If I had a nickel for every game I've looked at on here that looked promising and was in a setting I enjoy only to read the allowed options and been totally put off I'd be a wealthy man. No one wants to be pigeon holed into playing the ship mechanic or a trap monkey from a race that is very not suited to the role.

If I'm playing Star Wars I want to be a Jedi. If I'm playing a rogue in D&D I want to be a halfling. If I'm playing 40k I want to be a Space Marine. The number of games requiring you to join as some very uninteresting ancillary character on here is astounding.

It would feel like trying to run a race with a ship anchor tied to my waist.

Are you talking about games that are looking to replace an existing player who just left? Or are these games that are starting and are looking for a full complement of roles to fill out  a party?

Both. Its a little more understandable for already established games. They may need a specific role, but thats a big ask and a much smaller number of players are going to be willing to have their options picked for them.

For new games it's unforgivable. I will never join a game under such limited and draconian rules. Not that anyone is saying I have to, I just don't get how people expect that to fly.

It's a GM's market. If I want a party of all drow clerics I could get 25 RTJ's with different cleric builds. I literally joined an all Bard game once.

PbP is pretty much where GM's take all their game ideas that they would never get their real friends to play. My buddies wouldn't put up with an all Droid freedom fighter game. But I can find at least 5 schmucks to humor me on the internet.

In reply to Draegnoth (msg # 3):

They expect folks willing to abide by the campaign guidelines to apply, not folks who won't.

And, speaking as one who has strong guidelines, usually, you'd be surprised how often folks ignore the posted limits and get angry when you won't make an exception for them.

Some games aren't meant to be as cosmopolitan as others. If everyone is a Jedi, it gets a bit boring. And not all thieves are or should be halflings. Nor should all halflings be thieves.

Everyone wants to be the prime character. That's hard in a party of 4. And not fair to 3 of them. It's worse in a group of 6 or 8.

The options are narrow for what you want: Search Players wanted over and over until you find one, Advertise on GM Wanted (stating your requirements up front), or run a game yourself and maybe get the other viewpoint about why GMs advertise as they do. If you really want to understand WHY we do it that way.

But mostly I'd recommend a GM Wanted ad, maybe for a solo game. One where you are expected to be the center of attention.

You might want to amend your profile's bio lines, in that case.

Yeah, the only thing I can recommend is to keep on looking for other games. For reasons that seem to baffle me in their inexplicability there is a dearth of Game Masters out there right now. Everyone wants to play, and so very few people want to run.

So you will have to keep your options open.

But I am sure you will find the niche you are looking for in due time, just have to be patient.

From the GM side, too, bear in mind that some GMs just may have had one too many bad experiences with certain class/race combinations. For me, it's bards - I don't care what race, what kind, every game I've ever been in with a bard that wasn't gestalted with something reasonable, the bard has (often literally) been the death of the party. Ditto for Malkavians.

That doesn't mean I'd never, ever, allow one - but it's a hard sell, and one that I wouldn't really want someone to pitch me. If a game ad says 'No Bards' and you really, really want to play a Bard, I'd suggest starting by asking 'Might I ask why no bards?' so that the GM can explain their reasoning, and you can (if applicable) counter-pitch why *YOUR* bard won't be a problem. It definitely works better than ignoring the requirements and pitching a bard anyway (because nothing says 'This player won't pay attention' like someone that pitches something that's blatantly against the Ad in the first place), and you never know, you might find a good fit in the end.

Inversely, if my RTJ has a hard rule, it won't be allowed.  If I say "no Kender", that means no Kender at chargen.  Later?  Sure, if you've proven to be a responsible Player, chargen rules change for Players I have experience with.  In some cases they get firmer and more restrictive, but in most they loosen up.

It just seems so counterintuitive. We're adults playing make believe in games that strongly encourage everyone to be diverse and accepting, yet so very many games on here are highly restricted.

I've found several games that suit my preferences to one degree or another. Its just that so many others look very appealing when reading the setting and story background..... until I get to the player restrictions. Then I just head back to the home page with imagination blue balls.

