Which just means they're agreeing to be limited in what they can do.My table has a no evil characters rule.
It isn't about limiting what people can do, it is about deciding what kind of vibe and theme we want to be playing. And everyone agrees to play within that space.
Yeah, that's just the sort of thing I mean by the type of restrictions that are bad. You're flat-out telling that player how they're allowed to play not just this character but any future character in that campaign.We had a player recently who played a character who shot first and asked questions later.
I had a discussion with him at the table about how it takes away the ability of other players to engage in the game the way they want to.
Much better. In-game problems require in-game solutions.The alternative is for the party to dump the character who is getting them into dangerous fights and ruining their chances to get info or allies.
Only if either a) the player of the ostracized character takes it personally or b) the other players at the table ostracize the player along with the character.But then if they do that the ostracized player will have a bad time.
If a) is the case then that player needs a chat about separating character from player, and to not take it all so seriously. If b) is the case you've got a real problem on your hands, as groupthink is being allowed to squash individuality both in and out of character.