Restrictions vs. Everything Goes

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm in the "House-rule it in" crowd.

Face it, there's stuff thats unbalanced or broken in every rule book (including core) -- and not everyone agrees on what is unbalanced or broken.

You've got to have a baseline somewhere -- in my case, I allow the three core rulebooks as written plus the FRCS with a number of line-by-line changes (since its a FR campaign, it seemed wrong to disallow that book, though many individual items are changed).

These house rules, along with the campaign-specific character creation guidelines, we posted to the campaign website before the campaign started.

If a player wants to use something from any other source, (WOTC splatbooks, WOTC FR material, 3rd party d20, etc), he has to email me the text of whatever he wants to include (the specific spell, feat, whatever). I consider it against the core sources, and then either approve or disapprove the submission. If I approve it, it immediately goes on the campaign website on the list of "approved additions", and it is now fair game for everyone to use -- including the bad guys. If disapproved, it's out for good, unless the player can come up with sufficient changes to make it balance. This does a number of positive things:

- It allows me to try and keep the game balanced and the campaign flavor consistent.

- Players can get what they want, provided they are willing to work a little for it.

- Very little goes unused, since if the player is willing to take the effort to get the item added, he's probably going to use it.

- It's fair for all players -- just because one player can spend megabucks on d20 products doesn't give him an advantage, since I provide a list of approved items to everyone. It puts everyone on the same level tactically, as the player and monster "playbook" is then open to everyone.

- The DM can keep up with all the additions (rather than blanket allowing a bunch of items into the campaign that I don't own and/or can't balance). If a player manages to slip something unbalancing by me, they can be sure it will be used against them later.

It has worked quite well so far with regards to spells and feats. We haven't gotten to PrC's yet -- that may be more of a challenge, since I haven't told them what PrC's (outside of the DMG) may or may not exist -- they have to encounter them in game first. Several players have given me PrC's that they want to work toward that I've approved, but they won't get access to them until the appropriate events are roleplayed out -- finding the organization, joining, etc. It's a two-way street -- my approval means I commit to find a way to work the class into the game.

I played in an "anything goes" campaign, and it soon lost a lot of the enjoyment, as those of us with more limited resources were rapidly outstripped by those with a wider access to d20 products. It was kind of disheartening to have something nasty happen to your character, ask what it was, then have some sourcebook you've never seen dropped in your lap.

 

[Psion]

My opinin here is that the DM should optimally be a benevolent dictator. The DM has to come up with the world, and the world is best, IMO, when he can create and maintain a consistent world concept. At the same time, not every little corner of the world is fleshed out, so the DM should be a bit flexible in seeing how character concepts that involve non-core rules could be fit into the game.

In my game, I have a list of "approved PrCs" that are as much for creating player interest in consistent concepts as it is restricting. The list is not considered absolute or exhaustive, but if a PrC in a product I have is not on the list, there is probably a reason. I will consider prestige classes not on the list, but very likely I will have to tweak it for balance, concept, or both.

Spells and feats are similar, but have no specific list. More or less, I allow all core, cap, or builder book feats and spells with a few exceptions, but require GM permission for anything not in core, cap, or builder books.

Skills I take a hard line on. If a new skill does not fit into the "cascade" skill categories (craft, profession, and knowledge), I am probably not going to allow it. Further, I limit even the categorical skills by a specialty rule (basically, each rank in one of those skills gives you one specialty; if you have a task in a specialty, you get a bonus if you have the specialty, a penalty if you do not); new categories are usually tucked in as specialties to prevent "skill proliferation."

When considering player desired, I generally try to be flexible and see how a character concept can fit. For example, I had a PC who wanted to play a lizardfolk fighter/sorcerer, but wanted to split his levels. I beleive in the 20% rule for various reasons, so did not just want to circumvent it. Instead, I contemplated a few lizard man tribes in my world that might have sorcerer as a preferred class instead of druid.

 

[Arnwyn]

Well said, Olgar. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

For my campaign, I house-rule it all. No player will dictate to me what PrCs (or feats, etc) will be allowed in the campaign. However, I'm fairly flexible, and will allow the player to make his/her case. Simply put: "Tell me why you think this PrC will fit into this campaign world." A response that ends up sounding like "cause I'll get 1337 kewl skillz" is promptly ignored.

