Would you restrict a player's actions if it would otherwise end up destroying any sense of balance or fairness in the...

Would you restrict a player's actions if it would otherwise end up destroying any sense of balance or fairness in the game?
Examples to argue over:
>Preventing a player from making a Codzilla cleric in Pathfinder when the other members of the party are a fighter, fighter, monk, and poorly built bard.
>Prevent a superhuman with telekinesis from ripping apart the brain of every humanoid enemy while everyone else has no access to instant-(at-will)-kill attacks?
>Immediately and repeatedly kill off a Druid's animal companion so the fighter can play?

Yes
Yes
No, thats a major feature of the class and you're better off asking them to trade it out, pick an animal that won't outclass the fighter, or play another class entirely

>D&D
>capeshit
Wouldn't encounter either of your problems since I don't have awful taste in games.

I'd wonder how that party would survive level appropriate encounters.

An interesting form of trolling, trolling for trolls.

Caught one already.

Oh, this thread isn't going to be absolute shit, nosiree.

You're not talking about restricting a players actions here mostly . You're talking about restricting their choices at character creation which IMO is fine as long as you tell all the players before the game starts and have good reason for it.

Restricting actions would be your last example if killing an animal companion because fuck you druid. That's passjve aggressive and shitty. If you think he class is OP whatever I won't argue that here but you obviously tell the player they can't use the class or whatever feature it is before they invest in it.

Yes, yes, absolutely yes to those first two. Players should be playing characters on a relatively level playing field; character balance within a party gives everyone more opportunity to shine and feel as though their character's actions were meaningful, as well as making encounters easier to design for the party.

I would consider an exception to the first one: if I knew I could trust an experienced player to tone down the CodZillaness and only pull out the cleric's BSD to prevent accidental TPKs, and otherwise fit in well with the party and mostly be the voice of experience and wisdom, then I'd consider it.

No, no, absolutely not to that last one. Just don't let the druid start with one or get one. Better yet, force both players to pick classes closer together in total capability. Letting the Druid have it then kicking it out like that is high-order bullshit.

Instead of killing off their companion how about tell them you have had bad experiences with Druids who use their companions as an extra Fighter and always pick big and aggressive animals instead of something more realistic like a bird or something.

>You're not talking about restricting a players actions here mostly . You're talking about restricting their choices at character creation
Which is restricting a player's actions and not a character's.

Has anyone every tried buffing the weaker members of the party rather than nerfing the strong ones?

...

Perhaps I should have worded it better. Has anyone in this thread tried buffing weaker characters to balance power levels, and if so would you like to share a story of what you did?

>realistic

Realistic is often interchangeable with reasonable in posts like this.
>something more -reasonable- like a bird or something.

throwing in a third example that is passive aggressive dickbaggery is what really sets it off.
The first two could be taken as talking to your players to make sure everyone is on a similar level and can enjoy the game, and talking to people about how to make the game fun can lead to actual good things.

But then he jabs in there with the dickary at the end.

No I don't restrict players actions, because if you do then you are a fucking piece of shit.

Is there a magic GM out there preventing child rape, mass murders and starvation, and general cruely among mankind?

No.

Is there a GM in the real world who makes sure everyone has the same opportunities, the same level of education, the same income, the same mating potentials?

No.

Is there a GM making sure everyone feels happy, like they equally contributed, and that they are special?

No.

And yet, if people did not cooperate anyway, survival would fall apart. People of different incomes, looks, intellect, etc. must work together to keep society running, if not that as an accidental result of working to their own ends.

As such should be a roleplaying game. Not everyone is equal. Grow the FUCK up and deal with it.

>Escapism shouldn't be allowed
Cuck.

>Is there a magic GM out there preventing child rape, mass murders and starvation, and general cruely among mankind?
Do you really want to be as shitty a GM as God? I don't know about you, but the campaign I'm in is just fucking terrible. It's boring as fuck and I've yet to level up even though I've been playing for literally decades.

>Cuck

I don't think you know what that word means. You should have just called him a faggot.

>level appropriate encounters
Oh, D&D:Tactics players.

There's no need to be balanced, or fair. Everything that the PC's run into is not to be assumed to be killable, sometimes it's better to turn tail than to stand and fight, etc. This is basic shit.

You're under no obligation to include a rule/character option/whatever just because it's printed somewhere and a player wants their special snowflake. Just make the rules of the house clear before play starts, and discuss them if you need to.

But don't be an antagonistic, passive-agressive cunt if you feel the need to revise those rules. Settle any issues like grownups do.

>Settle any issues like grownups do.
The problem with this statement is that the category grownups includes people like the US government, and boy is their issue settling method a piece of work.

You know what I mean, don't sperg out.

You had the right idea in your first example and failed to implement it in the other two. Simply disallowing something that would break the game is a far better solution than allowing it and then preventing them from using it.

Don't let the Telekinetic pick the brain-ripping power and then tell him he can't use it, just remove the power.

Don't let the guy pick an animal companion and then contrive it to not be there, just tell him to pick another class or class feature.

If something's a problem, remove it from the game. Leaving it in the game but making it a dead option feels cheap.

The second one though could be used for literally anything else that does not involve instantly winning %80 of combats.

Then say since he can't see the brain, he can't tk it.

It can also be used to instantly win 80% of combats. Either let him do it, introduce a toned down version that you think is more appropriate or remove it from the game if you think it's unreasonable.

Well, the issue here is that the monster manuals really don't seem balanced against fighters and monks. The ac, the large sizes...

>The real world lets you pick a race and class of your choice
This is some next level /pol/ thinking.

>Adventurer never takes the plot hook and instead stays in the tavern, lamenting his missed opportunities.
>Angry at the world the adventure curses the fact that he is no stronger than the first day he stepped into the tavern and asked the barkeep if he'd heard any rumors, knowing all along he wasn't man enough to accept the quest anyways.

I've always wondered, what would these plot hooks be?

Probably low level crimes of all sorts. Or job opportunities at exotuc professions and locations.