Would you like "everything" with that?

[Tark of the Shoanti]

At my local hobby shop I overheard a interesting talk going on. With the release of the races book, and soon the equipment book, some of the people were talking about if a setting should allow for everything from the books. There were some who were into this idea of drinking from the fire hose, as it were, and there were those that were opposed. Some said if a setting has everything, then there is nothing that makes it unique and interesting.
I personally can see both sides to this. Being a gamer for, well longer then I care to admit, I grew up with restrictions on race, class, etc etc. I saw this in both ways a blessing and a curse. When 3.whatever came out, I was also excited and held many apprehensions about allowing everyone to be everything.
I was wondering what the general consensus around here is on the subject. Is it more fun with the sandbox, or do you like having some things in and others out.
I like a wide range of options open for character ideas, but do like having some boarders set, mainly because if there is everything at once, it almost seems like it takes the wonder and awe of exploring away when people can say "seen one, been there".

[TriOmegaZero]

Both kinds of games can be fun. It's best to try a wide variety of styles to find the one you enjoy most before settling into that kind of game. And you should always try something different once in awhile to keep things fresh and find new insights into the game.

[Take Boat]

I like to start everyone with a relatively limited pool of options (I use CRB and APG) and then allow people to branch out on a case-by-case basis into other sources, but only if they link it to a non-trivial character concept.

[Orc Boyz]

i like playing in games where i can be an orc, if i find a gm willing then im already liking that game. basically i like having acess to more material at gm discression. i should be able to build a crazy fighter who hits for 5k damage a swing, but my gm should decide if im allowed to or not.

so i guess im in the boat of "sandbox" over limitations, because a good gm will tell you "no thats to powerful for my game play something else".

[Miranda Silva]

I think more options are better. It allows for people to play what they want, and in the end they have more fun.

Of course it's rarely that black and white. I take everything case by case and see what works the best.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Give a lot, but have clear restrictions. This might drive away a player, but I've found that being clear on what is in and what isn't works. Make it about the game, not all that is in every supplemental book.

Take for instance, an unnamed player that wanted to play a monster char, so he can get four arms, natural ac, more feats, with the purpose that he is far better than everyone else. Do they want to pay an accurate ECL cost? No. Did you approve this race beforehand or in the player's guide material? No.

Best not to allow everything.

[Ciaran Barnes]

When I run a game I limit what the players have access to, but if they ask for something outside of what I have allowed then I will take a look at it. There have been few occasions I have said no.

[Tark of the Shoanti]

I take things on a case by case, but what has really got me thinking this is the setting I am toying with has a lot of new races, and some of the old aren't around, as well, some classes are gone outright and some archetypes are..... rare.
Some people take the old 2nd Ed approach an see what kind of cool characters they can come up with in these times, and others can't have any limitations. Generally when in comes to 3rd party, I have a limited number I allow from, seeing as some of them are WAY out there with what they give players access to.

[pobbes]

I may have been burned by 3.x, but I tend to favor restrictions over sandbox. This is mostly because of my own ability as a GM to keep up with all the things that come out, and eventually being overwhelmed with all the strange things players could do. It probably doesn't help that my players would generally "forget" what resources they had used, so they would be firing once a days at every encounter. Still, I find restrictions should be well thought out and strictly enforced. I can't remember what campaign it was, but a GM wanted a "low" magic game and stuck to it early, but later let a dead character come back as a sorcerer who later just overtook the whole game.