you want.

I'd just rather that be true.