duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
klingsor said:I would not restrict the present or the future of the PCS but the past I would limit. Once the PCs start play then their destiny is what their players and their GM make it but their past must be realistic or we might as well have orcs and elves. It is easier to move from fantasy to reality by disregarding rules so put the limits in – and then say when to ignore them.
I'd agree. It is better for the rules to say "No Black Female Sherriffs" (to re-use the example) and for a GM to then allow someone to play one if (a) they come up with a good explanation and (b) the GM and player(s) are happy with the complications this might cause.
Doing it this way means the rules help to reinforce the setting, even for those players who may lack a (detailed) knowledge of the place/period in question.
I guess the tricky thing is to decide where to draw the line - are the "exceptional characters" - the Annie Oakleys, the John Dunbar/Dances with Wolves* and the like characters you should allow by default (because they are historical characters, or genre archtypes) or should they be forbidden by default because they are unusual/exceptional characters , and having a "party" of six such characters together is going to far.
*I know there were historical white Americans who joined, and achieved positions of prominence in Indian tribes, but I can't recall any of the names or details of the top of my head