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

[Dannyalcatraz]

In what spheres in life is one allowed to impose his will in this way?

Umm...lots. Judges do it. Parents do it. Cops do it. Military commanders do it. Arbitrators do it. Coaches do it. Personal trainers do it. Business executives do it. Etc.

Maybe not 100% of the time, but often enough so that it isn't remarkable.

 

[Sunseeker]

I refer to myself, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as a "DM as God" guy, so I'll bite.

I don't think the GM should ever go on a power trip. I do think Gygax was wise to refer to the DM as "referee", though. I forget the source, but there's a quote something like, "A democracy can only survive until the citizenry discovers it can vote itself gifts from the public coffers." RPGs have a similar dynamic, and the GM being able to invoke ultimate authority is the safety for that. GMs should also be aware of the eventual fate of most brutish despots.

That aside, the GM has to monitor a significant number of moving parts. The GM also puts in substantively more creative energy than any player (sometimes more than all the players), just to keep things moving along. If the group is using exclusively a published setting and a module written for that setting, there isn't nearly as much difference in creativity, but the juggling act still exists. IME, the GM has to know the PCs' abilities almost as well as each of the players (and often knows them better) as well as the DMG rules and the module. That can easily lead to burnout. If the GM isn't able to put the brakes on things that, for whatever reason, markedly more of a chore (whether due to effort or "feel"), that burnout is almost guaranteed.

As I've said, before, it's appropriate for the GM to give the player a chance to "sell" his idea. I don't think the GM has "failed" the group in any way, though, if he refuses to run Shadowrun instead of D&D. Likewise, I don't feel bad for disallowing things that have been a problem for me in the past or that doesn't seem like it fits with what the other players are doing, etc. My job is to make sure everyone (myself included)
has enough fun to make the activity worthwhile, not to maximize the enjoyment for a single player (myself included) at the expense of others. Quite honestly, if I have a player who only enjoys playing tinker gnomes (a personal dislike of mine), odds are we're going to have plenty of other issues at the table. Might as well get it out of the way up front and not waste anyone's time.

I think it's really easy to forget that the DM, the arbitrator, the lord-and-master-of-all-things, the referee, your highness is also a player. They want to have fun just as much as the people on the other side of the screen do, and at a lot of tables the line between the "players" and the "dm" is a lot blurrier than others. Sometimes the DM is more the head of parliament than he is the god-king of all reality.

 

[weldon]

I think it's interesting how people have such strong views about what parameters a DM should or should not set in D&D.

I think it's interesting that DMs have such strong views about the player options that should or should not be allowed in their game.

I couldn't help poking fun a bit by turning the tables on you. Sorry, but it was just sitting there…

Using your analogy, I think it's OK for the player to come and ask if they can play center or forward or guard, or if they can introduce some set plays into your run and gun offense. What's the harm? It's not like we're playing competitive D&D for a national championship or anything, right? It's pickup at best and a few variations can be tolerated.

Quite honestly, if I have a player who only enjoys playing tinker gnomes (a personal dislike of mine), odds are we're going to have plenty of other issues at the table. Might as well get it out of the way up front and not waste anyone's time.

I'm OK with the idea that certain playstyles may not match up, but I fail to see how a race choice (by itself) is going to lead to plenty of other issues at the table. If this is your "canary in a coal mine" test, then I guess I understand, but it seems odd to me to hang it on a race / class choice.

I don't really disagree with the various pro-DM comments. The DM is creating a story for the players and many get a lot of satisfaction out of crafting that story carefully. That effort should be respected. I just want balance where the player's efforts to craft a character are also respected. Using the improv approach, I think it's admirable for both the DM and the player to work together to weave the story.

To me, mechanics are the least interesting part of trying to integrate a character into a campaign. It's so easy to reskin or refluff to make it fit in. If we're talking about broken mechanics that cause real balance problems in a combat heavy campaign, that's another thing entirely. I don't think we're at that point with 5e yet though.

 

[77IM]

At the end of the day, nobody is forcing anybody else to play D&D with them*. Some players LIKE a very authoritarian DM, and some DMs like very compliant players. For other people, it's a more even give-and-take, where there players say what they want from a campaign and setting and the DM says what he wants from the players.

