D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign

[DMCF]

I haven't so I clicked "No". "Haven't" mean's "Have not yet". One day I may click "Yes" because I want to run a Smurf campaign complete with J.J. Abrams lens flares, Michael Bay explosions & an M. Night Shamalanabanana twist that isn't a very good twist (Smurfette is a brunette) so people think it sucks like M's later works but then it ends up there is a hidden twist (Papa Smurf is actually the youngest and he's a dishonored robot samurai from Kentucky) making it the most epic twist ever!

I just don't see goliaths as player characters in that game.

 

[Lidgar]

I sort of restrict.

1. If you play tiefling, you don't have a tail, giant horns or wings. More human looking, with maybe strange eyes, stubby horns. Expect to be shunned/avoided.

2. If you play dragonborn, expect to avoid settlements, as you will be hunted down as a monster (no one has played one yet...).

3. If you play an underdark race (drow, etc.), may find going difficult, as most folk will shun/avoid you.

 

[JohnLynch]

Prep or no prep, it takes practice or extreme luck to run an enjoyable game. I'm not doing any disservice to say that I believe anyone that can learn to play an RPG can learn to DM (with or without a lot of prep, their choice)

I have seen plenty of people turn up to a D&D game, failed to have read a single rule, and yet by the end of one session be able to play the game and contribute to everyone's enjoyment. DMing takes more practice than this so therefore it does take more effort than playing.

didn't say a DM can inherently run an enjoyable game with no more time invested into it than the players.

a DM can run an enjoyable game with no more time invested into it than the players.

Unless a DM can turn up, have read nothing before having turned up and then by the end of the first session be able to run an enjoyable game it does, in fact, take more effort.

All that needs to be true is that banning an option reduces the number of options that a player enjoys - because that is a reduction in the fun that player can have with the game.

Again I reject this claim. I enjoy (as a player) games where some options have been banned and the rest have been made integral parts of the setting.

Yes I do.

Restriction: No Drow.

Reasoning: Drow are monsters, not pcs. I like them mysterious and largely unknown; they don't pop up every 3 adventures, like in some campaigns. They appear very rarely, nobody knows much about them, and they are like the 1e take on them pre-UA.

Depending on the setting this is how I treat Drow. Forgotten Realms 1357? They're definitely monsters. Same as when in Golarion. My homebrew setting? They're not monsters but they are mysterious. Forgotten Realms 1489? Dark Elves are slowly getting accepted and so they are removing the mystery of drow culture. This acceptance has also started to rub off for individual drow (still treated with more suspicion then half orcs though).

I don't disagree with this, but I would argue that if you are that stuck on something, you are missing out on the opportunity for excellent roleplaying that can make a fantastic story.

Let's take everyone's favorite race to hate, gnomes (I love gnomes although I've never actually made one). We have one player who has tendencies to make really annoying characters that impacts everyone else's enjoyment of D&D (this is deemed true by consensus of the table). He's a great person, just a really annoying gamer. If he tries hard he can make a character that positively contribute's to everyone's enjoyment, but never a gnome. Gnomes seem to embody everything about his tendencies to annoy and he cannot help himself if playing a gnome. Some in our group responded by banning the player. Others have responded by banning gnomes. This player has (along with others) damaged how gnomes are perceived by some. So yes, I can understand some DMs hating on a race this much.

 

[Sunseeker]

You don't need a specific ract to be a specific archetype, but its so much more fun rather than being the human I am every day when I wake up. That is the point of roleplaying in the first place. Becoming something you aren't and developing a collaberative story from there. That is what makes it fun, and that is what draws people to our beloved hobby.

There's a far chasm of difference between playing Jake from State Farm in D&D-land and playing Gorteh the Orc Barbarian. Don't play me this false dichotomy tune. I'm not telling players they need to play as themselves, I'm telling them I've eliminated a lot of standard tropes I find disruptive and annoying at the table. If they're interested in creating a unique and creative character, they'll still create a unique and creative character. If they're interested in playing TV Tropes, I'm not interested in indulging them.

I've played dozens of races and dozens of concepts, I understand that certain concepts can be more appealing with a different species, but it doesn't take a lot of adjustment to realize that "proud warriors from a foreign land and a strange apperance" doesn't mean you need to have scales and a muzzle. I've had DMs ask me to keep it human, I've had DMs who've let me bring in the kitchen sink as long as I'm cool with doing my own plumbing (which IRL, I can).

 

[Demonspell]

There's a far chasm of difference between playing Jake from State Farm in D&D-land and playing Gorteh the Orc Barbarian. Don't play me this false dichotomy tune. I'm not telling players they need to play as themselves, I'm telling them I've eliminated a lot of standard tropes I find disruptive and annoying at the table. If they're interested in creating a unique and creative character, they'll still create a unique and creative character. If they're interested in playing TV Tropes, I'm not interested in indulging them.

I had a player play Jim Adler the "Village" Hammer once, and it was a blast. Of course, he actually chose to play a gnomish illusionist. He also happened to be a local advocate, and over time, he gathered followers that would tail the village security and report to them anytime someone was arrested. He would then show up at the jail and offer to serve as their advocate with the local constable. It added a ton of roleplaying. Consequently, the same player played a human bard named James Brown in another campaign, that also happened to add plenty of hillarity and excitement to the game. That was a 2nd edition campaign, and I loved the way he played the character so much, that I had to have a copy of the character sheet after the campaign ended. James Brown makes appearances is most of my campaigns at somepoint no matter what the edition I am using. Because its all about the story. I give in on game mechanics all the time because I want a great story.

