Limiting your players

[Maverick898]

Just Curious, since the normal thoughts are to allow your players as much freedom as possible to come up with unique and interesting concepts, but what are some ways you've had to limit your players? Feats, Spells, Items, etc.

I'm thinking the next game I DM to just outright ban the fly spell and most items that allow players to fly in order to create a more 'grounded' style adventure.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

I limit based primarily on what makes sense for the setting. No warforged on Ansalon, no tieflings or dragonborn on Mystara, etc.
Ignoring house rules galore, apart from the odd feat or spell (Sacred Geometry, etc.) the only thing I've made a hard ban is at will cantrips.

I don't ban basic game aspects like Fly or Teleport.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I only restrict what I, as GM, am willing to abide by. If I ban all elves, I can't have any elves or their derivatives as villains; if I tell my players they can't use the Overland Flight spell, neither can any of my villains.

I do have 2 restrictions purely based on personal preference in my homebrew setting. One is a removed race, the other is a banned class. That's it. My players have picked Campaign Traits for their PCs even though we're not in the relevant AP, they've chosen 3pp races, I've even given a paladin an exotic AC as their bonded mount despite not spending a feat on it.

The way I look at it, the only reason folks build crazy character builds is to have fun. Whether that fun comes from combat optimization, RP'ing an odd character or they just want to try out some unique feat or something, the end goal is that character customization is a feature of this system. Who am I to place limits on my players' fun?

On the flipside tho, I DO warn my players that their level of RP and combat optimization will determine how hard the encounters get. In other words if they build 4 DPR monsters and never RP any scenes, the game will be an endless series of super-optimized foes that want nothing more than to shred the PCs. Whatever is good for the PC goose is good for the GM's gander.

[Mightypion]

I do like restricting fly, teleport, and to an extent crafting.

I also make fly less of a neccessity in terms of you completely need it at level 7.

I do reward good roleplay or clever out of the box solutions with giving players free feats, subject to my approval, but these have to be feats or traits they would never pick normally on that character.

My players also know that such rewards are likely, if they diplomatizingly roleplay their way out of an encounter, this means less loot, but a free "characterfull feat".

Narratively, there are possible patrons that reward peaceful resolutions in all of the alignment corners, so these feats are their "tokens of reward" depending on the alignment of the diplomatizing character.

[Sysryke]

We collectively GM in my group, so we set any restrictions during the world building sessions. We're pretty open, but usually it's just creating a line of how far into 3pp we're willing to go. We usually stick to Paizo races, but will make group voted case by case exceptions. All 3pp spells are available, but we stick to the Paizo classes excepting archetypes. Generally we all avoid gunslingers, but the option does exist in our current world. Similarly, I do think we avoid all/any of the android/robot type races. Living constructs okay, but we try to stick to a "pure" fantasy setting.

The only other time that I've ever played long term with restrictions is if we do what we call a "challenge" game. Then we as a group call out people's playing habits/styles, and each of us has to build something outside of our typical wheelhouse.

[DungeonmasterCal]

I put very few limits on players compared to a lot GMs I know. My setting is a cooperative homebrew but I originated it so I run things via benevolent dictatorship. I'll allow them to do a lot of stuff by bending rules or using an "at that moment use of the Rule of Cool" but I have final say over things. No gunslingers and no "furry" races are the two biggest that jump to mind immediately.

[Sysryke]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I put very few limits on players compared to a lot GMs I know. My setting is a cooperative homebrew but I originated it so I run things via benevolent dictatorship. I'll allow them to do a lot of stuff by bending rules or using an "at that moment use of the Rule of Cool" but I have final say over things. No gunslingers and no "furry" races are the two biggest that jump to mind immediately.

I'm with you on the gunslingers, but I'm a total critter lover. If you're saying no furry as in the dress up community, I'd have to agree. No disrespect, just not my thing. If you're saying none of the critter races, then I have to rail. I love my ratfolk, catfolk, and kitsune characters. Anthro PCs matter! :P

[Peg'giz]

Only limit in my games:
- No 3PP content (aonsrd only!)
- No ultra-passive characters (you are the main character of the story act like one!)

[Mark Hoover 330]

I would 100% be ok with furry characters, whether the races or the lifestyle. Or players for that matter. One of the "iconics" for my homebrew is a grippili ranger called Niblix; I've also had a kitsune character played in one of my games, though the campaign only made it to 3rd level.

