When Do Limited Options Become Stifling?

[The Glyphstone]

It's fairly common that a GM will say 'no species A' or 'no class B' when listing available options for character creation. But what about when a GM says 'only X species, chosen from A, B, C, D, etc.)' or 'only Y classes/subclasses, chosen from Aa, Bb, Cc, Dd, etc.' Assuming the list still includes all the typical roles, how narrow can the set of X and Y be before people start to feel like they're being creatively or mechanically straitjacketed?

[stoutstien]

Too many factors to tell but it really comes down to what system you're using. The more flexible individual choices are the less restrictive it feels when you opt in/out material.

I also think that theme and setting restrictions are viewed differently than solely mechanical ones. Saying you don't want cyborgs in your histrionic medieval fantasy setting is different than saying you don't want cyborgs because they have op features.

This is why I think some of the better systems have a interesting dichotomy where they have really specific features or classes that have a fairly flexible flavor. It allows you to have your cake and eat it too.

[Xervous]

Depends on the system and the campaign themes. I can accept restrictions that help with themes of the setting, but I won’t like it when stuff is off the table because the GM erroneously deems it OP or too complicated.

Ban deckers in Shadowrun because Pizzarun? Great!

Ban wizards in 3.5e because this is the age of dragons and sorcerers? Great!

Ban psykers in Dark Heresy because OP? That gets me thinking you’re qualified to be a doorbell servitor.

Low magic 3.5? Again, servitor.

It’s impossible to quantify the amount of options that would need to be restricted to get a response from me in a general, system agnostic sense. A good pitch for a Street Sam only group could work for SR, the same as a cleric only party in D&D. It’s mainly when I encounter poorly reasoned restrictions that I feel stifled.

Edit: As I’m to be exploring the world through the character, if the restrictions bring the GM’s competence into question or suggest a distasteful campaign lies ahead I’ll be burning my spare time elsewhere.

[Anonymouswizard]

I also think that theme and setting restrictions are viewed differently than solely mechanical ones. Saying you don't want cyborgs in your histrionic medieval fantasy setting is different than saying you don't want cyborgs because they have op features.

I mean, I'll still grumble about not being allowed a clockwork arm.

I'm also going to note that, even beyond a system and setting level, this is a very personal thing. Particularly for races, I have no issue with going human-only (although getting back into Shadowrun has made me lighten up on that on the GM side), other people will revolt if they have to play a race that looks basically human (such as Tieflings). Both sides are completely valid, but can't always compromise.

Generally the more flexibility you have in character creation the less people mind, especially if other options are more viable. No casters in D&D 5e feels limiting due to only three classes being available, but it's more acceptable in Fantasy AGE despite it leaving only two classes (because as F-AGE only has three classes to begin with most options are still on the table), and it's s the standard for GURPS games.

[False God]

IMO, as long as the setting/world are developed enough to compensate for the enjoyment and interest derived from whatever is missing, I don't really care about race/class options being limited. If the entire world is humans, I expect to see nations and cultures. If there's no casters, I expect to see variety in martial combat styles (even if only descriptive).

I'm bigger on the customization options. No feats, no play. No MC, no play.

[Telonius]

I think the "stifling" part isn't necessarily a function of "how many options." It's more about "how much trust." If you trust the DM - if you have buy-in for the setting, if the choices seem to make sense and aren't arbitrary, if you're confident they know what they're doing and have a reason for the restriction - it won't feel stifling.

[Ionathus]

I think the "stifling" part isn't necessarily a function of "how many options." It's more about "how much trust." If you trust the DM - if you have buy-in for the setting, if the choices seem to make sense and aren't arbitrary, if you're confident they know what they're doing and have a reason for the restriction - it won't feel stifling.

This is my answer. Plus a side of being "bought in" to the concept, which may just be Telonius's statement paraphrased

Every TTRPG game should start with everyone agreeing on the kind of game they want to play. That's where the DM would lay out their proposed limits, world concept, party composition idea...

I've pitched a "God Squad" game before, where everyone has to bring a 5e cleric or paladin to the table. We played a one-shot with it and had a blast. If the players aren't excited about it, though, then I ditch it and wait for players who are excited.