I've played dozens of races and dozens of concepts, I understand that certain concepts can be more appealing with a different species, but it doesn't take a lot of adjustment to realize that "proud warriors from a foreign land and a strange apperance" doesn't mean you need to have scales and a muzzle. I've had DMs ask me to keep it human, I've had DMs who've let me bring in the kitchen sink as long as I'm cool with doing my own plumbing (which IRL, I can).

I am not saying any of that, however, sometimes, being a generic human something a player simply doesn't want. As a DM I can understand that. My job is to figure out how they can be what they want within my campaign. I never turn a player's idea away, but if what they want doesn't fit my campaign we talk about it to figure out how they can get what they want and still play.

 

[Demonspell]

Let's take everyone's favorite race to hate, gnomes (I love gnomes although I've never actually made one). We have one player who has tendencies to make really annoying characters that impacts everyone else's enjoyment of D&D (this is deemed true by consensus of the table). He's a great person, just a really annoying gamer. If he tries hard he can make a character that positively contribute's to everyone's enjoyment, but never a gnome. Gnomes seem to embody everything about his tendencies to annoy and he cannot help himself if playing a gnome. Some in our group responded by banning the player. Others have responded by banning gnomes. This player has (along with others) damaged how gnomes are perceived by some. So yes, I can understand some DMs hating on a race this much.

I can honestly say, I have never had a player that was just annoying when he played one particular race. I have had plenty that where simply too immature for one of my groups and annoyed that group, but I usually manage to find a place for them somewhere else, either in another of my other groups or in someone else's. I could never imagine telling John, you cannot play a gnome because you are just too annoying as a gnome, but you can play an orc. Odds are if John is annoying as a gnome, he will probably be annoying as an orc, or human, or any other race. He needs a new home because this one won't fit him, and I will talk to him about where he will fit in and help him find the gaming home he needs. I will also follow up with him to make sure it's all working out. There is nothing worse than losing a gamer simply because they aren't in the right group.

 

[JohnLynch]

I can honestly say, I have never had a player that was just annoying when he played one particular race.

Nor have I. I have had one player whose annoying tendencies were exaggerated ten fold by 1 particular race though.

 

[abirdcall]

When I design my campaigns, I usually have set roles that I need filled.

EX. My current campaign had five roles, the Abonimation, the Noble, the Wanderer, the Seer, and the Worshipper. In this case the worshipper is a Dwarven wizard, and the roleplaying fun we have as he debates the merits of arcane magic versus divine magic with the party noble creates some great stories.

I love listening to my players figure out how to fit their character archetypes into the roles I have established. It gets them interested and allows them to figure out how they fit into the story. Making my job a lot easier.

That is something I would never do. I restrict races that I feel will be disruptive to the game, but I would never tell the players what kind of character to play beyond a few loose guidelines such as: Can't be evil, can't be the same class as another character (with possible exceptions)

You don't need a specific ract to be a specific archetype, but its so much more fun rather than being the human I am every day when I wake up. That is the point of roleplaying in the first place. Becoming something you aren't and developing a collaberative story from there. That is what makes it fun, and that is what draws people to our beloved hobby.

Most of literature and film would like to have a word with you.


I see a lot of posts saying: You can be whatever race you want, but there will be consequences.

So you are giving permission to the crunch but not to the concept. I think that is the wrong way to go about it. In the end there are restrictions on what kind of personality your character can have due to the nature of the game.

Our group is strictly cooperative for example. Your character must want to adventure with others and help each other. By extension your character must also care about the plot that the other characters are involved in. Character arcs must also fit into the framework of things that are involving to the other characters.

It simply won't do to play evil devil-man who is on a personal conflict of good and evil when none of the other characters care and it has nothing to do with the plot.

When you have a character backstory specific spotlight in game it should brighten the group. The group should care because it involves them. It shouldn't just be your personal story that the rest of the players just listen to.

"But that's what my character would do" is not an excuse. Don't make your character that way.

It is my job as DM to identify character concepts like this and stop them before the game begins. So I won't tell you what you need to be, but I will certainly tell you what you can't be for the fun of all involved.

 

[sleypy]

I don't restrict races if I'm starting a new campaign. However, once it is started and we have defined the world I'm more inclined to restrict races to those that have been established.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am not saying any of that, however, sometimes, being a generic human something a player simply doesn't want. As a DM I can understand that. My job is to figure out how they can be what they want within my campaign. I never turn a player's idea away, but if what they want doesn't fit my campaign we talk about it to figure out how they can get what they want and still play.

Which is EXACTLY what I said a few pages back. I encourage players to express their ideas as fully developed characters without relying on standard tropes. Drunk scottsman dwarves make bad characters because their reasoning for being drunk or a scottsman is "because I'm a dwarf". If you pull the "dwarf trope" out from under them it forces them to actually evaluate why their character is a drunkard. Which I find tends to make better characters, better players and better games.