character creation restrictions

do any of you put in character creation restrictions.  my current ST for our wed game does put in restrictions which i dont have a problem with but when we can only be 1/2 covenants (not including unaligned but those are playble too) and 1/2 clans and out of those only the bloodlines from the core book i think it stifles the ability to build something interesting or fun to play when everything is so damn similar. 

I don't have any Bloodlines in my current game.

The five Clans are pretty good major archetypes when it comes to vampire myth, beyond that individual character concepts can explore all kinds of ideas and areas of development (or degeneration, depending on the character).

The Bloodlines are completely unnecessary. Many of them are very, very niche and only serve to offer up some neato new power, which to me, does not really add anything to the game.

-Matt

Matt-M-McElroy:

I don't have any Bloodlines in my current game.

The five Clans are pretty good major archetypes when it comes to vampire myth, beyond that individual character concepts can explore all kinds of ideas and areas of development (or degeneration, depending on the character).

The Bloodlines are completely unnecessary. Many of them are very, very niche and only serve to offer up some neato new power, which to me, does not really add anything to the game.

-Matt

yes but we cant play 3/5 of the clans in the book we can only play ventrue or daeva

It depends, if you get the inpression that the restriction is based on the ST simply not liking the other clans, I'd say you need to find another ST.
   Don't be to hasty when you make that decision though, there might be a story related reason behind the restriction.

c34r34lk1ll3r:

yes but we cant play 3/5 of the clans in the book we can only play ventrue or daeva

That's weird; what reason does your ST have for excluding the others? Is it a storyline issue? Do those clans not exist in the city your playing in?

I've placed restrictions on players when they create something, although generally speaking the longer I anticipate the game will run, the more leeway I give them.

Sometimes I want to set up a Clan or a Covenant as being the villains of the setting, so I can't have the players deciding that they want to play a character who would choose clan or covenant loyalty over sticking with the other PCs.

Sometimes I just want all the PCs to have enough common ground that they can quickly and easily get along without trying to convert one another or playing up stereotypes that would make them antagonists.

Sometimes the setting just doesn't work when there are rogue elements dropped into it. If I have created a city where Covenant X and Covenant Y share power in a delicate balance maintained largely as a result of their shared dislike of Covenant Z, life would be very, very rough on a player who demands access to Z.

The longer a game is likely to run, the more room I give the players when it comes to diversity. If I've got plotlines for the next two years ready for them, I don't mind if they take one session out of five as an excuse to debate the nuanced positions of the various covenants or to talk up the benefits inherent in being this clan over that one. If I want to do one story element in four-eight sessions though, I'd rather not get bogged down with railroading the characters towards the goal. Keeping four players (for example) from four different clans and four different covenants aimed in the same direction can be like trying to herd cats or nail jello to the wall. It's a lot easier for a short-shot game to just line them up during creation.

urdinaran:

c34r34lk1ll3r:

yes but we cant play 3/5 of the clans in the book we can only play ventrue or daeva

That's weird; what reason does your ST have for excluding the others? Is it a storyline issue? Do those clans not exist in the city your playing in?

the only one that hasnt been seen in game has been nosferatu (we even saw an akhud)

Loxosceles:

Sometimes the setting just doesn't work when there are rogue elements dropped into it. If I have created a city where Covenant X and Covenant Y share power in a delicate balance maintained largely as a result of their shared dislike of Covenant Z, life would be very, very rough on a player who demands access to Z.

oh yeah i understand the covenant part but when 5/6  (counting akhud also) have been seen in game and we have 2 gangrel in the group but you can only play a ventru or daeva it just kinda irks me.  im currently trying to ask him if i can play a lesser template now that we have a mortal in the party

c34r34lk1ll3r:

oh yeah i understand the covenant part but when 5/6  (counting akhud also) have been seen in game and we have 2 gangrel in the group but you can only play a ventru or daeva it just kinda irks me.  im currently trying to ask him if i can play a lesser template now that we have a mortal in the party

Did you ever just ask him why you are restricted?

mplindustries:

c34r34lk1ll3r:

oh yeah i understand the covenant part but when 5/6  (counting akhud also) have been seen in game and we have 2 gangrel in the group but you can only play a ventru or daeva it just kinda irks me.  im currently trying to ask him if i can play a lesser template now that we have a mortal in the party

Did you ever just ask him why you are restricted?

nope because i wont probably get a response.  he is a really good ST but sometimes he puts stuff like this that just kinda bothers the hell out of me. 

c34r34lk1ll3r:

nope because i wont probably get a response.  he is a really good ST but sometimes he puts stuff like this that just kinda bothers the hell out of me. 