[JellyPooga]

For me, it's the GM's prerogative to set the tone and style of the game and that includes A) considering what the players are going to enjoy, B) the specific game rules and setting being pitched and C) the actual campaign in question.

No matter how much Player A wants to play a Half-Dragon Paladin, knight-in-shining-armour for all that is holy and pure if Players B through D all want to play an Evil Campaign, they're playing Cyberpunk 2020 and the premise of the game is The Corps vs. The Street Rats, "No Mercy" edition. If Paladin is all you want to play right now, go find another game.

Limited options are only a problem if you feel entitled to pick and choose what you want, regardless of what anyone else wants. Don't like it? Don't play.

Of course, this comes with it's own rebuttal and onus on the GM (as I opened with) to provide a game that players will actually enjoy; limit the options or change the rules too much and you might find yourself without a player-base. Anecdotally, I once ran a fantasy game in which I made language an actual in-game concern (i.e. I killed "Common" as a language and made literacy a learned skill instead of automatic); none of my players cared to play Linguists & Ledgers, so they intentionally went out of their way to avoid that entire subject; carefully choosing their own languages known to be compatible and adventuring in locales they knew to speak languages they could speak or translate easily, etc. I should have seen the writing on the wall from the start, but persisted in my notion thinking it would enhance the game, when with that particular group it very much did not. With another group using the same rule (a one-shot this time), it went over much different; they dove headfirst into battling out translations and finding scholars to help them with scrolls and messages they couldn't read.

[Zuras]

It’s a weird psychology thing, most of the time. Basically people are far more unhappy when they feel things are taken away from them than when they never had them in the first place.

Nobody complains that you have limited options in B/X D&D just because the classes have fewer features, and they will actually feel more limited in a feat-less 5e game, even though they have dozens more options even in featless 5e.

In a tabletop RPG, restrictions only become stifling when you already have something in mind and you’re told you can’t do it. That has very little to do with the rules, and everything to do with player expectations. People played original D&D for years, and play OSR systems now, without feeling constrained by the utter absence of class options. I’ve also seen people quit campaigns that allowed every official 5e rule and more besides, because the DM wouldn’t make up economic rules to track how much money their bard could make as a touring performer.

[Vahnavoi]

Absolute numbers are meaningless before knowing the attitude a player has when coming to a game.

In every case, the minimum number of playable roles to draw in a player is one (1), provided that role is something the player finds interesting. How many other roles are available is of no consequence.

Likewise, the minimum number of omitted roles to push a player away is one (1), provided that role is the only one the player finds interesting. How many other roles are available is of no consequence.

In other words, what you're looking for is an overlap between what a player wants to play and what kinds of roles a game offers. The latter can be absolutely massive yet still feel stiffling to a player if the overlap is small. It can also be absolutely tiny (literally one accepted role) and still make a player feel free as a bird in the sky provided that role answers or exceeds their needs.

There are several different metagames a player could be following that influence this, depending on context.

For example, a player can show up with the expectation that the game host has done all they can to make the game interesting. For them, the relevant option was whether to play this game or not, and they've already demonstrated their choice by showing up. They will extend benefit of doubt to and accept any role offered, even if it's just one pregenerated one.

Alternatively, a player can show up with the expectation that a game will allow them to play a specific pet character they already have in their head. They won't commit if the game does not allow sufficient fidelity to their pregame ideas.

Or, a player can show up with the expectation that they will be active participant in character design. They don't know what kind of character they want and are willing to compromise, but they see the space of available roles as their room of negotiation. They won't commit if said negotiation space is too small, even if there technically is a role they might like in there, because thet use size of that space as proxy for measuring how much their contribution will be valued elsewhere.

So on and so forth.

[stoutstien]

I mean, I'll still grumble about not being allowed a clockwork arm.

I'm also going to note that, even beyond a system and setting level, this is a very personal thing. Particularly for races, I have no issue with going human-only (although getting back into Shadowrun has made me lighten up on that on the GM side), other people will revolt if they have to play a race that looks basically human (such as Tieflings). Both sides are completely valid, but can't always compromise.

Generally the more flexibility you have in character creation the less people mind, especially if other options are more viable. No casters in D&D 5e feels limiting due to only three classes being available, but it's more acceptable in Fantasy AGE despite it leaving only two classes (because as F-AGE only has three classes to begin with most options are still on the table), and it's s the standard for GURPS games.

