How strict is too strict?

[Raine_Sage]

Bleh, feeling a little crummy about a stupid argument, was wondering if other people might share their thoughts on this.

A friend of a friend wanted to run a pathfinder campaign. I had never played pathfinder before and since my friend was also playing I figured it'd be fun to pick up something new. Before the character creation session I did a little rummaging on the srd because I had a character concept ready to go, worked out the approximate stats I'd need to make it work, figured I could use the character building session to ask the gm questions and refine what I had into an actual character sheet.

When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls) presumably to prevent minmaxing, that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells), and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters. I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like him saying "I don't trust my players not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about things." And I told him as much. Predictably I got the 'if you don't like it you don't have to play' response which was fair enough so I walked.

Only now my friend feels guilty about playing without me despite constant reassurances that no I'm ok with it really, if they're having fun that's great! But now I'm just wondering if I overreacted. How strict is a deal breaker for you guys generally?

[Sidmen]

You know, I've never personally understood people who couldn't play a game (that they didn't know anything about beforehand) unless they get to play whatever the heck they want. Usually it's a race or class thing - sometimes a GM doesn't want to run a world where Centaur Inquisitors are running around with Gnomish Witches (or whatever). If I were in your shoes, I would've said "well, that concept is out the window - let's see what my random stats say I should be".

It's not that I'm hating on you - I just can't put my head on your shoulders and understand it. And you certainly aren't alone - I had a GM that wanted to run a game with JUST Elves, Dwarves, and Humans; where magic-users were practically non-existant. One of our players practically exploded because he couldn't play an esoteric race I've never heard of as a Wizard. He, like you, left the game before we started playing.

From the perspective of someone who watched someone else leave a game for similar reasons - it's hard to not think that the GM or the rest of the group did something wrong or hurt the other guy's (in this case, your) feelings. If I had liked (or even knew) the other guy more I might've been worried that I'd bruised a friendship - even if he said everything was fine (that's usually code for "I'm repressing it" in my experience).

Personally, I'm pretty open when it comes to restrictions (weird...). Most of them have a very good reason to exist; whether that reason is story-, world-, or balance-based. Heck, sometimes it's just mood based. Wanting to only have two spellcasters in a party certainly sets a particular mood that is entirely different from having 3/4 of a party composed of magicians of various colors.

[VoxRationis]

The DM has the right to determine the method of stat generation. Rolling is a classic, and though the Playground may hate it owing to their desire to leave nothing to chance, entirely legitimate method.

As for caster limits... Party setup is another thing that can be tricky. You generally have roles to fill; if an important role (such as healer) goes unfulfilled, the party limps along. Therefore, it's really easy to get forced to play a particular role. That kind of sucks, but that's the way it goes. Try talking more with your fellow players in advance next time to try and work out a more favorable compromise.

[Averis Vol]

First of all, sorry to hear that, that's pretty weak yo. Secondly, I think a little bit of strictness is a good thing, but I mostly let my players play what they want, because we're all here to have fun. As to the situation you were in, I think if everyone had been at the table without their characters already built, that would have been an okay situation because you could have talked it out there like rational people, instead of apparently playing, "Use really specific character gen rules without telling the new guy/girl."

In all, I think walking was a good idea. First impressions are important, and if you don't click right off the bat, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.

[Raine_Sage]

You know, I've never personally understood people who couldn't play a game (that they didn't know anything about beforehand) unless they get to play whatever the heck they want. Usually it's a race or class thing - sometimes a GM doesn't want to run a world where Centaur Inquisitors are running around with Gnomish Witches (or whatever). If I were in your shoes, I would've said "well, that concept is out the window - let's see what my random stats say I should be".

It's not that I can't play a game with class restrictions. I don't mind hard and fast rules as to what can and cannot be played provided they make sense. I.E. we're playing an underwater game please no fire elementals. I just like having a solid idea of who my character is beforehand and I hate leaving things up to chance. I know that sounds silly given the kind of game pathfinder is, but that's also why I like being able to have some control over what my character ends up as, since I will have so little control from that point onwards.

And part of it is also some classes just aren't fun for me. I hate playing wizards for example, despite being the most versatile class in later levels I just can't stand them. I love playing fighters, I'm kind of eh on rangers and so on and so forth. I love warlocks not because of how they play but because I really love their fluff. I don't mind playing a class I'm not fond of if there's a good reason why I need to play that class. Maybe we need a healer or maybe we're playing at a wizarding school idk. What bothered me in this case was that I could potentially be stuck with something I hate just because I got an unlucky roll, and that the GM was not open to rerolling at all.