The only race I disallow are gnomes. I've seen them exploited into oblivion and one player decades ago took the combination of Gnome and Chaotic Neutral to grandstand and hijack the game SO HARD that it soured me on several things, including the race.

I am trying this new thing where I ask my players to make characters with some element of "good" in their alignment. I've got 2 games going, and only one of these is all good, but here are my reasons: I wanted PCs specifically interested in being heroes on some level, not just murderhobos only concerned with personal power and secondly, I planned on using monsters with protection vs good spells/abilities, templates that grant smite good and so on.

Oh, and I also do the gunslinger thing. Ironically, not a single player has ever challenged me on this restriction. I have endured hours of lobbying for GNOMES... but no one seems to care if their character uses guns.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Sysryke wrote:

I'm with you on the gunslingers, but I'm a total critter lover. If you're saying no furry as in the dress up community, I'd have to agree. No disrespect, just not my thing. If you're saying none of the critter races, then I have to rail. I love my ratfolk, catfolk, and kitsune characters. Anthro PCs matter! :P

Yeah, I meant the critter races. They just never fit the feel of our setting. If someone wants to dress up like a kitsune or armadillo or whatever and play then sure, bring 'em on...lol

@Mark Hoover

No one in my group, going back as far as I can remember, has ever played a Gnome. I've used them as NPCs plenty, with a couple of storylines revolving around one in particular.

[Sysryke]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I would 100% be ok with furry characters, whether the races or the lifestyle. Or players for that matter. One of the "iconics" for my homebrew is a grippili ranger called Niblix; I've also had a kitsune character played in one of my games, though the campaign only made it to 3rd level.

The only race I disallow are gnomes. I've seen them exploited into oblivion and one player decades ago took the combination of Gnome and Chaotic Neutral to grandstand and hijack the game SO HARD that it soured me on several things, including the race.

I am trying this new thing where I ask my players to make characters with some element of "good" in their alignment. I've got 2 games going, and only one of these is all good, but here are my reasons: I wanted PCs specifically interested in being heroes on some level, not just murderhobos only concerned with personal power and secondly, I planned on using monsters with protection vs good spells/abilities, templates that grant smite good and so on.

Oh, and I also do the gunslinger thing. Ironically, not a single player has ever challenged me on this restriction. I have endured hours of lobbying for GNOMES... but no one seems to care if their character uses guns.

The only race I can think of that any group I've played in has collectively banned were Warforged in 4E. Just felt wrong for the games we played. I did have a GM who absolutely hated halflings, because to him ALL halflings were Kinder, but oddly he didn't ban. He just tartgeted any of us who dared to play one. Joke's on him; I played an uber healing halfling cleric. All the monsters tried to get to me through our defensive types. I stayed up with heals, and had enough left over to keep our crew alive while they ginsued the baddies.

[Sysryke]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

I'm with you on the gunslingers, but I'm a total critter lover. If you're saying no furry as in the dress up community, I'd have to agree. No disrespect, just not my thing. If you're saying none of the critter races, then I have to rail. I love my ratfolk, catfolk, and kitsune characters. Anthro PCs matter! :P

Yeah, I meant the critter races. They just never fit the feel of our setting. If someone wants to dress up like a kitsune or armadillo or whatever and play then sure, bring 'em on...lol

@Mark Hoover

No one in my group, going back as far as I can remember, has ever played a Gnome. I've used them as NPCs plenty, with a couple of storylines revolving around one in particular.

To be clear, we actually have played with a dress up type furry in our group before. The outfit was neat, and she was a great story-teller type player. Trying to combine the two hobbies on a regular basis is just a bit much for my brain to process. Plus, my friends house is really warm. Too long in one of the suits and I'm pretty sure I'd pass out. I love a good costume party, but the rest of the time I'll stick to some ears or a tiger tail if I'm feeling the fuzzy.

[Te'Shen]

Sysryke wrote:

The only race I can think of that any group I've played in has collectively banned were Warforged in 4E. Just felt wrong for the games we played.

Huh... I love Eberron but have had little chance to play in the setting. I have, however, been in two different games where players had variations on construct-who-persisted-after-his-master-died-became-self-aware, and we just used the Warforged stats for it... a little bit like Wall-e or Curie from Fallout 4.

