TT reader and RPG freelancer Walt Ciechanowski (Walt C. in the comments) is full of good questions (his last one was Do you give bonuses/penalties to skill checks for roleplaying?). Via email, here’s another question from Walt (thanks, Walt!):
When you start a campaign, do you limit character options?
Not as in “You can’t use that splatbook,” but in the sense of “No gnomes,” “Everyone needs to have a connection to law enforcement,” and the like.
Hey you. Yeah, you. Do you know about Gnomecast 21? Why isn’t it in the archives? What are they hiding? If you value your safety… don’t go searching for Gnomecast 21…
Through our partner Engine Publishing, we've published six system-neutral books for GMs, with over 28,000 copies sold. Available in print and PDF.
Focal Point
Unframed
Odyssey
Never Unprepared
Masks
EurekaThrough our partnership in the G.E.M. collective, many of the Gnomes are affiliated with creating products through Encoded Designs. Available in print and PDF.
Misdirected Mark Productions
Rockerboys and Vending Machines
Character Cache
Hydro Hacker Operatives
I think it entirely depends on the type of campaign you’re running. It might make sense to limit the party to good-aligned humans if you’re a group fulfilling some ancient prophecy, but if you’re just a bunch of adventurers trying to have fun, who cares?
sometimes. one previous campaign started with each member of the party getting drafted for four years. this served to get the party adventuring together, and a good means of introducing some of the elements and factions of the setting. after their tour of duty was over, they were free to rampage as they liked.
in my current eberron campaign, the players decided themselves that they’d all served in the same cyran unit during the last war. i’ve voiced that i’d prefer to see only eberron prestige classes in the game, but none of my players are particularly big on prestige classes, anyway.
i don’t think i’ve ever imposed limits on core races and classes, and am pretty generous with accepting stuff from supplements. or, sometimes, completely different settings or d20 systems. jedi guardians in D&D are fun.
I’m actually doing that right now in my latest game. It is military themed, and deals with some undercover work, so I asked everyone to make races that would not stand out too greatly, and to think of their role as part of the military unit they would be serving in.
I’m not so sure I consider it “limiting” (although it probably is), but as part of the social contract asking the players to build to meet the general framework of the campaign. It all depends on what you are aiming for with the game. Limiting can be a very handy tool, but it can also be a dangerous one. Sometimes just one element can throw off the balance of a game, and then a GM is working hard to bring that back. The “special” race in a group of regular races, the person who absolutely, positively wants to have dragon blood in their veins, and a special destiny, etc. Limiting characters can circumvent some of those problems, but you have to ask yourself if you are limiting the player’s fun as well. There is a reason the players want really cool stuff, or to be special in the game. If you have to limit something for a player try to find out what the players wants from that, and find a way to achieve that in some other way.
Yes. I think the “min-max shuffle” common to D&D is detrimental to a good game. OTOH, group cohesion is beneficial to a good game.
Regarding sources:
In my current game, first level was “SRD only”. I have expanded things considerably, but it’s still on a case-by-case basis. There’s something very elegant about a game limited to the SRD, and I may do so again.
Regarding character choices:
Humans are the only race which can become Monks (because it’s Greyhawk).
No evil characters, because I’ve never seen a campaign with an evil PC run smoothly or end well.
No oddball races (Half-Drow, Gray Elf, Centaur, etc). Did I mention that this is Greyhawk?
In future campaigns, I will want something in common from the PCs. It may be a common background (military unit, etc), or it may be different for each character (I’m John’s best friend, and I served with Lisa in the militia, and Gary and I go to the same church). The exact connections will need to be hammered out with the players, not imposed by the GM.
It really depends on what setting and what campaign I have in mind. If I want to do a spy game for example I ask my players to make characters that are believable as spies, and that have a reason to do that kind of work.
Right now I’m thinking about a campaign and for that I’m limiting the character options to only humans or haflings (which have a social stigma on them)
I think I’m more inclined to do the opposite — get an idea of what sorts of characters the players are interested in, and then build up a campaign to support it. It’s a fairly dynamic, co-operative sort of approach.
I’m vehemently opposed to limiting character options. Right now I allow the players to use anything published by WotC, and I’ll review third-party stuff on a case-by-case basis if they want to use that. I do reserve the right to modify or ban things (preferably modify) if they seem too overpowered… For example, one of my players keeps talking about the warshaper prestige class which is in one of the complete books, and after looking at it it just seems overly powerful, so I told him that if he takes it I’ll probably end up modifying it somehow to tone its power down.
I’ve had a lot of success using this kind of limiting though I agree with John that “limiting” is probably not the best term. It’s particularly useful when you want the PCs to be a part of some organization or movement and need to reflect that in their character design.
I’ve had fantasy campaigns where I’ve asked that no one create a non-human character simply because it’s going to be a major plot point for that campaign. Generally speaking though, it has to be fairly substantive setting element for me to do that, as it’s fairly easy to otherwise work things into a game.