[Oneris]

While limiting character stat generation and party makeup is just a method to limit optimization, limiting character background is probably going a bit too far. Player Characters are special snowflakes in the world just for being able to get past level 5, so how much difference is it going to make if they also happened to be a long lost heir? The worst a character background can do (for the GM) is to change some of the fluff, while most of the time it either never comes up during gameplay, or sometimes can even enhance the plot and Player-NPC interactions.

If he is so worried about character background generation, he will also probably be worried about roleplaying character personalities in general. Special-snowflake-ship isn't limited to background alone; it can also take the form of simply standing up to the local lord or refusing to get wrongfully arrested for a crime. To want to limit 'specialness' in its entirety would mean cracking down on player behavior as well.

I'd say you made a good decision getting out of there early. Prepare to eventually see your friend complaining about railroading.

[Sidmen]

Yeah, I can Grok that. If you didn't have an already established RPG-playing relationship with that group, I can see being warned off by that possibility. I sometimes have a hard time remembering that I'm not a typical GM (I let people re-work anything they want on their character - especially if it turned out to be more useless than they anticipated).

[Knaight]

Honestly, the GM looks like a bit of a control freak - I'd consider that a warning sign, and I say that as someone who's a near permanent GM. Some specifics about it being Pathfinder with randomized characters would have been nice, and the reasons given have a distinct tone of "this is my game, you're just witnesses to it, and I dictate how it goes" to them.

You know, I've never personally understood people who couldn't play a game (that they didn't know anything about beforehand) unless they get to play whatever the heck they want. Usually it's a race or class thing - sometimes a GM doesn't want to run a world where Centaur Inquisitors are running around with Gnomish Witches (or whatever). If I were in your shoes, I would've said "well, that concept is out the window - let's see what my random stats say I should be".

It's not that I'm hating on you - I just can't put my head on your shoulders and understand it. And you certainly aren't alone - I had a GM that wanted to run a game with JUST Elves, Dwarves, and Humans; where magic-users were practically non-existant. One of our players practically exploded because he couldn't play an esoteric race I've never heard of as a Wizard. He, like you, left the game before we started playing.

It's not about restrictions really, it's more about odd restrictions coming out after the game starts. If the game is pitched as being about the warriors in a dwarf clan, basically nobody has an issue with playing dwarves in some sort of fighting class. There might be an issue if there are hidden restrictions - everyone has to be a Fighter, where the players went in thinking that Barbarian, Ranger, etc. were at least open, but it's generally fine. If someone says that they're GMing a pathfinder game, gets players, and then says that everyone needs to make a dwarven Fighter, it comes off poorly.

Let me put it this way - basically nobody comes to D&D saying that they want to play a space marine in powered armor using a plasma rifle. I've never even heard of someone wanting to play a pilot. It's generally understood that those aren't in the available play space. Basically nobody gets upset that those concepts are banned. Issues only come up when the game is pitched such that it's understood that the available space for characters is one thing, and then it comes up that no, it's actually something else. In this case, it's the heavy randomization (heavily encouraged random background tables?) and arbitrary restrictions with no forewarning in a game that generally doesn't have them. It can also be something more egregious - if someone pitches a Legend of the Five Rings game and then tells people that there are no samurai in it once they sit down to play, it's just egregious. Similarly, if someone pitches Shadowrun and once it starts says something to the effect of "no magic, no metahumans" people are likely to be annoyed. The samurai is the iconic character of Legend of the Five Rings, the entire point of Shadowrun as opposed to any other cyberpunk game is the fantasy element.

[TiaC]

It's not about restrictions really, it's more about odd restrictions coming out after the game starts. If the game is pitched as being about the warriors in a dwarf clan, basically nobody has an issue with playing dwarves in some sort of fighting class. There might be an issue if there are hidden restrictions - everyone has to be a Fighter, where the players went in thinking that Barbarian, Ranger, etc. were at least open, but it's generally fine. If someone says that they're GMing a pathfinder game, gets players, and then says that everyone needs to make a dwarven Fighter, it comes off poorly.

There's also an issue with the restriction taking the form of "They can do this, but you can't, because they got there first." Especially if one of those casters was an oracle, because then even if Raine played, there would be this other player who gets to do the thing that she(?) couldn't.

