D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign

[mestewart3]

Sorry ad_hoc but you seem to be having a different conversation than the rest of us. The stance that seems most common is that banning races is only okay if it serves the narrative needs of a specific world or story you intend to play. If you are banning content because you personally dislike its thematic elements then you aren't being fair to your players who might have an interest in playing those options. I don't see how it could possibly influence your fun to play at a table with someone playing a Tiefling (so long as they aren't using their tieflingness to be a dick in some way).

Speaking to your out of left field point about races from non PHB sources. I allow all of the official supplemental materials so long as the player has a copy of the materials. I'm running 5e so there aren't any racial stats in the MM for me to take into consideration. If there were a race write up for every monster I would allow most humanoids but might draw the line at none humanoids simply because the wildly different capabilities of non humanoids would make adventure writing a logistical nightmare. for instance, if there was a unicorn in the party then I couldn't include any ladders.

 

[abirdcall]

Sorry ad_hoc but you seem to be having a different conversation than the rest of us. The stance that seems most common is that banning races is only okay if it serves the narrative needs of a specific world or story you intend to play. If you are banning content because you personally dislike its thematic elements then you aren't being fair to your players who might have an interest in playing those options. I don't see how it could possibly influence your fun to play at a table with someone playing a Tiefling (so long as they aren't using their tieflingness to be a dick in some way).

Speaking to your out of left field point about races from non PHB sources. I allow all of the official supplemental materials so long as the player has a copy of the materials. I'm running 5e so there aren't any racial stats in the MM for me to take into consideration. If there were a race write up for every monster I would allow most humanoids but might draw the line at none humanoids simply because the wildly different capabilities of non humanoids would make adventure writing a logistical nightmare. for instance, if there was a unicorn in the party then I couldn't include any ladders.

That sounds like exactly the conversation I am addressing. I just happen to disagree with you. Players are free to play other games. It is a collaborative effort where we all want to have fun. I am sorry that you can't see how it could impact my fun. Something you should note is that people can and will experience things in the world differently than you.

The point about PHB races isn't out of left field at all. Many people have stated that every race in the PHB is core and should be allowed in a game. The book specifically calls out many of the races as optional and warns that they may not be in the game that you are playing. It is also important to consider the ramifications of the argument that if it is in the PHB it must be allowed. Maybe someone happens to like all the races in the PHB. It is entirely possible that there could have been something in there that people didn't like. The most likely in this case with the popularity of Eberron are warforged. If they were in the PHB I would definitely not allow them.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

For the people that say 'allow anything or you are doing it wrong' do you allow anything from outside the PHB, like the MM or just pure imagination or is it the PHB that makes it special? I wonder because the PHB specifically calls out a bunch of races to double check to ensure they are part of the game.

As one of those "allow anything" types, I will allow whatever can be made fair (as determined by the group at the table, not just my own sensibilities).

If that means saying no to some home-brew thing, I don't just say "no." I say "not like that," and try to find a way to make a fair solution to the scenario - such as rewriting a bit of that homebrew.
If that means saying "yes" to someone playing something from the monster manual, it brings along with it extending that option to the other players so that they feel fairness is upheld, or a bit of home-brewing to make a fair option out of an otherwise unfair one.

And in all cases, I remind the player that there is a difference between being able to play a particular thing and that thing actually being common in the setting (i.e. yes you can play a warforged in my Mystara campaign, no there are not numerous other warforged around, and no people are not going to immediately realize you are a person rather than just some fancy golem).

Or put another way, certain races or other choices can have a negative impact on others' fun.

I think that folks who would let their own fun be negatively impacted by someone else playing a race they don't like are players I wouldn't like to have at my table - especially since I'm personally not fond of gnomes, but would never tell my players that really like gnomes that they can't play them because that would spoil their fun for no reason because I am perfectly capable of just not dwelling on that their characters are gnomes.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sorry ad_hoc but you seem to be having a different conversation than the rest of us. The stance that seems most common is that banning races is only okay if it serves the narrative needs of a specific world or story you intend to play. If you are banning content because you personally dislike its thematic elements then you aren't being fair to your players who might have an interest in playing those options. I don't see how it could possibly influence your fun to play at a table with someone playing a Tiefling (so long as they aren't using their tieflingness to be a dick in some way).

Some of the built-in thematic elements of certain races sucks. There I said it. It's pigeon-holed and type-cast so far into a corner that including the race forces you to include the racial elements. I mean I've resolved the thematic issues by completely refluffing the races, but that's a massive PITA.

EX: I wanted to include dark elves but I didn't want traditional "dark fae" and I didn't want Drow, so I had to completely re-invent the wheel. I ended up with a South-American styled "jungle elf". It was nothing like the Drow so the thematic elements were completely thrown out the window anyway.

Or: I resolved to include Dwarves for a change, but instead of them being mountain-dwelling folks I made the island dwelling folks, something akin to a cross between pygmies and Jamacians. So...thematic elements? What thematic elements! I threw them right out the window.

And: When I do include gnomes, they're more traditional fae, where everything is a joke and the punchline to a joke is someone dies.

Yes, I could have included stock Drow and stock dwarves and stock gnomes, with stock thematic flavor, but honestly when I sit down with players and they tell me they want to play a stocky, grumpy drunk with a napoelon complex and a love for rocks with a bad foreign accent I ask them: why can't you be all that and be a human? Why does that have to be a dwarf? And the answer is simply that they hadn't stopped to consider it.