All about framing. clockwork is just a term that just set off bells for certain DM in regards to settings but the actual effects won't.
Iron and wooden artificial limbs aren't even magic tech. Some RL examples from the 1400s were refined enough to hold a quill and write with.

Artificial limbs is a popular Troupe so all you need is to modify to fit.

[Jay R]

First of all, different players are different. It depends on the players, what experiences they have had, and whether they had already decided what characters they want to play next.

My personal approach? I don’t care. If I am required to play a half-orc rogue with DEX 11, and the game is exciting and fulfilling for a half-orc rogue with DEX 11, then I will have fun. If all options are available and the game is dull, then I won’t have fun.

Among other things, this means that deciding what character you want to play before finding out about the DM’s world is a poor plan. It’s setting yourself up for possible disappointment.

When I’m invited into a game, I want to find out as much as possible about the game and the world before I start thinking about my PC. Especially, I want to find out about the culture of the world, and about any specific DM rules interpretations or changes. Then I start thinking about what sounds like it might be fun within that set-up, that I never played in before. This might give me an idea for a character that fits perfectly into that world, and that I might never have considered otherwise.

But another player can be different, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If somebody has a complete build she’s been working on for months, and it’s exactly perfect for the role she wants, and the DM disallows one single feat or other ability that she is counting on, then she will be disappointed and stifled. [In my view, she set herself up for that disappointment, but the disappointment remains real, and the game will feel stifling.]

In the game I’m currently running, there were no elves. [I intend the elves, when they finally appear, to be the elves from Terry Pratchett’s Lords and Ladies.] My "Introduction to the Game" document told them they couldn’t be elves, but I also tried to deal with any possible disappointment. I wrote:

You cannot play a true elf. Your character has never seen an elf, or met anybody who has ever seen an elf. [If your character idea requires elves, talk to me, and we’ll try to invent a work-around – possibly Fair Folk from the Prydain Chronicles, or an Elfquest-style race not called elves. But there are no Tolkien-like elves in this universe.]

One player is playing a half-Fair-Folk, and another designed an Elfquest-like race of wolf-riders called Pinis. [Unfortunately, he moved away before the game started.]

So, yes, it can feel stifling, but the DM can also work to prevent that, by inventing a workaround that fits the DM’s goal and the players’ goals.

[Pex]

For me it's hard to give a number. It's more I'll know it when I see it than declare a universal answer. Even so, if a DM says PHB races only I wouldn't bat an eye. A defining factor is not what things are restricted but why. Not having the sourcebook is fine. Not wanting a kitchen sink world is fine. Complaining about min-maxing power gamers, I want roleplayers not rollplayers, and other "Optimizers go to Hades" rhetoric I will give pause.

I also give pause when a DM proudly emphasizes a "low-magic world". It's fine if that just means no permanent magic items until level 8 say. (I will refuse to play in a no magic items at all game), but if it means no spellcasting classes at all, then no, I won't play either. I want to play D&D, and that includes spellcasters even if I'm not playing one. This just tells me the DM hates players doing anything more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3" damage." It's really an "Optimizers go to Hades" game in disguise.

[LibraryOgre]

Settings become an issue for me when they don't make sense for the setting, or for the campaign.

If I'm in a Dragonlance game and the DM says "No warforged", yeah, that makes sense. No Half-orcs? Well, there's no orcs on Krynn, so sure. But we're going to need a reason for "No wizards", because those are an integral part of the setting.

[Satinavian]

It’s a weird psychology thing, most of the time. Basically people are far more unhappy when they feel things are taken away from them than when they never had them in the first place.

Nobody complains that you have limited options in B/X D&D just because the classes have fewer features, and they will actually feel more limited in a feat-less 5e game, even though they have dozens more options even in featless 5e.

In a tabletop RPG, restrictions only become stifling when you already have something in mind and you’re told you can’t do it. That has very little to do with the rules, and everything to do with player expectations. People played original D&D for years, and play OSR systems now, without feeling constrained by the utter absence of class options. I’ve also seen people quit campaigns that allowed every official 5e rule and more besides, because the DM wouldn’t make up economic rules to track how much money their bard could make as a touring performer.