[BWR]

Honestly, the GM looks like a bit of a control freak - I'd consider that a warning sign, and I say that as someone who's a near permanent GM. Some specifics about it being Pathfinder with randomized characters would have been nice, and the reasons given have a distinct tone of "this is my game, you're just witnesses to it, and I dictate how it goes" to them.


It's not about restrictions really, it's more about odd restrictions coming out after the game starts. If the game is pitched as being about the warriors in a dwarf clan, basically nobody has an issue with playing dwarves in some sort of fighting class. There might be an issue if there are hidden restrictions - everyone has to be a Fighter, where the players went in thinking that Barbarian, Ranger, etc. were at least open, but it's generally fine. If someone says that they're GMing a pathfinder game, gets players, and then says that everyone needs to make a dwarven Fighter, it comes off poorly.

Let me put it this way - basically nobody comes to D&D saying that they want to play a space marine in powered armor using a plasma rifle. I've never even heard of someone wanting to play a pilot. It's generally understood that those aren't in the available play space. Basically nobody gets upset that those concepts are banned. Issues only come up when the game is pitched such that it's understood that the available space for characters is one thing, and then it comes up that no, it's actually something else. In this case, it's the heavy randomization (heavily encouraged random background tables?) and arbitrary restrictions with no forewarning in a game that generally doesn't have them. It can also be something more egregious - if someone pitches a Legend of the Five Rings game and then tells people that there are no samurai in it once they sit down to play, it's just egregious. Similarly, if someone pitches Shadowrun and once it starts says something to the effect of "no magic, no metahumans" people are likely to be annoyed. The samurai is the iconic character of Legend of the Five Rings, the entire point of Shadowrun as opposed to any other cyberpunk game is the fantasy element.

I think you're going a bit far here. Unless I misunderstand the situation, the OP had an idea and was told at character creation that it was no go, rather than being told to make a character and being told during play it was not ok. There is a world of difference between setting limits at cc (the proper time to bring them up) and bringing them into play when everybody is supposedly done with cc. If the DM has certain limits for the game, like the limit on casters, then a 'first come first served' way of allocating the slots is perfectly valid. I suppose you could complain that randomly determining which of the hopeful players got to play a caster might be more fair but that's really a minor issue. The randomized background is a bit unusual but having seen what some players do (or try to do) with their special snowflakes, I can see where he's coming from. A ban like that can be seen as "I don't trust you to not **** the bed" but it can also be seen as "rules are in place not to punish those who aren't a problem but to prevent those who are".

From what the OP has shown, I'd say s/he did overreact to this. Of course I don't know the details, nor how things were said or the people involved or the relationships between them, but I lean towards the DM's side of things. If a DM has a vision for a game and some people want to mess up that game, disruptive elements can stop being disruptive or leave. If enough players leave, the DM should run something else because it's obvious people aren't interested. I suffered a d20 burn-out a couple months ago. Coming up with characters and builds is just a pain, I'm tired of the bog-standard boring D&D worlds, even the settings I love, the mechanics; everything is just boring and uninspired. I still play with one of my groups because they are friends and I like seeing them. Everyone else wants to keep doing the stuff we've been doing for 20 years, so I just grit my teeth and bear it because I like my friends. I chose to stop being a disruptive element rather than leave. If I found it so darn horrible that subjecting myself to the game was worse than not hanging out with my friends, I'd leave. So for the OP I guess it boils down to if playing a certain way is more important than seeing your friends.

[Held]

I personally hate it when I tell people about my feelings and they respond with, "If you don't like it, move it." Honestly, that's just exemplifying a lack of willingness to discuss or explain why you do things. Something simple as, "I get the feeling you don't trust us with chargen" doesn't warrant a "lol okay leave if you don't like it" attitude. I think the DM should have said either, "Well, I do it this way because I think x", or "This isn't the right time to talk about that. How about we table it for now, talk after the game, and we just play now?"

I don't think you overreacted too much. It's maybe a heavy reaction, but I also dislike people touting the "my way or highway" responses. Walking away because you don't like the chargen is petty, walking away because you don't like a particular DM's attitude is a strong reaction, but not necessarily an overreaction. Depending on specific details, of course.

[Coidzor]

Bleh, feeling a little crummy about a stupid argument, was wondering if other people might share their thoughts on this.