I’m much more likely to ban splatbooks than limit other things.
> I’m vehemently opposed to limiting character options.
> I do reserve the right to modify or ban things (preferably modify) if they seem too overpowered.
You realize the inconsistency between these two statements, I trust.
(Roger) You realize the inconsistency between these two statements, I trust.
I don’t think Ian’s statements are necessarily inconsistent. Whether or not you limit character options at the start of a campaign, new stuff will come out (and it might be overpowered), and abilities that didn’t raise any red flags will turn out to be problems.
Thinking back on my own games, I’ve tried both approaches (limit/don’t limit) and had success and failure with both of them. The more sourcebooks there are for a game, the more likely I am to limit options a bit.
I’m coming around more and more to the idea of limiting character options based on the campaign concept. It can actually be a big boost to interest and creativity if done right.
I play Champions, which is, of course, something of a different animal than D&D. Due to the nature of the game, you will typically have a few general guidelines as things start–a point total, a campaign city, and general guidelines as far as level of lethality.
My face-to-face campaign started along these lines. The primary PCs started with 250 points, including disadvantages (this was during 4th edition–it would probably be 350 points now), and all were tied to San Angelo. I ended up with a mage, a firefighter-turned energy projector, and an armored guy. They crossed paths during the first adventure and eventually teamed up, and the campaign has lasted on and off for several years. The upsides include flexibility for the players and a wide variety of play options.
But other games have taught me the value of more specific guidelines and how they can add value. In one of my favorite face-to-face campaigns, all the PCs had to be beholden to PRIMUS (a U.S.-based SHIELD-like organization) in some way, and they ended up under orders as a sort of second-tier superhero team. The initial structure of the campaign was much more limited (they went where their boss told them to go), but the campaign relied much less on coincidence to bring the heroes together and gave them real room to grow (for example, when they began to suspect that their boss wasn’t such a good guy). I run a PBEM campaign where all the heroes work for Disney and have Disney-themed powers (not really tongue in cheek, just corporate heroes and spokespeople, like Doctor Tomorrow who has gadgets and equipment reminiscent of Tomorrowland). It wouldn’t appeal to everyone, but the strong theme and limitations on character backgrounds really helped boost the players’ creativity in some areas and have helped to make for some cool storylines.
Sometimes adding restrictions can really help to get the creative juices flowing.
To carry this back to D&D, I could see a campaign based around the concept “you are all members of the duke’s elite guard” or “you are all performers for a traveling carnival” or “you are all dwarven soldiers separated from your regiment by a purple worm attack” as being more interesting than “you are all adventurers who met in a tavern.”
I think that “you are all dwarven soldiers separated from your regiment by a purple worm attack†might just be one of the best campaign ideas I’ve heard of for a long time! Might just steal that one!
Personally, I try to get some common ground to my PCs beforehand, and try to do that without system reference. I’m not convinced that SRD-only is necessarily fit for purpose (spiked chain, anyone?), nor WotC-only (as mentioned previously, Warshapers). But I still agree with the concept… because I have never seen the “if you want to play a drow, you’d better give me a good character background…” ever lead to “okay, that’s not a good enough character background, you can’t play a drow.”
So, I guess, be upfront about it, rather than pansy about with “I’ll need a good background for that.” Genuine, game-nuisance powergamers will find that background.
Yep. The latest game I’m running I said “no orcs.” The world doesn’t have them.
And as you’d know it one player showed up and was miffed because he had already started statting out a half-orc ranger. He was a grump until I said I didn’t have anything against him playing a half-ogre ranger! 🙂
While it went against the philosophy of saying “yes” to player choice, I think the player was happier with option.
I also tried to push the idea of all players having at least one connection with another player but this didn’t work out as well as no one followed through.
At least each player gave me a couple of paragraphs worth of character background to use for plot hooks.
I do limit the options that the players have for my games. I don’t agree with the term “limit” either though, so let me say that I “define the scope” of an adventure or campaign before character creation begins.
It just makes sense to do so. You run a better campaign by saying “No Xs. It will ruin the game experience for this adventure.” If a player objects I talk it over with them and try to find a compromise, and if that doesn’t work then I suggest that they sit out for that game (only happened once).
Now if there is no reason for not allowing something then just allow it from the beginning. I do not like it when a GM says “No Xs because I don’t like them in my games.” and find that to be a true limitation of what the players have available to them.
Yes, I limit PC options. For instance, no orges, orcs, skaven, or dark elves. I tend dislike OPFOR campaigns, though find an OPFOR, such as the EO concept, helpful.
Fantasy adventure, and the stories we grew up with, are good versus evil, not evil versus good (sure there is a perspective to argue here but then we digress into topics of moral relativism).