I wouldn't agree with that.

If the options are lacking in the first place instead of being taken away, you probably get people suggesting other systems or finding another hobby if none of the playable characters appeal to them.

[Anonymouswizard]

All about framing. clockwork is just a term that just set off bells for certain DM in regards to settings but the actual effects won't.
Iron and wooden artificial limbs aren't even magic tech. Some RL examples from the 1400s were refined enough to hold a quill and write with.

Artificial limbs is a popular Troupe so all you need is to modify to fit.

I mean, my intention is for fantasy clockwork, a.k.a. magic, but if a GM asked I'd settle for more historically accurate as long as I've 'adjusted' to it enough to not have any numerical penalties (some level of 'your hand just can't do that' is fine).

I just like prosthetic limbs from an aesthetic point of view, and don't want my characters punished for it.

[stoutstien]

I mean, my intention is for fantasy clockwork, a.k.a. magic, but if a GM asked I'd settle for more historically accurate as long as I've 'adjusted' to it enough to not have any numerical penalties (some level of 'your hand just can't do that' is fine).

I just like prosthetic limbs from an aesthetic point of view, and don't want my characters punished for it.

Which is fair. like I said it's a very popular trope and the concept itself is probably not what is hanging up in the allow/disallow section as much as framing and theme. Clockwork is just one of those weird catch-all terms that can range from anything from really finely craft slightly magical stuff to full blown kooky steampunk.

It's sort of like if you describe an arm as Da Vinci inspired design it wouldn't set off the flags.

That's why as long as the system is flexible enough it doesn't really matter the absolute number of options you have. You only need to have enough options for the players to fulfill their thing within reason.

[JellyPooga]

Which is fair. like I said it's a very popular trope and the concept itself is probably not what is hanging up in the allow/disallow section as much as framing and theme. Clockwork is just one of those weird catch-all terms that can range from anything from really finely craft slightly magical stuff to full blown kooky steampunk.

It's sort of like if you describe an arm as Da Vinci inspired design it wouldn't set off the flags.

That's why as long as the system is flexible enough it doesn't really matter the absolute number of options you have. You only need to have enough options for the players to fulfill their thing within reason.

This is where player entitlement and GM prerogative come into conflict; not all settings are that flexible. Yes, in some kitchen sink fantasy, a clockwork or other prosthetic arm is part and parcel, in others it's practically unique and in others still, the entire concept is as anathema as including laser guns and starships. No amount of "it's my preference" or "I just want it", regardless of game balance, is going to persuade me (as GM) that your wild-west gunslinger with a clockwork arm is going to fit into my swords & sorcery game set in Howard's Hyperboria. If you want to come to me with a character that shoots magical missiles and has a necromantically animated prosthetic arm that uses the exact same rules as the clockwork gunslinger...then I'm listening (depending on the setting/gamen of course), but theme is everything compared to rules.

The same applies to every setting and ruleset; yes magic is integral to 5e D&D, but if the premise is that only rare NPCs have access to magic, then there's no point coming to me (the GM) as a player with your idea of playing the only non-setting-critical character in the universe that casts magic any more than coming to a LotR game trying to play as one of the Nazgul or literal Gandalf is going to fly when the premise is "Gondorian Soldiers on the frontier". Expectation is everything in that regard.

[Wintermoot]

way back in the land of 2e, when the brown class-kit books came out, my lads and I picked up the complete fighter's handbook and immediately played a campaign where we were all fighters with different kits. It was a blast. Wouldn't want to do it for every game though.

I have a high tolerance for tightened restrictions leading to creative thinking.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm probably a bit weird. In that if I don't have restrictions, if the DM says "all sources, anything goes", I'm more likely to back out.

There are specific restrictions and reasons for restrictions that will make me look askance and consider not joining. But really volume of restrictions/available options isn't that important.

At the system level, I prefer 10 well thought out, properly working, thematically coherent options and no bad ones to 1000 with low levels of any one of those criteria and 100 good ones. A system that floods the board with crap loses my attention really fast.