That's totally fair. You're not the only one that's been put off by restrictions, trust me. Sometimes they're there for Good Reasons, though.

In any case, like I tell my kids, you should always ask if you encounter something like that. The worst thing you can hear is 'No', and that's what you've already told yourself mentally anyway. Some GMs will make concessions, some will have Also Cool Things to offer you as a counter that you might not have thought of, sometimes GMs forget to update Wanted Ads/Character Creation when they bump and might not even realize they forgot to remove Restriction X (particularly likely if they have a very long Character Creation section, sometimes things get overlooked, I know!) - so it never hurts to open a dialogue with the GM if it feels like a perfect fit except for one particular thing.

Happy game hunting. =)
This message was last edited by the user at 23:24, Tue 19 Jan 2021.

I've run into this problem in a couple of different ways.  One is "PHB only."  In cases like that, I shake my head and move on to the next one.  The other one is not necessarily a problem per se, but more like a "can I do this?" and if not, submit my RTJ anyway.  There are a lot of GMs who will say "no homebrew."  When I run my 5e games, I have a few house rules that I go by, some of which are more like errors of omission by WotC, due to new books adding things which could change things from older books.  And so if I want to play a specific character, I will ask about using my modification.  If I can't, I will either submit the character anyway, or switch to a different character to submit.

Just as examples, Clerics have the option for Heavy Armor in their starting equipment if proficient, but Warlocks don't have the option for Medium Armor/Shield because the subclass that can use it (Hexblade) was not printed until Xanathar's.

The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide offered variant skills/abilities for half-elves of specific types.  Half Aquatic Elves were just thrown in as an aside, and gain only a swimming speed as an option.  When Mordenkainen's added Sea Elves, the ability Child of the Sea adds swimming speed AND water breathing.

So if I want to play one of those characters, I ask if my Hexblade can get medium armor/shield in starting equipment (without having to buy it), or if my Half Sea Elf can use Child of the Sea as a variant.  It only makes sense to me that it should have been an addition/correction in those books anyway, and was omitted.

But that "small" tangent aside, yes I agree that there are a lot of games out there with restrictions that turn me off to a game that otherwise excites me.

I like to see the DM list all of their restriction, house rules, books allowed, etc. up front. It's much easier to decide if I want to spend the time to go through the RTJ process or not.

I can understand your frustration, Draegnoth, when you see a game that is the system you want, the setting you want, and then you feel the restrictions are too tight - but at least all you have wasted is a few minutes of reading.

I will add my experience has been fairly opposite to yours. It could be because I only look at D&D games (old school and 5E; no 3E or 4E) so my population of potential games is already quite small. Nonetheless, I rarely find games where the restrictions are onerous. I play in two games, same GM, who limits classes and races - but even then - there are still ample choices. Every other game, 11 others, were all more or less completely open, as far as classes/races and only a couple of them limited books, but that was mentioned up front.

Very true. Some can be burglars. :)

But seriously, I agree with the sentiment. Being pigeonholed just creates stereotypes and caricatures. The reason for joining the game is because you want a character who stands out from the rest or went against the mold.

"Diverse and accepting"?  Depends on the setting I'm running.  It may very well not be "diverse" or "accepting".

Regardless, what is counterintuitive about "every one who has every submitted a Kender, Tinker Gnome, or Malk as the 'only Character they're willing to play' in one of my games has been a problem Player*, so I don't allow those races/classes/clans/etc† in my game"?


* Admittedly SunRuanEr seems to come from the "character ends up being the problem" more than my "it's the Player"‡.

† There are more than Kender, Tinker Gnome, Malk, but those are the top three that I say "NO!" to immediately.  Like, if those are in setting, they will be on my "These Character Are Not Allowed At Campaign Start" list.  Others... it depends on the type of game I'm running.  In GURPS DFRPG Bards are on that list because they are either "I WIN" or "I LOSE" with no real middle ground, either they immediately shut down the encounter or they are useless, in which case it's not the Player I'm worried about being a problem, but the Character mot being fun to play or have in the game.