Dragonborn thematic flavor? Ancient race from god-knows-where? It sucks. Tiefling thematic flavor? The world hates you. It sucks. Half-orc soft-rape baby flavor? It sucks. The forced Greyhawk flavor in 5e? It double-sucks. The flavor in 5E sucks if you want to step outside the Forgotten Realms for more than 5 minutes. If someone wants to play the thematic flavor straight from the book, I'll flat out tell them they're at the wrong table.

 

[mestewart3]

Good for you, changing things up for a campaign world can make them way more interesting. But please leave my lovely proud-warrior-race guys out of it. I love me some Dragonborn.

But I still have to ask, why are your personal opinions on the races in general so much more important than the archetypes your players might want to play?

 

[Sunseeker]

Good for you, changing things up for a campaign world can make them way more interesting. But please leave my lovely proud-warrior-race guys out of it. I love me some Dragonborn.

But I still have to ask, why are your personal opinions on the races in general so much more important than the archetypes your players might want to play?

Why do you need to be a specific race to be a specific archetype? Proud warriors come in all species. Obnoxious thieving s do too. I've just generally found that the archetypes that don't mesh well in a group or a setting often come paired with certain races.

 

[abirdcall]

I think that folks who would let their own fun be negatively impacted by someone else playing a race they don't like are players I wouldn't like to have at my table - especially since I'm personally not fond of gnomes, but would never tell my players that really like gnomes that they can't play them because that would spoil their fun for no reason because I am perfectly capable of just not dwelling on that their characters are gnomes.

And if I don't get to play a gnome my fun won't be spoiled.

It cuts both ways.

I could play in a game with themes and characters I don't like. But it is my leisure time.

Here is an example: We have a new player in our group for the next campaign. They wanted to play a Tiefling. I asked why they wanted to play a Tiefling. They said they wanted a character who was not quite from the same world as everyone else. I said sure, take a look at Genasi and they were all about it. If I had said that archetype won't work for the game, they would have just picked something else.

I used to allow all manner of things when a new player would join. It just leads to less fun for everyone else. Now I take more time to explain what the game will be like and ensure that the new player conforms to the group's norms so that everyone will have fun.

I find it is better for everyone to be upfront about this sort of thing rather than putting up with it and then having it come out in other ways such as missing game nights because of a lack of enthusiasm.

Some of the built-in thematic elements of certain races sucks. There I said it. It's pigeon-holed and type-cast so far into a corner that including the race forces you to include the racial elements. I mean I've resolved the thematic issues by completely refluffing the races, but that's a massive PITA.
...

Dragonborn thematic flavor? Ancient race from god-knows-where? It sucks. Tiefling thematic flavor? The world hates you. It sucks. Half-orc soft-rape baby flavor? It sucks. The forced Greyhawk flavor in 5e? It double-sucks. The flavor in 5E sucks if you want to step outside the Forgotten Realms for more than 5 minutes. If someone wants to play the thematic flavor straight from the book, I'll flat out tell them they're at the wrong table.

Yeah, re-themes can be great. 3e Ravenloft had a great re-theme for Half-Orcs (as there are no Orcs in Ravenloft). Calibans are children who have atypical body structures. Usually caused by the common tropes of witch curses and the like. Think Quasimodo.

And yeah, that is why most of my group plays human. There is just a broader range for archetypes and it is easy to have character arcs. We average 3 humans to every demi-human who are usually a dwarf, elf, or half-elf.

 

[Lanefan]

If the DM doesn't like a race (or a bunch of races*) she is - or most certainly should be - fully within her rights to ban it (them).

Why?

Because if the presence or absence of one or more races is a make-or-break issue for someone most games can survive the loss of a player - but no game can survive the loss of its DM. And if the game isn't fun for its own DM it ain't gonna last very long.

* - Ditto for classes, for all that; a DM I've been playing with for over 30 years banned Paladins in his games about that long ago mostly because he just doesn't like them (not to mention that when they were played they never really fit in).

Lan-"and while I haven't yet ever had to worry about the presence of any dragonborn or tieflings in my games, rest assured the banhammer waits at the ready"-efan

 

[The Human Target]

"Hating" a fictitious species in a game so much that even them existing in the world or being played by someone else ruins the game for you?

Huge warning sign of behavior I'm not going to tolerate being around.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And if I don't get to play a gnome my fun won't be spoiled.

That isn't always the case though - some folks will actually have their fun spoiled if they have to come up with some other character than the one that they first thought up and were really excited about playing.

Here is an example: We have a new player in our group for the next campaign. They wanted to play a Tiefling. I asked why they wanted to play a Tiefling. They said they wanted a character who was not quite from the same world as everyone else. I said sure, take a look at Genasi and they were all about it. If I had said that archetype won't work for the game, they would have just picked something else.

That doesn't read as an example of a player wanting to play one thing (a Tiefling) and settling for another (a Genasi), but as a player wanting to play one thing (an otherworldly character) and getting that one thing but in a way other than they originally thought they would (an otherworldly character with elemental flavor instead of an otherworldly character with infernal/abyssal flavor).

I used to allow all manner of things when a new player would join. It just leads to less fun for everyone else.

Not inherently related - you can add a new player to the group, allow what that player likes in some fashion, and still have everyone else enjoy the game just as well as normal.

I find it is better for everyone to be upfront about this sort of thing rather than putting up with it and then having it come out in other ways such as missing game nights because of a lack of enthusiasm.

I agree about being upfront. In fact, it is that upfront quality that I rely upon in finding a way for everyone to have fun and feel fairly treated.