D&D 5E How do you decide which Races to disallow (and/or Classes)?

[I'm A Banana]

The issue can come in regarding what sort of work the DM has put into it.

Every bit of work a DM puts into their world is entirely elective and voluntary and doesn't entitle them to anyone's appreciation. Of course, that can be part of a DM's fun, and a DM who derives a lot of fun from that should probably find a group that is going to appreciate that effort and let them have fun making worlds, but the DM isn't owed anything by their efforts. But just because my DM invests a lot of work into his world doesn't mean I'm obligated to simply passively accept it as a player.

The point is that I didn't put anything into that adventure or world. It is a published adventure that is in what for me is an alternate version of the Forgotten Realms that will never come to be in my normal D&D multiverse.

On the other hand, a lot of DMs (including me) create our own worlds and spend dozens or hundred of unpaid hours crafting cultures, pantheons, nations, histories, calendars, etc.

Both approaches are fine, and the DM should do whatever is more fun for them. The motivation to make a world like that should be intrinsic, though - you can't make other people appreciate it, and it shouldn't matter if they do or not.

If someone comes to that game and asks if they can play a race that isn't a part of my world, it would be like asking if you can play a Vulcan or Klingon in a game set in Middle-Earth. No, you can't. Maybe you can be an aloof elf, or a strangely honorable orc, but that's as close as you can get without taking a crap on the world's integrity. If you allow a Vulcan or Klingon you are no longer playing in Middle-Earth. It might work if you are playing some sort of multi-dimensional game where you hop around from fictional realities to other fictional realities all posited to exist in the same multiversal arrangement or something. But that is hardly a shift in your campaign idea that a player who has put little work on designing it has any right to even seriously ask you to do, much less expect it to happen.

Maybe the players don't really want to play in middle-earth, then. Maybe the group would be happier playing something in a more Trek style. A DM should be able to roll with that vibe and give the group what they want (or give up the DM's chair), not stubbornly insist that everyone attend to their carefully constructed world-baby. If your own races and nations and archetypes aren't giving them something cooler to aim for than their own pre-conceived character types, there's a mismatch going on.

Which is part of why my "default" approach is to build the world around the characters and go from there, but I don't get a lot of joy out of worldbuilding in a vacuum anyway.

]
Now, if player asks, "can I be a member of an order of knighthood that is kind of like..." I can accommodate that, and am usually happy to do so. Unless the world is built around a few specific orders of knighthood being the only ones on the block, it doesn't mess with anything. It's like saying you want to be from a seaside village. I'd ask the player what they want the village to be like in general terms, or maybe even let them design it! But if they say, I want to play a cleric of Thor, when Thor isn't known on the world, the answer is straight up no. I'll give them alternatives that are present, but I'm not going to bend what has already been established about the nature of the world to accommodate it. When we get into races that is just as fundamental a part of what the world is all about as the pantheons, history, or nations. Maybe that's where I differ from some people. If you see races as just a variety of nationalities, it might not be a big deal to throw in a country of race x here or there. But fantasy species are as big of deal as anything else in my essential world definitions, and you just can't add your Vulcan to my Middle-Earth.

There's not much constructive in being stubbornly insistent that others appreciate this thing you did. Either they are keen on it or they're not, and you're not going to force them to have fun with it by refusing to change and adapt to the actual group that's together here and what they're interested in.

If someone came to my Dark Sun game and wanted to play a cleric of Thor, my first step would be to make sure we're on the same page about what this game is going to be like, not just to dismiss them. Do you know what Dark Sun's about? Do you know why a cleric of Thor might be a problem? What do you hope to achieve by playing that character? What is fun about that concept for you? Do you think we can keep what is fun and work with the rest? Or should we just not play Dark Sun?

 

[Sunseeker]

There's not much constructive in being stubbornly insistent that others appreciate this thing you did. Either they are keen on it or they're not, and you're not going to force them to have fun with it by refusing to change and adapt to the actual group that's together here and what they're interested in.

