When Do Limited Options Become Stifling?

[MrStabby]

I feel like this is a bad faith argument, even if its not meant to be. Just saying "There's an unlimited set of characters no matter how much is excluded because different personalities exist" isn't worth anything because RP personalities aren't worth much to begin with when it comes to significantly differentiating a character. If there's only a single class/race/build/ect., then Joe the Cowardly Fighter is exactly the same a Bob the Brave Fighter. The only difference is it takes longer for Joe to get into combat. Once the mechanics of the game start being applied, they are exactly the same.


I also feel that your experience might not be that widely shared. For example, I play in a game with a decent number of boundaries. One being that the Druid class is banned completely for in-game story reasons. Now, I'm very much a person who hates boundaries. I've convinced a DM to let me player an Awakened Maple Leaf that was named Lief Oakenbranch as an actual character for a year long campaign. But I'm also more than willing to work within boundaries as long as they are reasonable.

I had said it in a previous post of mine on the last page: But Limiting options becomes stifling once you are no longer able to effectively create your idea. And the key word is "effectively". For me, that's mechanical builds, cause I find the mechanics of a game to be far more fun, engaging, and interesting than RP. For others, that could be RP. But in either case, the line remains in the same place: The moment you can't effectively create what you set out to make, then its stifling.

I get that you want to represent an idea effectively, though my experience is that the issue is more about the fundamental game system than about a restrictive subset of features being enforced. I usually play 5th edition d&d and I find that wherever I try and follow some kind of character concept rather than optimize, my characters are exceptionally weak. The game itself supports certain clusters of options very well but the spaces between the classes are poorly supported.

If my issue is about not being able to play a concept I like, then I am as likely to reject a game on the basis of the system as any other restrictions.

People are good at noticing difference between zero and none, and 90% versus 10%, but middle values are hard and 60% versus 40% is regularly considered 50/50. Minor variation, especially in middle results, is lost to everyday observers.

Well yes... but that's what happens when you use the wrong tool. If you want changes to the extremes on the same scale as the middle, you can just use log-odds.