 

[barsoomcore]

Barsoom is a very restrictive campaign. Fighters and Rogues and that's it. Well, sort of. Everybody's human. No magic (sort of). No demi-humans or humanoids, no dragons, no much of anything that is "typical" D&D. Not because that stuff is bad but just because it didn't fit.

I figure as long as DM is CONSISTENT in his or her restrictions, they can do as they like. In fact, since none of us can do anything to stop one another from doing as we like, I guess what I really figure is that being consistent is the most important aspect of campaign design.

Make sure all players start with the same level of knowledge.
Make sure the same restrictions apply to everyone at all times.
Make sure everyone understands to what level they can provide input and ideas.

Letting one or the other of these principles get violated is likely to cause some ill-feeling among players, and justifiably so.

Beyond that, whether you're socialist or elitist or open-source makes no never mind. Your players can decide if they want to play your game.

I'm running Barsoom because I had a bunch of ideas for a cool campaign. Barsoom is restrictive because that's part and parcel of the coolness of the ideas I had. If a player comes to me and says he wants to play a cleric of Obad-Hai, well, it's just not going to happen. I expect my players to spend some time thinking about the campaign and coming up with character concepts within its boundaries. Even pushing the boundaries.

You can be restrictive and still be open to player input. My players come to me all the time with ideas on how things might work or what sort of powers might be cool. I decide if I'm going to place these in my world.

As long as I don't give one player chances that other players aren't allowed, and as long as I treat my players like intelligent human beings, I figure I'm doing pretty good.

 

[nopantsyet]

I set parameters for a particular campaign based on the setting, story, etc. If the players live in a world inhabited only by dwarves, they can't be elves. Duh! But a campaign with that type of restraints better be damn good!

My players are good--they're willing to give anything a try. And we all agree that if it's no fun we'll do something else. So they start from the PHB and beyond that they run everything by me. I end up allowing alot of flexibility both with published materials and personal tweaks. The characters generally end up being one-of-a-kind.

I'm really not so worried about balance issues. I try to keep the PCs close in power level, but if the overall power level is higher or lower, I can easily accomodate that with the challenges they face.

 

[Desdichado]

I think you'll find that the answers to that question are disproportinately coming from a DM's perspective. I tend to agree -- if I'm trying to craft a campaign setting and make a game that I will enjoy, restrictions are the first thing I look at too.

As a player, I don't really have a problem with it, but from a player's perspective, I can see how getting your hopes set on an option and then finding it to be non-allowed can be frustrating. Still, though, as a DM at heart myself, I have to agree with you. Perhaps, as has been suggested here already, the best solution is to try and work with the player to incorporate the elements of the PrC that he likes into something that you can work with.

 

[Henry]

I guess I have to fall in Psion's "benevolent dictator" camp. Lest anyone misconstrue my "It's your game, your rules" recital, I am all for working with someone; however, what do you do, when you CAN'T come to a compromise? Not everything is solved by throwing someone out of a game. Also, not everything can be solved by going separate ways when your group only consists of a few friends who would rather socialize together and play the only game that week they are going to have time to play. Therefore, when the chips are down, SOMEONE has to have final say, and SOMEONE has to have final responsiblity for the enjoyment of all the players.

This is also why I said, "free reign to run his own campaign on alternating weeks." Sometimes, a lot of moaning and fussing can be defused JUST by letting the complainer run a game of his own making - especially when it comes into an issue of conflict of style. Even DM I have EVER run into, who I have also played with as PC's, has had no complains about "disallowing this or that character concept." Because they know

1) What prep it takes and the active game-day work involved of running a good D&D game, and

2) They know what it's like to have a contrary person trying to contradict every word they say.

On the other hand, I've still run into some players who have never DM'ed, who get very "fussy" (for lack of a better word) when they can't use their special set of rules. Gaming an RPG is about compromise, but it's also about having the time to play, rather than spend too much time debating rules and special cases.