‡ I find saying hard NO right off to those Characters turns those Players away.  Sometimes a "Malk Player" slips and is a mild nuisance until they can "Malkify" the character, or it dies and they take advantage of the looser chargen rules and make a "Malk" and suddenly become a problem.

And like it's not "just Malks".  It can be the Player who upon seeing everyone has to start at PFC at most wants to be the Lieutenant or Sergeant so 'they can be in charge'.  basically if someone wants to buck the set rules before we even get to the gate, they will be bucking rules all over the place once the game is in play.

So if I set rules in the RTJ, there are reasons and they aren't going to be flexible.  But as SunRuanEr said, it's still worth asking.  Not everyone is as inflexible as I am about that stuff.

I hope my response doesn't come across as confrontational, because I'm intending it to be more 'look at the other side of this for a minute'.  I'm also speaking as someone who actively seeks to avoid being a GM...I just don't enjoy that aspect of RPGs.  I've tried it a few times, and I'm currently shouldering the task for a game where the original GM disappeared after some health issues, so I do know what I'm missing out on, as it were...

But this sounds to me like a lot of, "I want to play the game that I will have fun in, and I don't care if the GM likes that game or not."  I hope that's just my kneejerk interpretation of it, and not the real sentiment behind it...but that's how it's coming across to me.

Without question, in every game, the GM has the most difficult task.  If that game starts to feel like a chore, odds are really good the GM is not going to ride it out...the game's going to die.  So GMs will often limit things..."Trying to keep up with all the shenanigans a bard throws into the game is just exhausting for me...so, NO BARDS," or "I am SICK TO DEATH of this particular archetype...I want people to try some other kinds of stuff...", that kind of thing.  If that's a deal-breaker for you...don't join the game.  The GM is creating a game they will enjoy running...if, for whatever reason, it's a game you won't enjoy playing, you probably shouldn't join it.  But you should certainly not expect the GM to compromise their enjoyment of running the game just to accommodate your desire to play a character type that they don't like.

Someone (I read it earlier today and am too rushed to go hunting back through the thread to find who said it) mentioned something about characters being limited, initially, and if a player proved to be enjoyable enough to game with, letting them push the boundaries with a second or third character.  Maybe try negotiating with these GMs..."I like your setting, I would LOVE to play this kind of character...but you don't allow them.  If I show you I can play without being a PITA, can we look at me adding that kind of character to the game at some later point?"  Consider it paying your dues/earning the GMs trust.  And, of course, it all depends on why, exactly, the GM doesn't want that character type in the game...if, for instance, a Star Wars GM is looking at running a game that revolves around crime syndicates and bounty hunters, a Jedi is just plain old going to be a bad fit.  But it might be accommodated, with the right concept.  If the GM is just sick and tired of dealing with people playing Force-sensitive characters, they've got every right to say, "No Force-Users, this is a normal-people scenario."

And there's nothing wrong with respectfully asking.  I've been in a Star Wars game for several years now...when I first joined it, the RTJ said the GM wanted new characters.  Well, I wanted to, effectively, reboot a character that I'd played in a table-top game that started thirty years ago.  So I pitched the idea to the GM...I didn't want to bring in any of the baggage that had accumulated with that character...no nifty weapons or armor or contacts...just use the character type and personality and starting-out stats.  I could have gone that route and said nothing about it being a rebooted character, but I felt like I should be honest.  And I also said if it wasn't okay, I was willing to come up with a different character, I'd just been missing that particular character a lot and loved the idea of revisiting him in some way.  The GM said okay...but I'm sure my willingness to compromise influenced that choice.

Of course I want to play a game I can have fun in. Why bother otherwise? The GM is supposed to adapt to the players. I've done both sides and as a GM I rarely enjoy the process. Players do illogical, violent, stupid things. They're called murder hobos for a reason.

I've always liked being a GM to being a zookeeper at a zoo, except every animal is a rabid honey badger and all the cages are unlocked. If you're willing to GM just accept that "your vision" of how things are supposed to be is doomed before the first die rolls.