A friend of a friend wanted to run a pathfinder campaign. I had never played pathfinder before and since my friend was also playing I figured it'd be fun to pick up something new. Before the character creation session I did a little rummaging on the srd because I had a character concept ready to go, worked out the approximate stats I'd need to make it work, figured I could use the character building session to ask the gm questions and refine what I had into an actual character sheet.

When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls) presumably to prevent minmaxing, that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells), and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters. I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like him saying "I don't trust my players not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about things." And I told him as much. Predictably I got the 'if you don't like it you don't have to play' response which was fair enough so I walked.

Only now my friend feels guilty about playing without me despite constant reassurances that no I'm ok with it really, if they're having fun that's great! But now I'm just wondering if I overreacted. How strict is a deal breaker for you guys generally?

Sounds like a bit of a bad foot forward and like the DM doesn't trust players and doesn't want to actually dialogue with them about what they actually want, which is not the most promising of signs but not inherently damning in and of itself, either.

I don't know how you broached it, and how you broached it would definitely influence things, but his response was pretty bad.

If the DM has certain limits for the game, like the limit on casters, then a 'first come first served' way of allocating the slots is perfectly valid.

Yes, the players who know the GM better and have easier access to him to ask first, even before the first session, getting to be the only ones playing casters is just the height of fairness and transparency.

You know, I've never personally understood people who couldn't play a game (that they didn't know anything about beforehand) unless they get to play whatever the heck they want.

I don't think that's quite what's going on here, though.

Usually it's a race or class thing - sometimes a GM doesn't want to run a world where Centaur Inquisitors are running around with Gnomish Witches (or whatever).

GMs definitely need to be better prepared to defend and explain their positions with those sorts of things than "It's my way or the highway," though.

[Kalmageddon]

Out of curiosity, what was the character you wanted to play? Oracle, I get it, but what race? What was his/her background? And did the campaign had any particular theme going on, or was it just supposed to be a vanilla Pathfinder campaign?

As others have said in this thread, I think having a concept for a campaign that limits what kind of character you can play is generally fine. I'm not fond of rolling for background, though. I can understand the concerns for Special Snowflake Syndrome but usually you can just veto a character on a case by case basis. If someone comes up with a reasonable background there shouldn't be any problems.

[Cikomyr]

I dont understand something. Whats so damn wrong about a special snowflake? Adventurers arent exactly normal people, thry all have a reason for being on the road rather than following their designated social spot.

While i am a big believer of rolling for background and even class (big lover of WFRP), i also love when people take results and then create something truly original with it. Especially if a player was hoping to play a certain kind of chqracter but end up doing something else.

And yes. These original stories, when put some thoughts, are awesome and intrinsic part of the sessions i run. Whats the point of a backstory if it aint gonna matter? :-P

[Aedilred]

In theory, it's better to veto on a case by case basis when you see someone taking the proverbial. However, having dealt with certain players before who query everything and complain at the drop of a hat (and kick up an unholy fuss OOC if you try to remove them from the game) sometimes it is just easier to impose a blanket restriction on everyone. The problem with case-by-case vetoes is that people take umbrage that you're disrespecting their creation, and such conversations can rapidly deteriorate into arguments. "You let him have the background he wanted! Why can't I, it all makes sense <cue long and stupid explanation>, you're being totally unfair, this is favouritism, you're a control freak, railroading blah blah".

Not a great start to the game for anyone.

If the GM in question has experienced or witnessed something like that before, they might well have come to the conclusion that it's easier just to get everyone to roll for stuff. You can be pretty sure nothing too stupid's going to come up, the players who won't complain anyway still won't complain, and it helps neutralise those who otherwise will. If anyone's going to leave over it, well, you might take the view it's probably for the best, and better they leave immediately rather than causing problems later. Obviously, I don't know the details of the individual game or history in this instance, though.

I dont understand something. Whats so damn wrong about a special snowflake? Adventurers arent exactly normal people, thry all have a reason for being on the road rather than following their designated social spot.

I pretty much took it as read that this refers to "special snowflakes even by the standards of adventurers".

[Kalmageddon]

I dont understand something. Whats so damn wrong about a special snowflake? Adventurers arent exactly normal people, thry all have a reason for being on the road rather than following their designated social spot.

While i am a big believer of rolling for background and even class (big lover of WFRP), i also love when people take results and then create something truly original with it. Especially if a player was hoping to play a certain kind of chqracter but end up doing something else.