It was kind of nice.

Sysryke wrote:

I did have a GM who absolutely hated halflings, because to him ALL halflings were Kinder, but oddly he didn't ban. He just tartgeted any of us who dared to play one. Joke's on him; I played an uber healing halfling cleric. All the monsters tried to get to me through our defensive types. I stayed up with heals, and had enough left over to keep our crew alive while they ginsued the baddies.

I don't mind Hobbits... even cannibal Halfling out of Dark Sun are not without their twisted charms... but if somebody says Kinder... not just no, but **** No.

[Andostre]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

the only thing I've made a hard ban is at will cantrips.

Why?

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Andostre wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

the only thing I've made a hard ban is at will cantrips.

Why?

Because it makes certain things too easy, partly, but mostly because of one player who really annoyed me with his constant interrupting me to say he's using cantrips for everything under the sun, and trying to get them to do more than they should. Like trying to claim a 0th level spell should move a boat under sail.

[wraithstrike]

I banned the antagonize feat because it makes no sense to me. I also don't allow Disjunction because it basically requires people to remake their characters on the spot. However, those also apply to the NPC's so I guess they may not count.

Unless it was essential to a campaign or mission I don't see myself banning something. As an example if they can easily rescue an important NPC by teleporting into the enemy's HQ and teleporting back out, I'd make it so that teleporting in and/or out wasn't possible.

Another example is that if the campaign involves going against drow I'd be less likely to allow someone to just happen to be the only good drow in the area.

PS: If getting to the NPC easily didn't mess interfere with the plot then I'd let them use teleport.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

wraithstrike wrote:

I banned the antagonize feat because it makes no sense to me. I also don't allow Disjunction because it basically requires people to remake their characters on the spot.

I ruled that Disjunction simply turns off all magic items on a character (as well as dispelling all non-item effects) unless an item is directly targeted for destruction. That way the PCs only need magic/non-magic stats easily available instead of spending half an hour rolling saves and recalculating everything.

[Zotpox]

I allways limit my players in game options along the lines of the campaign setting's in game starting location. If the players don't like the options in one location they can start somewhere else in the setting, create a nonredicolus backstory or we can have a conversation about how an uber out of place race/class combo ended up in that locale.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I like it when my players use things to easily overcome challenges. This past game I ran a room: the chamber is flooded nearly to the ceiling, with a 5' gap above the water line. Huge sections of the old walls and ceiling masonry have collapsed into the pool over time, obscuring the bottom. In some places, unsteady piles of rubble break the surface of the water so that PCs COULD jump between them, though with little overhead clearance the checks would be difficult. Adding to the difficulty is that the bases look very unstable and, unbeknownst to the players, could easily give way and tumble occupants into the water.

The water itself is extremely deep and cold, though there is no current. The PCs could easily recognize with Knowledge: Nature DC 8 that anyone entering the water to swim across would be making Fort saves each round from the cold. The pool was 80' across and the remaining masonry of the chamber (Knowledge: Engineering DC 20) will likely collapse if climbing gear was used.

The PCs are level 7. A decision that STILL bewilders me, this group has no method of flight. What the players couldn't tell is that there was a symbol of weakness effect for anyone that entered the water. I figured the PCs would try the jumping while the paladin with high Str and Con would brave the water, and one or more of the PCs would be trying to save vs the symbol.

Instead, the guy running the wizard reminded me that he has a feat to re-memorize a spell in 15 minutes, and the PCs were on an hours-long time crunch, so he gave himself Floating Disk, cast it, shared it to his familiar, then had his familiar fly from platform to platform, ferrying 700 lbs worth of PCs, NPC cohorts and gear each trip until everyone was across.

Can Floating Disk hover over water between chunks of solid "floor"? IDK, but I agreed to it and applauded their ingenuity.

[Azothath]

I want and like players to be creative. Banning reasonable spells (like Fly) should not be done without a very thematic reason (such as you are all morlocks living in tight caves, nobody has Fly).

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

I'm of the opinion that the rules are a toolbox and you make the setting/story you want with those tools that fit. If you want to make a game without Fly or Teleport or whatever, fine. What I object to is the idea that Fly or Teleport (or whatever other spell) makes the game too easy or impossible to run or whatever and should be increased in level, nerfed or banned altogether from the basic rules - as if the preferences and/or incompetence of these people are or should be universal.