If someone came to my Dark Sun game and wanted to play a cleric of Thor, my first step would be to make sure we're on the same page about what this game is going to be like, not just to dismiss them. Do you know what Dark Sun's about? Do you know why a cleric of Thor might be a problem? What do you hope to achieve by playing that character? What is fun about that concept for you? Do you think we can keep what is fun and work with the rest? Or should we just not play Dark Sun?

When a player wants to play a cleric of a god that does not exist in my campaign, I have one simple way to allow it: You're a heretic. You, and possibly a handful of others, believe in Thor, but noone else does. Perhaps you've had a startling vision of this Thor god, or while in another dimension you met him, but in this universe, Thor is not an active god. It is up to you to spread the faith, or perhaps be seen as the loony cultist you are! Maybe one of your goals is to draw Thor into this dimension. But I'm not going to make Thor exist, especially when there are arguably identical gods already in the system, just so you can be his follower.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the context of what players want to do, I return to this:

My rule is that whatever I include has to fit.

If what a player wants fits- as-is or with moderate tweaking- I'll go with it and include it. If not, my answer is no.

If that's not good enough, I'm not going to try to force them to play, but I'm also not going to shoehorn something in that I don't think works.

 

[Greg K]

But just because my DM invests a lot of work into his world doesn't mean I'm obligated to simply passively accept it as a player.

You don't have to appreciate it. However, just as you re not obligated to passively accept it, you are also not obligated to play. If you don't want to play what the DM is offering, you have the option to find another table or sit out.

Maybe the players don't really want to play in middle-earth, then. Maybe the group would be happier playing something in a more Trek style. A DM should be able to roll with that vibe and give the group what they want (or give up the DM's chair), not stubbornly insist that everyone attend to their carefully constructed world-baby. If your own races and nations and archetypes aren't giving them something cooler to aim for than their own pre-conceived character types, there's a mismatch going on.

I agree there is a mismatch, but the DM doesn't need to roll with the vibe and give the group what they want. Giving up the DM's chair, however, is reasonable if they want something that the DM is not willing to run (including some other rpg).

Which is part of why my "default" approach is to build the world around the characters and go from there, but I don't get a lot of joy out of worldbuilding in a vacuum anyway.

Which is cool if that works for you and others. For myself, personally, it doesn't work. Every edition of D&D has certain things that I want to change or am not willing to include if I am running.

My preference is to build the campaign that I want to run including the changes that I want to make, find players willing to take part given the parameters, and see in what direction they take the campaign in play (I don't go in with a particular story in mind just lots of hooks and add others from the player backgrounds and goals (provided it fits with my established guidelines for the setting)). It does not mean I am not willing to talk with a player and consider finding an acceptable solution if it fits within my parameters and mechanical liking (e.g., in 3e using the Martial Rogue options from Unearthed Arcana instead of the Scout class)) or changing the physical appearance of elves at the start of the campaign for someone wanting to play a drow because they like the appearance (I will not add drow themselves for the mechanics).
In the end, I still have final say as to what is appropriate.

Thankfully, my players fit the bill and are wiling to play whatever I offer unless I want to run supers, horror, or espionage.
(edit: We have one person that sits out of our supers, because he has to play a blood thirsty vigilante and the rest of us do not want that. We don't play espionage, because half the group will get the other half killed in the first half of the session).

There's not much constructive in being stubbornly insistent that others appreciate this thing you did. Either they are keen on it or they're not, and you're not going to force them to have fun with it by refusing to change and adapt to the actual group that's together here and what they're interested in.

Agreed, but the DM also should not make changes that he or she will not enjoy. So, in case of such as mismatch, the options are a) look for another game everyone can agree upon; b) as you mention above, give up the DM chair (if someone else wants to step up) to which I would add perhaps find another group of players whom are actually interested in the campaign if one is dead set on running the campaign; or c) the group finds another activity (together or individually)

 

[TarionzCousin]

To simplify things and get started quickly, only allow gnomes. All gnomes. Only gnomes.

Any players who return for week #2 can then switch to any race they want.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You don't have to appreciate it. However, just as you re not obligated to passively accept it, you are also not obligated to play. If you don't want to play what the DM is offering, you have the option to find another table or sit out.


I agree there is a mismatch, but the DM doesn't need to roll with the vibe and give the group what they want. Giving up the DM's chair, however, is reasonable if they want something that the DM is not willing to run (including some other rpg).