[Psyren]

For me it's less about what the specific restrictions are, and more about why they're there. I'm happy to play in, say, a humans-only no-spellcasters campaign or similar so long as it's justified - whether that's by the specific setting (e.g. "We're playing a Westeros campaign!") or the specific story the DM wants to tell; weighting the former more heavily than the latter usually. But if the DM tries to impose those same restrictions on say Faerun or Golarion, I'm going to be taken out of the experience by asking why/why not left and right, and probably back out of the game.

Above also determines where I draw the line of "not enough." If I'm sitting down to play Dragonlance or Dark Sun, I'm going to go in expecting fewer player options than I would get in Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms or even Ravenloft. And I'm certainly not going to sign up to play a Dark Sun game and then complain about the fact that there are more race and class restrictions than I would deal with in Eberron, it would be pretty silly to do so.

But conversely - if I can think of a fun justification to allow something, I'd prefer to have a DM that at least hears me out, even if the end result is a no. (Preferably, it would be "no, but...")

[Pauly]

I prefer limited campaigns for a number of reasons.
1) It puts all the players on the same footing. Allowing everything and the kitchen sink campaigns can be frustrating when other players are running something you can’t because you don’t have access to the book. Also if another player turns up with an esoteric build with some weird doodads from an obscure sourcebook you have to trust that they have read and understood the source material properly.
2) It is administratively easier. Fewer books and fewer rules to reference make running the game simpler and easier.
3) It allows for a higher level of versimiltude in the setting.
4) It allows for thematic campaigns.

As for how many restrictions are OK before it becomes problematic, that depends on the rules, setting and campaign theme.
Traveller with procedurally generated characters and a default party make up of people who happened to wash up on this chunk of space rock together makes it both difficult to justify many restrictions at all and not very thematically correct.
Call of Cthulhu on the other hand has a default party makeup of people who live in [this place] and are of [this social status] which creates at least a social expectation among players that the party will compromise of reasonably compatible characters. I don’t think I’ve seen it personally but GM vetoes of character concepts is a thing I’ve heard of in CoC.

[Hrugner]

If the players have enough creative space, in actual play, to keep them entertained, then they don't need many options in character creation. If the DM railroads the players, and runs DMPCs to handle every story beat, then character creation is all they have left and will probably rebel at restrictions to what they can make. It's the same reason why players tend to turn murder hobo, they have no other buttons to push.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'll note that part of the reason I'm generally hesitant about banning mechanical options is because most systems are fairly focused on a particular playstyle by design, and removing parts can cause it to crash and burn. TSR D&D does not work as intended without the Fighter and it's offshoots, whereas WotC D&D generally throws a 404 once you remove spellcasting.

That's not to say that games don't work when you remove large parts, Unknown Armies and AGE are more than functional without their magic systems because the intended mechanical loop is focused elsewhere (sanity for UA, critical successes for AGE). You could even make D&D5e work after removing the magic system, add the necessary abilities back in somehow (probably new classes) and refocus attrition on hit points and hit dice. Other games are intentionally designed for you to not use all options, generally crunchier generics.

But if it's 5e, you allow Wizards, and you ban Artificers, I'll start wondering why you think 'magic craftsman' doesn't fit your setting. This one actually specifically annoys me because artifice should probably be an older magical style than wizardry, it feels like everybody banning it for flavour reasons has it backwards. And yes, if I have to I'll be an illiterate orc making temporary magic spears by binding sharp things to sticks with string (although you've probably accidentally banned illiteracy already...).

Actually the 5e Artificer could really do with a couple of low tech themed subclasses, I'll see if I can think some up.

[Jay R]

If you ban virtually all options except that one single option that the player wants to use, it is not stifling — or at least, it doesn't feel stifling to that player.

If out of all the options in all the splatbooks, you only ban one thing, but it's something that a single player wanted, then it is stifling — or at last, it feels stifling to that player.

[Duff]

There's no hard and fast rule.
A short campaign where everyone's an elvish fighter could be fine.
The pitch "You're out drinking to celebrate having graduated fighter collage when stuff happens".

Some things to consider:

• How much is designing your character (rather than playing it) an important part of your game?*
• How long is it running? Limitations on shorter games should usually be more acceptable
• How experienced are the players? Very new players might be better off with limited options. Very experienced players will usually be able to make any given set of limitations work; Like in an Iron Chef competition, the limitations are part of the fun, not an impediment. But there's a middle a
  rea where not being able to create the character you want will be annoying.