And yes. These original stories, when put some thoughts, are awesome and intrinsic part of the sessions i run. Whats the point of a backstory if it aint gonna matter? :-P

They are not normal people because of what they end up accomplishing, but they can and probably should be normal people in regards to the setting, in my opinion.
Special Snowflake Syndrome is a problem mainly when it creates character so disconnected from the setting that they feel out of place. Think of someone that wants to play a Star Trek-like human character in Warhammer 40K, someone that is eager to meet new cultures and is as peace loving and open minded as anyone can be, in a setting where there are very good reasons to act in exactly the opposite way: everyone and everything wants humans dead or worst.
Such character would feel out of place and its mere presence would be detrimental, at least if we assume that the campaign takes the 40K setting premise seriously and doesn't mean to play around or make fun of it.

[Aedilred]

They are not normal people because of what they end up accomplishing, but they can and probably should be normal people in regards to the setting, in my opinion.
Special Snowflake Syndrome is a problem mainly when it creates character so disconnected from the setting that they feel out of place. Think of someone that wants to play a Star Trek-like human character in Warhammer 40K, someone that is eager to meet new cultures and is as peace loving and open minded as anyone can be, in a setting where there are very good reasons to act in exactly the opposite way: everyone and everything wants humans dead or worst.
Such character would feel out of place and its mere presence would be detrimental, at least if we assume that the campaign takes the 40K setting premise seriously and doesn't mean to play around or make fun of it.

Also that, yes.

[huttj509]

To me, the main issue seems to be one of timing.

When I'm invited to a campaign, I generally have all sorts of questions about what sort of campaign it is. Kick in the door or 5 hours negotiating a peace treaty? Any restrictions/tips for the intended feel? What power level are you intending? Anything I should know about the world?

This is because, even before character creation, my mind churns up "what would be fun to play?" Restrictions are fine, but the earlier I'm informed, the better.

Even before I touch a die, my mind has spent time on the character. If I later learn about restrictions that alter the character options, especially if it slams the door on what I had been considering, that time feels wasted. It's not, really, as stuff can go back in the blender for future use, so to speak, but it at least takes some time to refocus. Especially if it's implied that others had more information/opportunity than I did. It can be more frustrating to be snowed in when you were planning on going out for the day, even if you'd generally be fine spending the day at home. I dunno, that metaphor sucks. I'm sure I'll think of a better one half an hour from now.

[Cikomyr]

They are not normal people because of what they end up accomplishing, but they can and probably should be normal people in regards to the setting, in my opinion.
Special Snowflake Syndrome is a problem mainly when it creates character so disconnected from the setting that they feel out of place. Think of someone that wants to play a Star Trek-like human character in Warhammer 40K, someone that is eager to meet new cultures and is as peace loving and open minded as anyone can be, in a setting where there are very good reasons to act in exactly the opposite way: everyone and everything wants humans dead or worst.
Such character would feel out of place and its mere presence would be detrimental, at least if we assume that the campaign takes the 40K setting premise seriously and doesn't mean to play around or make fun of it.

No. They are not normal people, periods. Wanderlust is not something everyone feels, most people just want to settle someplace. Picking up the adventuring path is a dangerous, exciting, but also rootless life. You leave your home and may expect never to see it again. Why do you do so?

Especially ADVENTURERS, who cannot necessarily fall back to certain explanations (duty, like a Guardsman would).

[ElenionAncalima]

I don't think the limitations he was applying were particularly unfair. Choosing to rolls stats isn't any more controlling that choosing point buy. Rolling backgrounds is a reasonable request if that is the kind of game he wants to play. The caster limit, particularly the first come, first served, is the only one that seems a little harsh too me. Sure, it will stop your power level as a party from getting out of control, but it may also cause a balance issue within the party.

However, if the DM is wrong for any reason, I would say it is because he didn't lay the rules out ahead of time. For you, it may be a lesson learned...always ask for specifics before jumping into character creation. However, it is not really fair for the DM to have "first come, first served" rules and not tell all of the players. Even if you were a late addition and the caster slots were already taken, he should have said as much up front.

Regarding the "I don't trust my players" problem, that may well be the case. However, a lot of DMs have very good reasons to not trust their players during character creation. I wouldn't take it personally, there may well be a known Mary Sue, Munchkin or MinMaxer in the group who he applied these rules to control.