This is not to say that PCs can be shady with a decidedly evil slant, but the character has to find an outward projection that keeps him/her as an otherwise functional member of society (“Serial Mom” comes to mind) if not odd, or ecentric, or creepy. Backgrounds are very helpful, but are not going to change my mind about orges, orcs, skaven, or dark elves.
Bottom line, I see it as a simple matter of what the greater campaign world is going to allow walking the streets: orges, orcs, and vile ratmen die by mob, sword, fire, or all three, with no trial.
One point I’d like to bring up is that limiting options for players also includes things like advantages, disadvantages, feats, skills, and backgrounds.
During my initial experiences with GURPS, I think every character had Bloodlust, Lecherous, and Overconfident as disadvantages (you know, all the things our D&D characters had naturally ;)). We started banning things from the list that didn’t seem like disadvantages. I also tried a concept where no two characters could have the same disadvantage. Skill lists were also something that needed trimming.
Walt C
Every time, without exception. The default for any of my games is always “The character options listed in the core book; anything else requires special approval from me” AND some additional guidance on what classes, races, origins, etc., are not allowed.
In superheroes, I might say “No aliens.” For 7th Sea, “No sorcery” or “No Kreuzritter” is common. In a White Wolf game, I might declare certain tribes or traditions off-limits. For D&D, I (of course) outlaw evil and Chaotic Neutral alignments, and so on.
Setting some boundaries in no way limits the endless roleplaying possibilities, and it helps plan a game where everyone gets treated fairly and gets a chance to participate in the story.
I ran character creation for my latest game last night, and like Calybos said, it doesn’t limit role-playing possibilities at all. The one person was intent on playing a race that wouldn’t work for the situation (lizardblooded special race)at all, so we found a different race that would work. With the new choice ther are multiple role playing angles, and characterization angles that he wouldn’t have had with the old one. He got all excited about the things he could do with the new one. The old race was his “favorite” to play, but he was stuck in the mindset of how to do it. The new one gave him a lot of new ground to work with.
I still say you have to be careful with it though, just make sure it doesn’t limit the players fun.
In one sense, character options are limited in every (or just about every) RPG. Limitation comes at first from the game system (and perhaps setting) in use. Additional limitation may come from the GM and players in defining the scope of their game. Additional GM/player limitation is almost always present when playing the more open ended games (Hero, GURPS, D20). Back in the AD&D 1e days, I don’t recall much limitation occuring with core sources. Late in the cycle, when addtional books were added, there were more limitations (and those books set the stage for 2e probably being considered an open ended game).
But, sure limitation all the time. Sorry, you don’t get to play a Vulcan from the starship Enterprise in my D&D game.
It’s interesting to see that many of the “indie” games are very focused. In Dogs in the Vinyard, you get to play a Mormon “watchdog of the faith” and the GM tells you what town you will visit next.
Of course all of the exploding options did really start with AD&D 1e, or truthfully before that, when the Greyhawk supplement to the original D&D game was first published (and perhaps even before that people were writing up new classes and such – not to mention the original game does actually offer the possibility of playing monsters as PCs – though no guidelines for experience and character advancement are provided – on the flip side, AD&D quashed this as Gygax started to react to the proliferation of optional material for the game). And for a while Dragon tried to quash the alternate classes by labelling them “NPC” classes and not providing experience progressions for them, but other than for a several year period, the Dragon would not have been the same without new character options.
Frank
I have to agree with those who mentioned that it depends on what kind of campaign you’re running. This is particularly true with game systems that are more open, and thus have a mix of things from both sci-fi and fantasy realms.
With D&D, I generally don’t limit things for players too much. Every now and then I may run something where I narrow the scope down to just certain races and classes. One particular instance was for the winter one-shot adventure that I ran for my group, where I specified that races, classes, etc. from only the first two core books could be used (PHP and DMG). What was supposed to have been a one-shot adventure ended up continuing for a few sessions, and it turned out to be a lot of fun. The characters the players developed were very colorful. 🙂
However, it is wise to limit some things if they turn out to be over-powered. I remember having one bad experience with a half-dragon character (whom I had mortally wounded :twisted:). And I’m currently dealing with a half-fiend Damage Monkey in my current Eberron Campaign. I think in my next long-term campaign I’ll put a limit on templates that can be used for characters, if not put a blanket ban on them.
However, it can be interesting to see what players can come up with when you allow all sources, as long as they’re still able to fit the theme of the adventure. In fact, I’m in the process right now of planning for a summer one-shot adventure where I’ve allowed all sources to be used. I’ve seen some interesting character builds so far, which includes a Ravid sorcerer.
So both extremes can turn out to be fun. It just comes down to what fits best for your campaign, and what you and your players are comfortable with.
Millsy said: I think that “you are all dwarven soldiers separated from your regiment by a purple worm attack†might just be one of the best campaign ideas I’ve heard of for a long time! Might just steal that one!
Millsy, if you do, let us know how it goes!