If he actually is a good ST, he has a good reason.  I don't think it ever hurts to ask, but if he won't tell you, it may be that the reason would spoil some aspect of the story.  Of course, all this is predicated on the fact that he really is a good ST and not just the least bad ST you happen to know or something like that.

Anyway, no, I've never restricted the players in anyway, because I build the game around them, rather than building them around the game.  I just wing it, so if they want to be from four different covenants, I'll make that work somehow.  Of course, I've still never had anyone yet make a Gangrel or Mekhet (though Mekhet are my favorite even despite their stupid [non]weakness). 

Oh, I guess I restrict slightly, in that I don't allow multi-attack merits, but I think of that more like a houserule than a restriction. 

mplindustries:

c34r34lk1ll3r:

nope because i wont probably get a response.  he is a really good ST but sometimes he puts stuff like this that just kinda bothers the hell out of me. 

If he actually is a good ST, he has a good reason.  I don't think it ever hurts to ask, but if he won't tell you, it may be that the reason would spoil some aspect of the story.  Of course, all this is predicated on the fact that he really is a good ST and not just the least bad ST you happen to know or something like that.

Anyway, no, I've never restricted the players in anyway, because I build the game around them, rather than building them around the game.  I just wing it, so if they want to be from four different covenants, I'll make that work somehow.  Of course, I've still never had anyone yet make a Gangrel or Mekhet (though Mekhet are my favorite even despite their stupid [non]weakness). 

Oh, I guess I restrict slightly, in that I don't allow multi-attack merits, but I think of that more like a houserule than a restriction. 

my current guess is that this is because we got some min-maxing powergamers (and when i say that i mean if they find something even slightly more broken than what they have right now, they will build a new character to play it and discard the previous character) but i don't think their behavior should effect whether or not i can play a mekhet. 

c34r34lk1ll3r:

my current guess is that this is because we got some min-maxing powergamers (and when i say that i mean if they find something even slightly more broken than what they have right now, they will build a new character to play it and discard the previous character) but i don't think their behavior should effect whether or not i can play a mekhet. 

Uh, I can't imagine how Nosferatu, Mekhet, and Gangrel would be considered more "broken" than Ventrue and Daeva.  Daeva are the ultimate combat vampires, and Dominate alone makes Ventrue worse than the others.

Regardless, if you're willing to be a little crazy, Malkavians have Obfuscate and Auspex in addition to Dominate and Resilience.  Seems like that could satisfy your wish, unless it was a Mekhet bloodline you were after.

mplindustries:

c34r34lk1ll3r:

my current guess is that this is because we got some min-maxing powergamers (and when i say that i mean if they find something even slightly more broken than what they have right now, they will build a new character to play it and discard the previous character) but i don't think their behavior should effect whether or not i can play a mekhet. 

Uh, I can't imagine how Nosferatu, Mekhet, and Gangrel would be considered more "broken" than Ventrue and Daeva.  Daeva are the ultimate combat vampires, and Dominate alone makes Ventrue worse than the others.

Regardless, if you're willing to be a little crazy, Malkavians have Obfuscate and Auspex in addition to Dominate and Resilience.  Seems like that could satisfy your wish, unless it was a Mekhet bloodline you were after.

i was wanting to play a Nokatu (if that is how it is spelled) from Bloodlines: the Chosen

c34r34lk1ll3r:

my current guess is that this is because we got some min-maxing powergamers (and when i say that i mean if they find something even slightly more broken than what they have right now, they will build a new character to play it and discard the previous character) but i don't think their behavior should effect whether or not i can play a mekhet.

I don't think that a few bad apples at your table should prevent you from playing something you want to play but the fact that they will drop a current character for a new one just on the whim of playing something more broken than what they had before makes me understand why your ST did it. My only concern is that your ST should have just stated, "No new characters unless the old characters die within the context of the storyline. No suicide via sunlight and no diablerie from team mates." I would definitely ask your ST for the reason and if his reason is because other players are ruining his story by creating new characters all the time than you may have to find a few new players or get the current min-maxers to stop their foolishness and stick with a damn character.

To be honest, I have actually restricted my players on my current V:tR game, I didn't allow them to pick their bloodlines due to story reasons and they understood, normally I wouldn't care.