I mean, if a PC showed up to my D&D game wanting to play Santa Clause dressed as a cowboy and wielding a psionic chainsaw, I'd disallow that, because it violates the expectations I have for a D&D game. But if I really wanted to play a warlock and the DM said, "Sorry, no warlocks in my setting," I might be a bit cheesed because that violates the expectations I have for a D&D game. Would I still play in that game? Maybe, if he was a great DM, and if I had a back-up concept I was also interested in.



* "It puts the Keoghtom's ointment on its skin, or else it gets the hose again!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

At the end of the day, nobody is forcing anybody else to play D&D with them*. Some players LIKE a very authoritarian DM, and some DMs like very compliant players. For other people, it's a more even give-and-take, where there players say what they want from a campaign and setting and the DM says what he wants from the players.

Indeed. Now roll in [MENTION=18817]weldon[/MENTION]'s on-point note that DMs are players too, and often not as far removed from the "regular" players as one might think. Then "absolutely no warlocks, tieflings, or dragonborn" comes across as just as dogmatic and "maybe-we-won't-jive" as "absolutely must be a dragonborn warlock of Cthulhu." Yeah, the DM invests more time and effort, so there is to some extent a...shall we say, "favoring" of what they want. But they also get to control basically everything the party ever experiences, so it's hardly like they're being MASSIVELY disenfranchised by a player who really wants to play some particular option or other.

I mean, if a PC showed up to my D&D game wanting to play Santa Clause dressed as a cowboy and wielding a psionic chainsaw, I'd disallow that, because it violates the expectations I have for a D&D game. But if I really wanted to play a warlock and the DM said, "Sorry, no warlocks in my setting," I might be a bit cheesed because that violates the expectations I have for a D&D game. Would I still play in that game? Maybe, if he was a great DM, and if I had a back-up concept I was also interested in.

And really, this whole perennial debate (which 5e amplified greatly by trying to bring in "older school" players/DMs) tends toward the two extremes being contrasted against each other, when I suspect that many actually fall somewhere in-between. That is, there are probably plenty of older-school DMs who will want to be sold on a concept they consider "weird" or the like, but who will give it a fair hearing. Similarly, my personal experience has generally shown that most people who want the "new" or "non-traditional" stuff are highly adaptive and more than willing to compromise.

That said, though (and this may be because of where I stand on the matter), I often feel like the more dogmatic position is the "disallow" camp. Hence my "NIMBY" comment earlier. I get a VERY VERY strong vibe, from most..."classic-style" DMs for lack of a better term, that anything which doesn't have 25+ years of history (which, as a gross generalization, often means "anything that was added after said DM started playing") doesn't just get a "nah, I'm not really into that," but a "no, hell no, and never darken my door again." (I have, in fact, actually had someone write that precise phrase to me before, elsewhere on the internet, and I don't believe it was purely hyperbole either.)

 

[Mercule]

I'm OK with the idea that certain playstyles may not match up, but I fail to see how a race choice (by itself) is going to lead to plenty of other issues at the table. If this is your "canary in a coal mine" test, then I guess I understand, but it seems odd to me to hang it on a race / class choice.

In general, it isn't. I used it as an example because this thread is about race/class choices.

But... I have sat down to GM a game where someone wanted to play a drow ranger. After the third Drizz't clone, I was pretty much done with drow forever. I told the player that I didn't allow drow as PCs, but would consider it, if there was a compelling backstory. I was also okay with other bizarre races, if it was a matter of just wanting something non-human. The result was a fit by the player, telling me how unfair I was and that I had no right to restrict his choices, etc. Basically, he was unwilling to even discuss a different option and tried to bully and browbeat me into doing whatever he wanted. I've had similar experiences with other topics, and each one makes me less and less inclined to care.

Point being, with all the talk about how heavy-handed and self-centered GMs can be for setting limits on the games they're willing to run, it seems like no one wants to acknowledge that players can be just as narcissistic and dominating. Ideally, both sides of the screen work together to make the game fun for everyone. Realistically, though, and not everyone plays nice. I've seen many more tantrum-throwing players than I have iron-fisted GMs, in my 30+ years of gaming.