[Mightypion]

I generally like for the counter ability (in case of teleport dimensional anchor) to be available before the ability is, in terms of levels.

Similar thing with fly.

If the PCs fly, and their opponents dont, all they need is a bunch of feather token trees and someone on the ground is going to have an insanely bad day.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Mightypion wrote:

If the PCs fly, and their opponents dont, all they need is a bunch of feather token trees and someone on the ground is going to have an insanely bad day.

In 2e we used Shrink [Item]. Once the duration expired, things returned to their normal size unless doing so would destroy something (no sneaking bits of 'sand' into someone's food). Tie a piece of string around a Shrunk boulder, keep them in your pocket, fly over and untie as needed.

[Andostre]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

What I object to is the idea that Fly or Teleport (or whatever other spell) makes the game too easy or impossible to run or whatever and should be increased in level, nerfed or banned altogether from the basic rules - as if the preferences and/or incompetence of these people are or should be universal.

I do not disagree with any decision you've made for your game, but the above statement seems at odds with your decision to ban at-will cantrips. Surely, reigning an overuse of acid splash is easier to manage than an overuse of teleport?

[Azothath]

Mighty & Bjørn, by RAW both of those tactics don't work as you've described. So I'll assume you had a generous GM and carry on.

There are Standard games, or Close to RAW.
As RAW covers a lot of Options or alternative rules, let's say there are Standard with Options games and Standard Unchained games.
Then there are Open games where any published material is open to run.
Then there are Restricted games, like CORE, where only the CRB is used.

Custom games involve modifying or changing various aspects of the game so it is no longer close to RAW or just source restrictions & clarifications.

[Mightypion]

Dropping huge to gargantuan trees on enemies is actually covered in the rules, and essentially requires a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 20 feet. Assuming you are dropping trees (who will be huge to gargantuan) from 40 feet the damage is actually quite significant, and hits at -4 but vs touch, which will be more accurate vs most foes.

If you want to hit for double damage, you will typically need the long shot spell (arguably, pretending to be a level bomber is the one reason for a wizard to cast that) or you will not be able to reach the 150 feet needed for it.

[Necroluth]

The only thing I've done to limit my players in my latest setting is to change the rules for spontaneous divine casting. In this world, clerics convert memorized spells to domain spells instead of healing spells. This forces them (and me) to think a little harder about getting hurt, and encourages more RP with divine casters.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Azothath wrote:

Mighty & Bjørn, by RAW both of those tactics don't work as you've described. So I'll assume you had a generous GM and carry on.

Please show me where this is not possible. I'm pretty sure this was OK.

[Mightypion]

There are rules for it, you do hit vs ranged touch AC and do damage based on object size and dropped height, with a possible reflex throw.

The damage dice are typically a lot higher then for normal ranged weapons.

[DeathQuaker]

If I ban or disallow something it's normally for specific flavor, e.g., I have a homebrew world where specifically magic has developed as the "technology of war" to the point it adds strongly to the feel of the game (which is higher magic than I think some standard adventuring settings are) so there are no firearms or advanced explosive alchemy; hence no gunpowder based weapons and alchemists have to be vivisectionists. Likewise as many have said, I may limit--or add--races based on what's supposed to be common in a particular world.

Otherwise there are some things I disallow in terms of supplemental materials--i.e., I don't ban what's in the core of the game engine, but I might limit add ons--simply because it's a lot of extra rules I don't have time learning, and I don't want to run what I can't adjudicate. And while some GMs seem to have no problem, no I don't have the mental capacity to learn and track all of the class abilities and alternate magic systems and extra environmental alterations that over a dozen core RPG and hundreds of campaign books introduce. Most of my games tend to be "core RPG line only" with a limited list of allowed classes simply because that's what I have the capacity to work with. And I accept that I do this because of *my* personal limitations, not because I want to keep something out of player hands. And if players decide that I am not the right GM for them for that reason, I am totally okay with that.

