Seed Theory 1.

[Andor]

There are other means of restricting (or providing framework for) the initial party seed as well.

DM: This is Eberron, the floor is wide open, but you will start play working for a minor scion of house Canith in Breland, make something that fits.
P1: I'll make a Warforged bard made towards the end of the war and now working as an entertainer and agent of the house.
P2: I'll make a human ranger who is actually an agent for another branch of house Canith.
P3: I was thinking about a Paladin of the Silver Flame but I don't think that works. How about a Shifter Fighter who is a Cyran refugee?

Even if you don't like to restrict your players to a particular plot in game, making sure they all start out moving in the same direction can be enough to keep the party coherant later on.

 

[Quickleaf]

Starting a group

I find the old "How do you know each other?" question is not only less work for me, but great fun for the players.

 

[Turanil]

A famous playwright (whose name escapes me at the moment) once said, "Tell me to write a story and I am doomed. Tell me to write a story about two guys having sandwiches in a deli on Thursday and I am a genius."

I think that the word restrictions may be the wrong one to describe what you are seeking. What you really want is a framework on which to build the story. The problem with the wide open game is that there isn't enough of a framework for the characters to know what they should be doing.

Well said!

 

[Umbran]

Restriction breeds depth. Width breeds restriction.

A game which its players are heavily restricted (I.e. all human, all asian, all Australian, all Tasmanian) brings about through neccesity deeper characters due to no-one wanting to play exactly the same thing. Characters are heavily explored to avoid simply being clones.

If an only if the players care about playing clones. There are players out there who don't care much about personality, and for them this will not hold.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are players who are all about personality - and for them, your restrictiosn are usually unnecessary. They can and will explore depth of character on their own. They may start at the archetypal level, but they'll explore and deepen as time goes on. There is perhaps a middle groundfo players for whom the restriction forces depth, but I am not convinced this is a majority of the gamer population.

I find restriction breeds a bit of inspiration for me at the start - I tend to find it easier to choose a character type when the field is not wide open. However, once I've gotten the initial inspiration, the amount of restriction that was applied at the start is meaningless. My dwarf isn't going to be "just a dwarf", no matter if the party is all dwarves, or it is everything under the sun.

 

[TheGM]

Thats the exact problems I find with many games, the DM is figuring out what the players should be doing. When a char starts out at first level, in essense like someone who just graduates from high school, do they know what they are doing? Maybe this is why my players never lose that.. new game feeling and first levels are just as exciting as a tenth or even epic, only things that change is are the spells and striking things.

You know, again I say it deeply depends upon the players.

I have groups (that I prefer to run for) that are self-determining.

I have other groups that must be prodded to do anything. I have no intention of running a game that does nothing, either good or bad, so those groups I force. Just depends upon the player mix. My experience is that players with more years under their belt, but a single, hardnosed "do it my way" GM tend to not want to make a decision about anything, so I have events overtake them and have them driven to do something.

 

[The Shaman]

*snippity!*

While I'm inclined to agree, I think there are too many variables in this that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions or offer general advice. Already mentioned is the maturity of the players and their interests, to which I would add that genre can influence campaign-related restrictions and roleplaying.

Some players simply need to be told, "We're off to adventure!" and can make a party that works well together, covers the major needs of the group, and fits well with the background - others need to be lead by the hand (or other appendage) in order to (1) create a team that (2) is appropriate to the setting. The fantasy genre, with its incredible diversity of sentient beings and, in many games, classes/occupations, may make this more of a challenge than modern horror or intrigue, for example - this diversity appeals to both roleplayers (by offering potentially intriguing 'stranger in a strange land' characters) and power-gamers (more and bigger bonuses!).

IMHO, the players have a responsibility to make a party that adds to, not detracts from, the suspension of disbelief that underlies the campaign. If the players create characters that do not fit the setting in terms of race or class, insist on preparing backgrounds that do not mesh with the game-world history, or develop personalities that are inimical to the group dynamic, they are hurting the game. (To the latter group of players I offer this suggestion: if you want to work out your angsty little issues, write a short story or read a poem at an open-mic night - don't bring 'em to the gaming table, 'kay?)

As far as the original question goes, I am a GM who includes restrictions on player character choices in my games. I believe it helps to cull out players who will not mesh well with my GMing style, reducing potential frustration for both me and the player, for who wants to spend their leisure time being frustrated? This may limit my player pool somewhat (my most restrictive game barely got off the ground as I had a hard time attracting four players) but I'll accept that in exchange for a game experience where the players and I are all on the same page from the giddyup (that same restrictive game is one of the most enjoyable games I can recall playing).

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

Thanks for the replies!

It seems that most people agree with me. I'm currently playing the sand-man previously mentioned in a Dark Sun campaign. (first time playing in yonks. Normally I GM.) While it's a mostly interesting game, I just can't seem to find a party dynamic. We are a party only because it's a game, not because our characters feel a need to stick together.

An inexperienced DM doesn't help, though the adventure is a published one. (New DM got his hands on almost every second edition Darksun product available. Seems to be running on the published adventures.)

Is there any DMs or players that actively embrace an open approach and yet don't have a problem with party dynamic? Do those games tend to be plot-focused (In whatever way neccesary, railroading or evolving) or gamist? (Challenge is important for it's own sake, probably under thinly veiled plot. )