Is it bad to set parameters for your players' characters?

Is it bad to set parameters for your players' characters?

This seems kind of railroady to me, but it also seems unavoidable in some situations. Your players' want you to run a campaign. Is it bad for you to say "Okay, but your characters have to fall in X." Even if X is a broad range.

For example my players want me to run something X-files-esque, but in fantasy. Basically I'm thinking elements of horror and conspiracy within royalty.

But I think for it to be effective, they should be related to the crown in some way, so I've been thinking of telling them that their characters have to be somehow related to the royalty. I still feel like this is very broad. It could be a soldier, a guard, a prisoner, a librarian, hell even a cook or a maid. Honestly I feel like there would be some way to link most things to this.

Do you guys think this is okay? Or is it forcing my players to do something and railroading them before the campaign even starts.

Pic vaguely related because it's Scully. I'm on mobile and have Veeky Forums images.

That is probably ok. You're basically just saying "please find a way to connect your backstories together or to the campaign." As long as it's the game everyone wants to play, I don't see a problem with it. If someone doesn't like it, I'm sure you can find a way to connect them to another PC instead which works just as well (if not better). It's all good.

>Is it bad to set parameters for your players' characters?

No. If you need it for the game, then get it done.

It's very very effective and it also weeds out some shit if the player can't work something from your constraints.

If they don't want to do that, then they don't need to play. DO NOT give in and let players whine for free reign. Negotiation is ok, but if one of your players throws a stroppy fit because he can't play an oriental druid who doesn't leave his woods in your courtly campaign, then just say "I don't think this is the campaign for you then."

Give your players a few limits, and that works fine. Work with the players once they've got an idea for their characters. But if you've got a setting in mind, DO NOT let the players choose a random background.

Players who have backgrounds involved in the setting and story are much better invested in the game than players who are not.

There is nothing at all wrong with it. If your campaign has a specific premise, then characters who don't fit in that premise aren't suitable for the game.

As a GM you should have some degree of flexibility, but at the same time if a player wants to play a character who just will not work in the game premise you've set out, you're perfectly within your rights to refuse it.

I'd say that's fine. It's good to have at least some elements tying your group together.

I'm vehemently against railroading and the 'illusionist' style of DMing and even I'd say that it is perfectly fine to put constraints on the party in terms of character creation before the game starts as long as everybody is clear and there's a good reason for it which in your case there is. I'm a big fan of session zero and working out why a group is together and will happily devote a session or two to it as it saves so much trouble down the line.

In my experience, this is the best way to build a party
It gives the players a broad idea of what they can do, it puts emphasis on cooperation, it gets rid of edgelord loners that don't want to get involved with the others because it would mess with their mojo

In almost any situation, I'd suggest having a party-building and harmonized character creation session with all players and the DM(s) so the players can effectively communicate and build complementary characters with actual reasons to work together and deep personal rapports

It's not railroading if everyone is having fun and having a cohesive party (at least OOC) is always a good thing
Only problem is you have to play with people who want to have fun and tell stories, not with gamers who want to win at all costs and be the best like no one ever was

It's absolutely fine. An issue in a lot of games is that a player will really like the character they've made, but their motivations do not fit with the campaign. As a result their character is doing shit they never should because plot. Enforcing some rules makes the characters feel like they're actually a part of the world.

It is perfectly okay if it is to set up the Campaign

All of you are members of the Royal Court, all of you are members of the same mercenary band, or all of you are mutants in highschool are fine examples of campaigns but if you have a player want to show up in Court as a mutant highschooler or a Samurai Ninja Robot it could cause some problems

>Is it bad to set parameters for your players' characters?

I think that appropriate guidelines and restrictions can help players realize what the game is and is not about. They can also help to establish things about the game's tone and setting.

I find it dramatically helps creativity to restrain the players in some way. It also helps party dynamics and roleplaying to have some form of collective background/history for the party, as long as it isn't to deep (lovers/sibilings/old friends are generally not a good idea).

Setting your expectations and rules for your game before it starts is very good.

It's absolutely fine. Many Japanese TRPGs have this as part of the rules.

When the GM creates a scenario, they are expected to write handouts, which describe how the PCs are connected to the overall story.
Double Cross handouts, for example, consist of a Lois (read: contact) with an associated positive and negative emotion, the required Cover and/or Work and a little bit of text explaining what exactly that means for the PC.

This stems from a somewhat different design philosophy most western TRPGs follow.
Over here, the purpose of TRPGs (and video game RPGs) is often assumed to be self-expression. This is why railroading is generally considered a bad thing, because it limits the players' ability to express themselves. That mindset also makes it difficult for GMs to keep up a pre-planned narrative, because the players can and will run roughshod over it.
Japanese TRPGs are more concerned with telling a story. The GM comes up with a general progression of the session and communicates all the necessary elements to the players so that they can play along. This is perfect for a conspiracy, since you need the players to fulfill certain roles so the whole narrative doesn't unravel halfway through. Self-expression is still there, because the GM only nails down a few details and the structure of the session, but it's more of a "the journey is the goal" kind of thing.

I think this is the first thread on /tg I've seen that is 100% in agreement with one way of doing things. OP, you have your answer.

This is not a bad thing. It let's them tie themselves into the story and thus be more invested in the people in it.

OP here. Thanks for all the responses. I'm glad to see that this is all right and not me being a major douche. I knew my players wouldn't mind, but I was just curious what tg had to say. I'm pretty amazed everyone agreed though.

I agree.

What kind of fool tells their players to just "wing it" anyway? How boring and bland does your plot have to be where literally anyone can fit into it?

The best campaigns and the best characters come from plot hooks that demand a certain type of character. Telling me my PC "has to be a slave in service to Lady X" gives me so much more potential for crafting a character than "you are meeting in a tavern for a dungeon, what are you?"

It's about giving the players clay to work with.

More than okay, I'd say that discussing this and making sure the group builds characters that have reason to work together is so necessary that it should be done for every campaign.

What you are doing is good OP. I am actually glad when the GM does this, it gives me something to go on for making a character, and tie them into the world right away. Hell even i the GM says "your characters all start in jail, figure out why" I like that because it's like a prompt.

Yes, it is metagaming, but it's okay.

This is railroading and you should feel bad.

Nah parameters are awesome. They make it easy for the characters to function in setting to help make a more cohesive world.

> How boring and bland does your plot have to be where literally anyone can fit into it?

Wut

>. Telling me my PC "has to be a slave in service to Lady X"

That's a bit extreme in my opinion. My group tends to greatly value agency with their characters.