[DigoDragon]

I'm fine with the stat-rolling and the limits of casters. If the GM wants to limit what source books, spells/feats/equipment are usable then okay, I'll work with that as well... but to "Heavily Encourage" rolling for backgrounds? If I'm being restricted on the personality of my PC, then I think that's getting too strict.

And I've played under GMs that make casters micromanage their material components for spells.

[Cikomyr]

Actually, thinking about it. Isnt there an array of pre-rolled stats (the "elite array") meant to be used by NPCs and example characters.

If you wanna minimize stat roll porn, just use those

[Coidzor]

Choosing to rolls stats isn't any more controlling that choosing point buy.

Well, yeah, that one's almost entirely irrelevant, really.

Rolling backgrounds is a reasonable request if that is the kind of game he wants to play.

That very much depends upon presentation and the genesis of the game. It's not just the GM putting together a game and the players being audience to it, after all.

If the GM can't or won't explain why he wants to roll backgrounds, it's pretty much by definition not a reasonable request.

The caster limit, particularly the first come, first served, is the only one that seems a little harsh too me. Sure, it will stop your power level as a party from getting out of control, but it may also cause a balance issue within the party.

Except it won't really even do that, per se. If you've got one person able to teleport the party around the group of ambushes the DM had planned for them along the road that the DM hadn't even considered that the party would or could skip, then you've already jumped off the rails and it doesn't really matter whether the rest of them can do so or not.

All I can really see it as is overt GM favoritism of those players who are closer to him and thus find out in advance of everyone else and can fill those slots before anyone else finds out about them being slots to fill.

That or the GM just being... thoughtless.

Regarding the "I don't trust my players" problem, that may well be the case. However, a lot of DMs have very good reasons to not trust their players during character creation. I wouldn't take it personally, there may well be a known Mary Sue, Munchkin or MinMaxer in the group who he applied these rules to control.

That's not really a good reason, though. That's a "this group is unhealthy and can't resolve an interpersonal communication issue that should be relatively easily resolved by basic levels of communication, or at least some basic level of communication would result in at least taking care of the problem player being in the group anymore if they can't get along with the DM without pissing on everyone else.

Actually, thinking about it. Isnt there an array of pre-rolled stats (the "elite array") meant to be used by NPCs and example characters.

If you wanna minimize stat roll porn, just use those

I believe the GM in this case wanted to maximize stat roll porn and disparities between players who roll well and roll poorly.

[Cikomyr]

How about "everyone rolls for stats once, and we all take the best array"

[AMFV]

While limiting character stat generation and party makeup is just a method to limit optimization, limiting character background is probably going a bit too far. Player Characters are special snowflakes in the world just for being able to get past level 5, so how much difference is it going to make if they also happened to be a long lost heir? The worst a character background can do (for the GM) is to change some of the fluff, while most of the time it either never comes up during gameplay, or sometimes can even enhance the plot and Player-NPC interactions.

If he is so worried about character background generation, he will also probably be worried about roleplaying character personalities in general. Special-snowflake-ship isn't limited to background alone; it can also take the form of simply standing up to the local lord or refusing to get wrongfully arrested for a crime. To want to limit 'specialness' in its entirety would mean cracking down on player behavior as well.

I'd say you made a good decision getting out of there early. Prepare to eventually see your friend complaining about railroading.

Actually Golorion has a lot of post level five characters, so I wouldn't say that "past level five" is the special snowflake point. Although if he's playing in a different setting it might be different. I just made my assumption based on the standard setting for Pathfinder.

[Premier]

No. They are not normal people, periods. Wanderlust is not something everyone feels, most people just want to settle someplace. Picking up the adventuring path is a dangerous, exciting, but also rootless life. You leave your home and may expect never to see it again. Why do you do so?

Especially ADVENTURERS, who cannot necessarily fall back to certain explanations (duty, like a Guardsman would).

I think you still don't get what a "special snowflake" is.

Consider Lord of the Rings, okay? The main characters are pretty special, no doubt about that. Frodo is certainly special compared to the usual sort of hobbit. Aragorn is extremely special compared to... pretty much all other human beings in the world. Gandalf is special compared to pretty much every single living thing in Middle Earth (except a small handful).

They're special, but - and this is the important point - they still feel like a natural part of the setting. They all feel like a part of Middle Earth. Now imagine that suddenly James Bond turns up on the pages of the story with his rocket-launching laser wristwatch, amphibious Aston Martni and his shaken, not stirred Martini. In Lord of the Rings. Kicking orc ass along with Legolas and Gimli.