(Edit)

Agreed, but the DM also should not make changes that he or she will not enjoy. So, in case of such as mismatch, the options are a) look for another game everyone can agree upon; b) as you mention above, give up the DM chair (if someone else wants to step up) to which I would add perhaps find another group of players whom are actually interested in the campaign if one is dead set on running the campaign; or c) the group finds another activity (together or individually)

That's pretty much how my group of the last 17 years does stuff: prospective GMs offer to run a campaign in a given RPG system, and people either elect to play or don't. If the game makes- @50+% of the group want to play that- it gets run. Any not in agreement either sit out or join in for camaraderie, as they see fit. And yes, we have had people sit out, sometimes for as long as 18 months.

Give & take is minimal; nobody GMing in our group is going to bend over backwards accommodating player ideas that don't fit as-is or with minimal tweaking.

If fewer than 50% want to play the campaign that is offered, someone else gets to come up with an idea. Until then, we play other games- poker, boardgames, CCGs, wargames, etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To simplify things and get started quickly, only allow gnomes. All gnomes. Only gnomes.

Any players who return for week #2 can then switch to any race they want.

I'd stand pat with a gnome.

Probably a Ranger.

With a hand crossbow firing silver-tipped bolts.

And he'd ride a giant hamster named Mithril.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Hi, guys. I've returned to D&D after something like 20 years away. So glad to have found this forum to help hash things out, too. I've been reading diligently, but I'm wondering how different DM's decide whether or not to allow a certain race and/or class?

In our initial start-up adventures, I said anything in the PHB is fair game. Now with the new Elemental Evil new races, it has me thinking a little more critically about it. Do I really want Tieflings or Dragonborn or Warlocks in my revived Greyhawk campaign, for example?

I'm not looking for a "allow this" or "disallow that", but more a general idea of the thought process that DM's put into making such overarching decisions.

Maybe this isn't easy to answer, but you guys don't seem to shy away from the difficult stuff. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Generally speaking, if you're DM, I recommend disallowing those races/classes you really dont like. Reason being, if you're going to run a world, you may as well like what's in it.

As an example, I'm running a Dragon-Age-ish world - no halflings, no tieflings, no dragonborn, no races out of the elemental evil article. Qunari use half-orc stats (there are no orcs, pretty much substituted with dark spawn). I havent disallowed any classes. I do allow some of the Eberron stuff (warforged, artificiers, dragonmark feats) and the spells from elemental evil (although Ive caveated them with a "see how they go" approach).

 

[Mercule]

Maybe a bit of a different spin on my same stance:

Over the years, I've realized that there's a minimum threshold of enjoyment that I want out of an RPG before it's not the best use of that time. I'll negotiate/compromise with players to a certain point, then I walk away. There's no grudge or ire, any more than if we didn't agree on what movie to go see. FWIW, I won't compromise down to that minimum threshold, because I know there will be in-play things that I'll have to give on, so I leave some room.

It's not a power trip or brute force thing. If I'd have more fun playing Diablo, though, that's what I'm going to do, rather than potentially causing problems with my friends. FWIW, my threshold is a LOT lower, as a player because, I at least get the social time out of it. It just happens that I have the lowest threshold for GMing, by far, of anyone in my group, so I usually end up GMing.

 

[weldon]

What I've taken away from the thread is that no one likes a jerk at their table, either player or DM. Sometimes DMs get caught up in their pet concept for what their campaign world should be, and sometimes players get caught up in their pet concept for what their character should be. That is almost always bad.

Everyone agrees that the game is more fun when both players and DM agree on the style of play and on the self-imposed restrictions to create a certain kind of feel or enable a certain kind of story. Most reasonable people are willing to compromise a little on their concepts to include ideas from other people at the table because it is, after all, a social game and shared storytelling is implicit in the very idea of RPGs.

We could endlessly argue about exactly where the line should be drawn, or even where each individual person would prefer the line be drawn at their own table. It's difficult to reach consensus, and sometimes even hard to reach understanding for other points of view because we all have our own preferences.

In the end, be excellent to one another and don't be a ****.