Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8022902" data-attributes="member: 53980">I think that the most important factor regarding this is to have interesting options available for the players.I've played in any number of campaigns that limited the options from the PHB, but the good ones (IMO) added cool new options that were thematically geared to the campaign. When that was the case, players never sought to play something that was banned, as they were excited about trying out the new options.However, if you have a player who dislikes the idea of playing a human (because they are a human in real life and want to be different in an FRPG) and all you offer is humans, you may have an issue. At the very least, you're not offering options that interest that participant, which IMO is less than ideal. That aspect of the campaign is not well suited to your 'audience' (I'm speaking metaphorically, as players obviously have more agency than that of an actual audience). The wrong (IMO) implementation of additional options is when GMs design the new material to be substantially worse than the existing material. At best this becomes a false choice, at its worst a trap choice. IME it's better to aim for the new options to be on the high end of the power curve. This incentivizes the new options, which in turn root the players more deeply in the campaign world (since the new options are campaign specific).Mystara, for example, has a wealth of unusual playable options that can replace what is banned.In short, I don't think that there's anything wrong with limiting options per se. However, I think it is worthwhile examining your players' preferences and then considering whether there are ways to offer options that they will enjoy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 8022902, member: 53980"] I think that the most important factor regarding this is to have interesting options available for the players. I've played in any number of campaigns that limited the options from the PHB, but the good ones (IMO) added cool new options that were thematically geared to the campaign. When that was the case, players never sought to play something that was banned, as they were excited about trying out the new options. However, if you have a player who dislikes the idea of playing a human (because they are a human in real life and want to be different in an FRPG) and all you offer is humans, you may have an issue. At the very least, you're not offering options that interest that participant, which IMO is less than ideal. That aspect of the campaign is not well suited to your 'audience' (I'm speaking metaphorically, as players obviously have more agency than that of an actual audience). The wrong (IMO) implementation of additional options is when GMs design the new material to be substantially worse than the existing material. At best this becomes a false choice, at its worst a trap choice. IME it's better to aim for the new options to be on the high end of the power curve. This incentivizes the new options, which in turn root the players more deeply in the campaign world (since the new options are campaign specific). Mystara, for example, has a wealth of unusual playable options that can replace what is banned. In short, I don't think that there's anything wrong with limiting options per se. However, I think it is worthwhile examining your players' preferences and then considering whether there are ways to offer options that they will enjoy. [/QUOTE]

Verification