Would he feel like a special character? You bet your ass he would. Would he feel - similarly to Aragorn, Frodo and Gandalf - like he belongs in the Middle Earth setting? ****, NO!!! He'd feel like a completely unsuitable character transplanted from a completely different work of fiction created in a completely different genre (which is exctly what he would be, as it were). THAT is a "special snowflake".

Players are not derived as "special snowflakes" because they want to play a heroic character who's head and shoulder above the usual peasants. They're derided when they join a low-magic campaign based on a fantasy version of Dark Ages Europe, full of Viking raiders, Saxon housecarls, Frankish mercenaries and Byzantine priests - and insist they be allowed to play the character they've already come up with, a golden skinned half-angel half-demon winged horned last survivor of a dimension-travelling nation of sorcerer-kings who can manifest 24-foot long swords of elemental fire out of thin air and who has a personal vendetta going on against Great Cthulhu (so of course the DM is also obligated to introduce Great Cthulhu into the campaign so as to enable the vendetta). That **** doesn't belong in a low magic Dark Ages Europe campaign. That **** is a "special snowflake".

[Segev]

Honestly, making the assumption that all involved behaved politely where there is not evidence to the contrary in the OP's post, it sounds like it was handled as maturely as it could be. The DM wished to run his game with chargen in a way that was not what the OP wanted to build under. The OP chose to walk away rather than build under it. The OP isn't recriminating his friend for daring to stay and play.

The only problem is the friend thinking he should feel guilty, and there's nothing the OP can do about that other than keep saying, "No, really, it's fine." Maybe point out that nobody did anything wrong, and it's just a matter of taste. You don't have to do everything your friends do, nor do you have to avoid things just because your friends don't do them. You are your own person.

[AMFV]

I'm fine with the stat-rolling and the limits of casters. If the GM wants to limit what source books, spells/feats/equipment are usable then okay, I'll work with that as well... but to "Heavily Encourage" rolling for backgrounds? If I'm being restricted on the personality of my PC, then I think that's getting too strict.

And I've played under GMs that make casters micromanage their material components for spells.

Well to be fair it could be fun as an exercise, since everybody is doing it, that way people could get to explore different character archetypes and personalities than they usually do. I could certainly see the merit in that, the same way I could see the merit in being handed pregenerated characters as a roleplaying exercise. It allows for you to do fun and different things.

But I could see where people might dislike that sort of thing also. I imagine it'd be a matter of taste.

[Tengu_temp]

How strict is too strict depends on the situation. But as a rule of thumb, it's better to be not strict enough than too strict.

I definitely wouldn't want to play with the DM OP described, though. He is definitely too strict, and for no good reason.

[Red Fel]

For me, the deal-breaker is rarely one thing, but rather the intersection of multiple problem elements.

You've limited race selection? That's fine, I don't have to play an Unseelie Fey Dragonborn Warforged.

You've limited the number of primary casters in the party? That's probably a good thing, actually, I'm fine with that. I prefer melee anyway.

You've excluded Psionics and Incarnum? Well, that's a pity, but I suppose it's right that you omit a system if you're not comfortable making rulings on the mechanics.

You've excluded Psionics because it's overpowered? You're a fool, but fine.

You've excluded Tome of Battle? You monster.

Individual things like that don't tend to get me down. What gets me down is when they come in groups, or indicate a pattern of problems. For example, a DM who says that only Elves can be primary casters, because only Elves have the elegance and grace to master mystical forces. And he tells us this will be an Elf-heavy campaign. And that we don't get to play Elves, but he'll be providing us with an Elf NPC. I see flashing lights that tell me he's a fanboy, and his NPC is going to be an attempt at DMPCing. And I worry.

That said, the attitude of your DM is a bit upsetting. I understand the mentality, if a person has dealt with begging, pleading, and bothering, and wants to put his foot down. But there are more civil ways to do it. (Disclaimer: I don't know that many DMs who simply blurt out, "If you don't like it, you don't have to play." Is it possible that perhaps you were a bit forceful in your request?)

I'm also bothered by the use of random background tables, but for entirely aesthetic reasons - I like my players to be invested in their PCs, which is more likely to happen if they know and created their backgrounds, rather than had them handed over by a random dice roll.