There's a game called Pendragon where there's only one class. Congratulations, you're a knight! You ride a horse, you have mail armor, you use a lance and you have the choice of a sword, axe, mace or flail as your other weapon. Do the math and there's about 4 efficient arrangements of stats (from memory)

* I want to be clear. I don't think there's a wrong answer here. Different tables, different games, different players. Enjoy the way you play

[MoiMagnus]

Always and Never.

"Always" because even if you don't put any additional restriction, the base rules can already feel stifling. That's one of the reasons why peoples push for homebrew content and rule of cool.

"Never" because with the appropriate GMing style, you could give pre-generated characters (with pre-planned level ups) and still have enough room for creativity in how the characters are played.

IMO, the question is more one of

(1) mismatched expectations: players that fail to immerse themself in the universe because they expected more tools to customise their characters, or fail to have fun because their character is to similar to the previous one they played, etc.

(2) coupled with the fact that GMs that are very restrictive on which race/class is available are also in average more restrictive on how one character should be played and which solutions are acceptable to a given problem given to the players. Hence too many restrictions can be a red flag for a GMing style that stifle creativity.

[Jay R]

From an emotional standpoint, it feels stifling if the restrictions are announced after the players have already joined the game. I tend to send out an email saying, "I'm starting a game with the following rules and restrictions. Do you want to play?" That way, any player who joined already knew the restrictions, and accepted them, before he started to think about the game.

[Pex]

This is where player entitlement and GM prerogative come into conflict; not all settings are that flexible. Yes, in some kitchen sink fantasy, a clockwork or other prosthetic arm is part and parcel, in others it's practically unique and in others still, the entire concept is as anathema as including laser guns and starships. No amount of "it's my preference" or "I just want it", regardless of game balance, is going to persuade me (as GM) that your wild-west gunslinger with a clockwork arm is going to fit into my swords & sorcery game set in Howard's Hyperboria. If you want to come to me with a character that shoots magical missiles and has a necromantically animated prosthetic arm that uses the exact same rules as the clockwork gunslinger...then I'm listening (depending on the setting/gamen of course), but theme is everything compared to rules.

The same applies to every setting and ruleset; yes magic is integral to 5e D&D, but if the premise is that only rare NPCs have access to magic, then there's no point coming to me (the GM) as a player with your idea of playing the only non-setting-critical character in the universe that casts magic any more than coming to a LotR game trying to play as one of the Nazgul or literal Gandalf is going to fly when the premise is "Gondorian Soldiers on the frontier". Expectation is everything in that regard.

I agree with you philosophically. If the game is about the PCs being the holy order of philanthropists spreading good cheer to a weary world, no player can play a pirate ninja assassin no matter how much he begs. Even my cynical self when the DM has a world campaign premise with restrictions I can acknowledge it's really about the setting and not a DM who hates players doing more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage". However, accepting that, I can still find the DM has restricted too much and I wouldn't want to play in that game. Then it's just a matter of personal taste. That DM and I are incompatible for that game even though neither of us are wrong about what we prefer.

[Slipjig]

I think the answer to that is largely going to depend on whether the player shows up for Session Zero with a fully developed character in mind, and then it turns out that their character concept is incompatible with the campaign the DM is working on. At that point, the player should either pick a new concept, adapt their concept, or leave the game.

Granted, it's helpful if the DM puts out some initial guidance BEFORE Session Zero, especially they are planning on doing something that takes core races or classes off the table.

It also depends on whether the restrictions are because of story reasons or because the DM thinks they are dumb or OP. If you are playing in the Dragonlance setting during the period when there is no divine magic, it would make sense to say no Clerics or Paladins. If the campaign is going to involve a revolution, it's reasonable to say that they all have backgrounds where they would naturally tend to be on the same side (even if that might change later).

But there will always be a small % of players willing to throw a tantrum because you the DM has written a all-Human Viking campaign, when they had their heart set on playing a Balrog Roboticist/Ninja gestalt class they found on Reddit. It's good to identify these players early, because it's MUCH simpler to kick them out before the campaign starts. Being a DM is already hard enough, there's no reason to add to your stress load by trying to incorporate a player who doesn't want to participate in the campaign you are actually running.