 

[77IM]

Point being, with all the talk about how heavy-handed and self-centered GMs can be for setting limits on the games they're willing to run, it seems like no one wants to acknowledge that players can be just as narcissistic and dominating. Ideally, both sides of the screen work together to make the game fun for everyone. Realistically, though, and not everyone plays nice. I've seen many more tantrum-throwing players than I have iron-fisted GMs, in my 30+ years of gaming.

I'll drink to that! It turns out, being an adult is hard and so, so many people just can't hack it. I think maybe the iron-fisted DM gets more flak because, given their position of authority, we expect more maturity from them. But it's absolutely the case that an uncompromising player can wreck the mood just as thoroughly.

 

[CapnZapp]

The issue is one about information.

This happens when a player only knows about D&D in general and not about the DMs world in particular.

If and when the DM manages to write up his world well ahead of the chargen session, I would think fewer players would make demands that the DM feels are unsuited to the campaign.

So this is what happens when the DM underestimates the importance of handing out relevant campaign world info already when first inviting the player.

Otherwise I feel it's only to be expected that a player assumes all PHB options are on the table, since so many D&D campaigns DOESN'T have any particular (strong) flavor.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it's interesting how people have such strong views about what parameters a DM should or should not set in D&D.

I see D&D as similar to many other things (such as sports, or employment). You can choose within the parameters given, but you usually can't change the parameters.

One of the things that D&D has different is that it's an activity for fun with friends, not something you're getting paid to do or doing with a bunch of strangers. If you're doing it for your own enjoyment too, and your friends care about your enjoyment, you should be able to change the parameters.

Plus, I think the people who play Quiddich or a pick-up game of basketball and everyone who starts their own business or freelances would probably disagree with the assertion that either sports or employment can't have their parameters changed.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think it's interesting that DMs have such strong views about the player options that should or should not be allowed in their game.

I couldn't help poking fun a bit by turning the tables on you. Sorry, but it was just sitting there…

No problem.

Using your analogy, I think it's OK for the player to come and ask if they can play center or forward or guard, or if they can introduce some set plays into your run and gun offense. What's the harm? It's not like we're playing competitive D&D for a national championship or anything, right? It's pickup at best and a few variations can be tolerated.

Sure. That's within the parameters. That's like saying they want to be the wizard, or even (in the games I run and play in) asking if you can include a custom spell or feat that you designed yourself. I'm completely willing to entertain those ideas.

I don't really disagree with the various pro-DM comments. The DM is creating a story for the players and many get a lot of satisfaction out of crafting that story carefully. That effort should be respected. I just want balance where the player's efforts to craft a character are also respected. Using the improv approach, I think it's admirable for both the DM and the player to work together to weave the story.

One of the things that D&D has different is that it's an activity for fun with friends, not something you're getting paid to do or doing with a bunch of strangers. If you're doing it for your own enjoyment too, and your friends care about your enjoyment, you should be able to change the parameters.

Plus, I think the people who play Quiddich or a pick-up game of basketball and everyone who starts their own business or freelances would probably disagree with the assertion that either sports or employment can't have their parameters changed.

The issue can come in regarding what sort of work the DM has put into it. Take my current example. We're just finishing up the LMoP adventure. I made a small list of house rules (most of which never even came up), and told players they could play anything in the PHB (except I disallowed the Healer feat, because it rubs me the wrong way). I also told them this would likely be the last campaign I ran where that was the case, so take advantage of it now. Consequently, we have a dragonborn and a tiefling in the party.

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. 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.

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.

The issue is one about information.

This happens when a player only knows about D&D in general and not about the DMs world in particular.

If and when the DM manages to write up his world well ahead of the chargen session, I would think fewer players would make demands that the DM feels are unsuited to the campaign.

So this is what happens when the DM underestimates the importance of handing out relevant campaign world info already when first inviting the player.

Otherwise I feel it's only to be expected that a player assumes all PHB options are on the table, since so many D&D campaigns DOESN'T have any particular (strong) flavor.

Exactly this. I always want to talk with my players before they make a character. I get no pleasure out of them showing up with a developed character and then be disappointed that it has to be disallowed.