If a player constantly tries to exploit a feature of the game that is clearly, both RAW and RAI, not intended to be used in a certain way, I ban that player, not that feature of the game. The problem in that case is not the game's feature, but clearly is a player who believes rules don't apply to them and/or their overt goal is to "break" the game rather than play collaborative storytelling funtime, and I don't need that kind of player at my table no matter what system or setting we are using. If that player is a friend, then they accept, "I'm sorry, our play styles are not compatible (and you're driving me crazy)" as a reason and we move on and get pizza together later.

I've run high level games and I like incorporating in the high level mobility tricks like flight and teleportation--always remembering that if the players can do it, I can do it too--and I have access to all the stuff that can counter it when I need it. If the highly powerful, ultra-rich and massively highlevel spellcasting big bad doesn't want people teleporting into his castle, then he very likely has every reason and means to have dimensional lock cast all over the place (and/or made permanent). Otherwise, if the party is 14th level, I'm not planning on running a lengthy overland travel portion of the game before they get to the big bad. We probably did that several levels ago and it's lost both its novelty and its value to the plot. I'd rather them be able to fly/windwalk/teleport their way over to the adventure's location, and be prepared to challenge them once they arrive in different ways (powerful magical hazards, haunts, monsters, and of course various plot elements that hopefully they just have fun interacting with). I don't and shouldn't expect obstacles that work on 1st level characters to work on 14th level characters; I have to create 14th level obstacles, not expect my players to hinder themselves when the core rules allow for them to do cool things. If I don't like working on that power scale, then I'll end the campaign (on a suitably glorious note) and start running a new one at 1st.

Also, quite frankly, I find players get themselves in FAR more trouble with these tools available to them than without. I just ran a scenario where as written, all the PCs needed to do was use a password that they they had already successfully obtained to enter the big bad's domain incognito, and then either charm, sneak, or fight their way toward getting the information they needed, and based on my low-APL party's needs, I was ready to make "charm" or "sneak" work (with skill checks and clever roleplay). Instead, the party decided to ignore the password, try to break in with teleportation and flight--except they teleported directly into the big bad's escape route, woke her up because they weren't being stealthy enough, and then she utterly panicked because heroes showed up in her escape tunnel and she thought they already had the information they were supposed to be looking for (which was about 30 feet away from them and they never quite noticed or looked for it soon enough). And since they were in a tunnel and she had powerful area of effect damage capabilities, things did not initially go well for them. One player was obsessed with fighting the big bad instead of getting the information they needed which didn't help. They managed to survive and get the bare minimum of what they needed. Without teleportation and flight they probably would have had a far more successful adventure. (Also they could have been much more successful WITH teleportation and flight but didn't make other choices that would have helped them there.) But the adventure that they did have was far more interesting and memorable (and possibly massively hilarious to me), and they got to use their abilities in clever ways and feel good about that. And I am really okay with them having the choice; either way would have been work for me, so why not work with what the game has given us and get creative with that?

But were I to ban something like fly and teleport for some reason--such as a low magic campaign or wanting to be sure we focused on things like overland adventuring--I'd be sure to adjust how that affects the world accordingly: mid-high level creatures who can fly need to have their CR boosted. Creatures with teleport either need to have that ability removed or also have their CR massively boosted. CRs are set presuming that PCs have certain abilities offered in core. If you change what is in the core rules, then the difficulty of all challenges have to be reassessed thoroughly.

[Greylurker]

Most of the limits I apply are specific to the campaign. For example a campaign that needs to PCs to explore the Underdark and be very lost and confused about I will say No Underdark races. Or if the campaign is going to use specific optional rules that limit player options (for example: We are going to be using Words of Power) I'll say so upfront.

In general my limits are

1) If I have the book you can play it. If I don't have the book you can't (I have lots of books so this is not a huge limit)
2) 3pp classes can not multiclass with other 3pp classes. They might be designed to play nice with the official Paizo classes, but I do not want to know what happens when a Rogue Genius Godling, multiclasses with Path of War with a level dip into some Sphere stuff.
3) Cohorts must come from inside the campaign. You recruit from the NPCs you know, you don't get to bring in a perfectly optimized 2nd PC.

that's pretty much it.

[Goth Guru]

No kinder, as in no characters who wreck the game and blame it on die rolls to resist. It's a license to steal from other pcs. Also, no village bakers. If your girl/boy friend doesn't want to play an affective PC class, they obviously don't want to play this game.

As for Saiyans, at first level you cannot transform into King Kong's older brother.