Or you could do whatever you can to minimise that risk.  Seriously, why GM a game that you don't enjoy?
This message was last edited by the user at 16:49, Wed 20 Jan 2021.

It seems like you have answered your own question with this post. If I were to GM a game, the first restriction would be No Murder Hobos. The GM isn’t your slave. They are there for their own enjoyment. Not just yours. PbP at its best is cooperative storytelling. Or at least that’s my favorite kind. To each their own. Good luck finding a GM to boss around :)

I like that analogy.

The thing is, though, whilst players should be free to do what the hell they want with their characters, that has to be within the confines of the plot and setting of the GM. If I were to run a game where, say, everyone was a normal human I wouldn't expect somebody to play a mutated zombie ogre with superpowers.




Exactly. And I've tried to have this conversation with players before. Unfortunately, there are a few out there that think GMs only run games to entertain the players and not care about enjoying it themselves.

As a GM you have a vision of what your game is going to look like. If it is a homebrew world, even more so. I am playing in a 5e game where all players are halflings. There were a few other minor constraints, but the halfling only rule was absolute. So, if I fancied being a Goliath cleric then I could take my idea elsewhere. The game is now well established with a great party of halflings with a range of classes, and it works really well in that setting.

I have had a idea for a 5e game in my own homebrew world, but not yet launched it. The party will be an army unit, so all PCs will be fighters, barbarians, rogues or spell-less variant rangers, with one cleric allowed as the party medic. Also, all PCs will be human. At game launch this is non-negotiable. That isn’t to say that as the game develops I may allow new or replacement PCs from different background, but at the start it will be just the army squad. Now some players may think that this idea is great, and will apply according to my guidelines. Others will think it is a rubbish idea, and they are free to think that and move on to the next game advert. But anyone applying to the game wanting to be a kenku sorcerer or genasi warlock is going to be immediately rejected. I’m not trying to make an Everyman game, but one that I want to run and hopefully that a small group of players wants to play.

Ultimately if I don’t enjoy GMing my own game then it dies. It a player drops then that is frustrating, but I can continue without them and/or replace them.

Ahahaha, no.

If the direction the Players want to go looks like it'll be more (or at least the same amount of) fun and no (or not too much) more work than I already had planned, that's one thing, but I'm not beholden to it nor are the Players entitled to my time.

I thoroughly disagree with many of you. I know the GM is not a slave but they have to Undercommon when taking on the role that they are not in charge of the direction the story takes after it is initially explained. By session 3 its gone off in the weeds with a bunch of violent psychopaths.

I'm not saying they do it to be jerks or out of malicious intent. They will simply come up with ideas that boggle the mind compared to even the most simple and straightforward scenarios you present.

If a GM were so heavy handed in my games that they railroaded the story in the direction they want I'd rage quit in an instant. I'm just venting here. Make me out to be the bad guy if you want, I don't care. Just know that I think the same think of inflexible GMs.

This comes across as overly selfish. As you, the player, enjoyment ranks higher then the GM's enjoyment.


The GM in my opinion, sets the boundaries for which the players can play in. They set the world. Fortunately the game system they have chosen sets many of these boundaries, but they can set a couple others. Examples and reasons given above. The boundaries need to be expansive enough to allow the players some freedom but not so expansive it'll take any enjoyment away from the GM. And the GM doesn't need to explain why they have set said boundaries any more than a player has to explain why they don't want to play in their game.

Interesting ideas on both ends.

I have to add that I think it is a compromise. Ideally, everyone's in agreement on what they want to get out of it. The GM has his/her reasons to run, and each player has their reasons to want to play.

I know that everyone will want something in particular out of it, but the GM does put in the most amount of work into the game and does deserve some consideration.

But, at the same time, if it is the GM's intention to make the game fun, they ought to pay a bit of attention to the goals and preferences of their players, in so far as it fits into their game or can be adapted to.

This is supposed to be people getting together and having some fun. If something breaks down, then talking about it will help.

