Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="karlindel" data-source="post: 5450279" data-attributes="member: 27103">For me, it really depends on the campaign.I ran several 3e campaigns in which I allowed almost anything as long as the player gave me a photocopy of the relevant pages and gave me time to look it over to make sure that I approved.&nbsp; Among other things, one player played a psionicist, and another used familiar bonuses from Quintessential Wizard.&nbsp; &nbsp; I still try to say yes to things that players want, as long as their desires will fit into the campaign (and won't break the game).&nbsp; I am also not averse to house ruling interesting options if I think they are unbalanced (assuming the player wants it for the flavor as opposed to the unbalancing aspects).&nbsp; However, I have some campaign ideas that would limit character options more than others.I do not think that allowing options for one player but not for another is a problem in a campaign.&nbsp; I had one GM who ran a 2e game in which the kingdom was almost entirely human, but all of the players initially created elven characters, and he didn't like the idea of the kingdom being constantly rescued by the chelf (cheesy elf) brigade.&nbsp; So he allowed no more than one of any given nonhuman race in the campaign.&nbsp; I think it is perfectly reasonable to only allow one character of a certain type, particularly if it is a type of character that you would normally prefer to avoid.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="karlindel, post: 5450279, member: 27103"] For me, it really depends on the campaign. I ran several 3e campaigns in which I allowed almost anything as long as the player gave me a photocopy of the relevant pages and gave me time to look it over to make sure that I approved. Among other things, one player played a psionicist, and another used familiar bonuses from Quintessential Wizard. I still try to say yes to things that players want, as long as their desires will fit into the campaign (and won't break the game). I am also not averse to house ruling interesting options if I think they are unbalanced (assuming the player wants it for the flavor as opposed to the unbalancing aspects). However, I have some campaign ideas that would limit character options more than others. I do not think that allowing options for one player but not for another is a problem in a campaign. I had one GM who ran a 2e game in which the kingdom was almost entirely human, but all of the players initially created elven characters, and he didn't like the idea of the kingdom being constantly rescued by the chelf (cheesy elf) brigade. So he allowed no more than one of any given nonhuman race in the campaign. I think it is perfectly reasonable to only allow one character of a certain type, particularly if it is a type of character that you would normally prefer to avoid. [/QUOTE]

Verification