Of course, not all games are good for all player preferences: your axe-wielding hack-and-slasher does not make a good fit for a political game, and so on.

I don't believe neither the GM nor the Players can place themselves at the forefront of all considerations. That will break down into conflict quickly.

And that's assuming the GM and the players are mature individuals who are willing to discuss their differences and preferences and adapt if possible, or gracefully bow out when needed.

I had one player quit on me because I ran a group of traditional monsters as civilized and nuanced creatures, with self-determination and intelligence. They thought they should be brutal savages, as is quite often how they are portrayed. It strikes me they didn't like that. Go figure. =)

Yeah, we differ intrinsically.


I've never had that experience as a GM.  If a Player tries to derail an "on rails game"*, they get two polite discussions in private, and if they continue trying, they get booted.  I've never had more than one Player be a problem in a group.

I'm sure it can happen, but that's a problem with a built in solution.

* If it's a sandbox game and they're trying to derail what the other Players are trying to accomplish or set up, see above.  Though this happens less frequently in a sandbox game because the inherent freedom often causes those types of Players to play more in the group, than against it.


I've never had that problem.  Some ideas will work, some will fail.  That's the way of it.


See, I just don't sign on to a railroad games unless I want a railroad game (same with sandboxes, sometimes I want the peace of mind of having a nice coach to retire to and not have to think to hard while the train keeps on rolling).  And if I'm running a railroad, I advertise it upfront, and what the setting and premise is, that helps set Players expectations before they even RTJ.

Maybe my problem is that I've gamed with selfish morons and have grown used to it. The one other person in my local gaming group who is a reasonable and rational human being feels the same way. But they're all we have in this small rural area so its game with them or don't game at all. For the last 2 years its been don't game at all. Thats why I'm online now.

You seem to be talking about two different things. You started the thread talking about overly limiting race/class/whatever limitation in character creation. That's a very different thing than story flexibility, reactivity and railroading. You even admit here that the GM is in charge of the 'initial explanation of the story', which surely includes defining the character options available.

Two points here...

A--Yes, they are.  The story may take some unexpected twists and turns, but they are still the narrator of the story and the creator/interpreter of the world in which the story is happening.  Even if the party ends up somewhere way out in left field, the GM is still the one telling everyone what's out there.  Just because they aren't demanding that the party proceed directly from first to second to third doesn't mean they aren't in charge.

B--A lot of GMs have probably experienced something like that...which may be why they're so selective about the characters they allow.  They've seen too many of 'those types' show up playing those kinds of characters, so disallowing is their first step in screening out the undesirables.

Basically, it comes down to this (I've said it before, and I know I'll end up saying it again)--if a GM has something in the makeup of their game that you find objectionable, it's probably a pretty good sign that you and the GM have some fundamental differences in your expectations of the game...which is generally my first big clue that it's time to keep looking for another game.

Exactly, and it doesn't even have to be rules.  I've skipped out on applying for decent looking games over "silly" things like the GM's preferred font choices, length of character background, and posting rates.

There are tons of games in the sea (especially if you actually somehow manage to enjoy D&D), so just toss back the ones that don't align with your preferences and check out the next one.

There is a table for everyone but not everyone fits at every table. I consider myself a pretty reasonable GM but I have absolutely driven players away because what I thought were some helpful tweaks butted up against their ideas resulting in a big confrontation.

Even two perfectly calm and competent gamers might clash for whatever reason and at some point it is no longer fun to play together and the best solution is to walk away.

I've had players drop my games because they didn't like my style and then come back a year later because that conflict was water under the bridge and since then I've become a better GM and they've become a better player and we're able to move past the issues that stopped us in the first place.

 in the end?  Not all games  are made for everyone. Mine aren't..i don't try to make them that way. I want players  who  ...LIKE.. the settings, the RP ect ect..i don't want to 'brobe folks to play'.

 Players  who invest themselves in the game, make the game  richer.

Like Evil says?... I went   through a few games that has a set color  for posting this  and another for posting that.. and thought bubbles  ect ect. That's nuts. we use  what ever color for  the characters  want to use  for thier speech, because none of them will be posting in the same post.

 there is  a Game i can barely stay in, but i have been there for years so  i feel i must try to help keep it alive... The GM there is super anal  about CS??? really?..last year we lost at elast 4 players, ebcaus eof the CS stuff and  the GM  would say "  so-so has left, because  he/she was rude"

 i even made an OC post saying 'let them post! you're a GM you can work around the CS as we play!..( it got deleted  and  one of  my friends left  the game  because the GM  did that)

 so?...to sum stuff up..find a game you like, and see if  you are accepted...if you aren't accepted? it  doesn't matter. If you are accepted, then you see if you can play on the same team as the other  folks who are there.. if you can't?...thank the GM  for his/her  time  and leave...no one here..not one..is paid to play or  run a game, we do it for fun..if its not fun? don't do ti.

And there are plenty of players who enjoy GMs who largely have a pre-planned story, and GMs like that recruit players who'll go along with the plot. Operation Rimfire is an extremely popular Mekton module and the choo-choo is very strong with that one, even by the standards of adventure modules.

So, if a GM isn't running a game you like, find a game you do like. If there's no game you want to play, don't game until you find one.

But to his point it is really frustrating when you see a game with a concept you would really like to explore as a campaign but then the restrictions and such are so stringent that you know you won't enjoy the game with that GM at the helm.

It's like seeing someone order a steak well-done. It had potential and someone ruined it.

That example is blaming the other guy for having preferences different than yours.

And that is the core issue here: if you can't find a game to your specific preferences...maybe you're tastes are just too specific

Two choices:

1: Expand your criteria, take a chance, and maybe find out you can enjoy more than you realize. Or less, I guess, given the topic.

2: Have more patience. Realize that what you're looking for is THAT unusual, and just keep searching. Or posting in GMs Wanted. Or both.

Actually, there is a third: run the game yourself and see just what you want the rest of us to put up with for you.

You don't have to eat it.  They're probably wondering how you can eat raw meat.

I've found, over the years, that core book only typically means either for new players or it's the GMs first serious attempt.    And that's not just D&D, it's all game systems.

Sometimes. But do your research and if it isn't DESTROY THEM.

...because nobody besides you should enjoy their gaming experience?

Why?  Why not not just let the very experienced GM with his pool of very experienced Players use the Core system as they wish?

In reply to Draegnoth (msg # 1):

It's a bit of my fault that things got derailed.   That said...

If there's a specific character/setting/etc that you want to play in, it's probably best to put a post in the GM wanted section.   It might take a while before someone nibbles, though.

GM wanted is the ultimate punt. Just keep applying someone will let you use your wierdo concept eventually.

Here's the thing. IRL games, the whole group needs to be onboard for the same game. If you have a group you play with and you know that a certain player always wants to play tabaxi or that Jack always wants to play Hans Solo, you take that into account when planning.

That is not the case online. You are playing with total strangers most of the time and you have no idea how Bob1987 or PieSmasher* or whoever are as people, or what they want. You especially don't know that if you have never spoken to them and don't know they exist. So you come up with the game you want and you put in restrictions on the stuff you don't want to deal with, like "no chaotic neutral" or "no monstrous races" so that you can actually run the game you couldn't put on your IRL table.

So you're here looking for the games you can't play IRL, but you have to recognise that there are GMs here for the same reason.

Basically, I don't know you, and if your response to me saying "this is what I want to run" is to get in a strop about not being allowed to do x thing, I don't want to know you.



*apologies if these turn out to be actual usernames. I'm not calling anyone out.
This message was last edited by the user at 11:24, Thu 28 Jan 2021.

As someone whose tastes can sometimes be a little picky, I can feel the frustration of the OP, but basically what everyone else said. One person's meat is another person's poison. Best advice is to keep looking until you find a game you think you'll like, play in it for a while and stick around if you like it. Otherwise politely let the gm know and say goodbye and look again.

But don't force a GM to do what you want. It's their game, after all.